Waco + 20

Well, here we are.  "Waco", plus 20 years.  The government extremists have another 20 years of escalating abuse under their belts.  Another 20 years of murdering innocents without consequence.  Another 20 years worth of liberty-crushing ideas and "laws".  Where will things sit in another 20 years?  Could be interesting.

I was living in Colorado during the Waco standoff and massacre.  I remember watching the Branch Davidians being roasted and murdered by thugs calling themselves "government".  On live TV.  I told my young son, who was watching with me "See that?  That is the government killing people.  Never forget this."

-

I may have mentioned it before, but maybe not: I once lived in Waco.  For about 3 years.  It was long before the Davidian massacre, but that connection still added to my anger somewhat.

-

After the massacre had ceased to be "national news" some of the surviving Davidians (the ones who weren't home the day of the initial attack?) moved to a ranch just a couple of miles from my house.  It was the talk of the town, but no one I knew really seemed bothered by it.

One day maybe a week after they had moved to the area, I was walking through town with members of my family who had come to visit, and I was approached by a TV news crew from Dallas.  They asked if any of us were locals, and I said I was.  They asked if they could ask me a couple of questions on camera.  I consented.

After they got set up they asked what I thought (or more likely, how I felt) about the Davidians moving to the area.  I said it didn't bother me at all.  They seemed surprised.  So I told them that I had lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Waco, Texas, and I'd much rather have the Davidians for neighbors than the Clintons.

That was it.  They thanked me and shut off the camera and I went on my way.  I was always curious whether they aired my clip.  I'm betting they didn't.

-

Not too long after this happened, the Davidians left the area.  I never heard what happened or why they left, although I did hear that some got arrested after returning to Mount Carmel to retrieve some of their property.

-

On a side note, I had a strange friend (who lived a thousand miles away from me) who liked to make prank calls.  He was very good at impersonating others and disguising his voice.  Later the same day I had spoken to the news crew, I got a phone call at the house.  The person introduced himself and said he was a member of the Branch Davidians and claimed he had "heard of" me.  My mind was racing and I wondered if they somehow already knew of the interview, and how they had gotten my name and number.  - Back then I was mostly quiet, except for an occasional letter to the editor in support of someone the local tax thugs were harassing, or some other "freedom issue"- but it was rare for me to speak out on anything; I was just either "the pet store guy" or "the mountainman", depending on where someone knew me from.-  Anyway, the person on the phone was inviting me to a cookout at the Davidian ranch.  I was as non-social as I was quiet, and although I hated what the government thugs had done, I wasn't interested in getting involved with any cult of any sort.  So I kept declining.  The guy was very polite and very persistent, but I wouldn't budge.  Finally he started laughing and revealed himself as the old friend.  He had seen on the news that the Davidians had moved to my area, and wanted to play a trick on me.  I fell for it completely.

.

I protest against myself.

I work very hard, and put in long hours... but I work for myself and I don't pay well.

I protest myself for treating me like a slave.

.

"Projection" illustrated

Years ago, on another blog, there was a discussion (or two) about gun rights.  One anonymous fellow got bent totally out of shape when it became obvious he didn't have a clue.

In the years since, he feels a compulsion to respond to almost all of my comments on that blog.  Always anonymously, and always... well, read for yourself:

"I'd have thought you would've blown your brains out by now, Kent - after killing a bunch of other people first, of course."

I have taken to calling him "Anonymous Fan Boy", but he used a "different" spelling that time, so I replied "Oh how cute! My little fan boy changed his name!"

To which he responded:

"You poor schmuck. Just go on that killing spree already, just make sure you do remember to turn the gun on yourself."

I see him as a perfect illustration of the mental problem so common among anti-liberty bigots: projection.

He says I am too violent, evil, and (apparently) psychotic to own guns (which he probably believes only belong in the hands of enforcers), yet  I am not the violent or hateful one.  His words speak for themselves.  He seems to think I am as hateful and violent as he is, so "obviously" I would go on a killing spree.  He is probably genuinely disappointed I haven't.

He is probably a person who shouldn't own guns; although I would never advocate for any "law" forbidding him to.  I would simply expect him to be darwinized quickly in a world where behaviors have consequences.  On the other hand, perhaps he cowers in a dank basement somewhere, typing what he believes are impressive words, too afraid to venture out into the sunlight.

Between the two of us, which would you expect to be calm and polite around other people, respectful of their property, and friendly to strangers- and which of us would you expect to be flipping off drivers on the road, screaming at people for imagined disrespect, and kicking a kitten when no one is looking?

Wouldn't it be interesting to observe him for a while and see?

.

Ammunition is the weakest link

The anti-gun, anti-liberty bigots have lost; they just don't know it yet.  They will keep trying to pass more anti-gun "laws", and they will probably succeed.  And it won't matter.  Guns are here to stay.

Zip guns and pipe guns are easily made.  Real guns can even be made by Pakistani villagers.

And before long, guns might even be printable in your own home.  Outlaw 3D printed guns, and they will happen anyway because 3D printers are not going away- they will only get more common and better.

Outlaw all guns in "private hands" and cops/military will sell guns to supplement their pay.  It has always happened everywhere guns are banned.  Or desperate people will steal guns and ammo from those allowed to have and use them, even (or especially) if they have to kill the Registered Liberty Offenders in order to steal the guns.

You'll know when they realize they have lost the gun ban game when they really step up the fight against ammunition.  You see hints that some of them are starting to wake up to their loss when they start talking about anti-ammunition or reloading "laws" or "taxes".

And they may actually be able to pull off a "bullet ban".  The components are too hard to make at home for most people.  Not impossible; home gun powder labs could spring up just as easily as home meth labs.  But I think the cost per round would be prohibitive- I could be wrong about that.  Perhaps 3D printers can help here, too.

So, to my way of thinking, the long-term solution is to invent (or perfect) effective guns that do not require gun powder, brass/metal cases, primers, or metal projectiles to function- all things that few can manufacture at home in sufficient quantity.

The one thing "they" have no control over (and don't dare try too hard to get more) in any real way is electronics.  It's too large a part of the "Bread and Circuses" for them to tamper in that realm too much.  Cut off people's iPods, TVs, and cell phones and you'd anger the "sheeple" beyond their patience.  At least, I believe so.

So, what do you have available?  Lasers.  Electron beams/directed energy.  Rail guns and other magnetic pulse systems.  It is my firm belief that the real "gun rights" advances will be made when cartridges become just one option among several.

Wouldn't it be fun to invent a small electronic package to fire some form of energy that could be fit inside a .38SP or larger case, and be activated by the strike of a firing pin- and which could be recharged to be used over and over again?  Wouldn't even need new gun designs and the "old ammo" would still function in the weapon.  Point of aim would be different, though.

Just something to think about if you have the skills, imagination, and talent to pursue this train of thought.  Succeed and you will be a hero right up there with John Moses Browning or Samuel Colt.

Added: Maybe the solution is as simple as airguns.  They have been around a long time.  Although, I would like to see something concealable and POWERFUL.

.

To know liberty is to love it

To know liberty is to love it

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 15, 2013)

Why isn't liberty attractive to most people? It is a question that crosses my mind frequently.

Thomas Jefferson said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." He went on to state "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Jefferson knew that "laws", even in his day, were often wrong. They have only gotten worse today. The protection of individual rights is the only justifiable excuse for any law. Not protection of government, its employees, or their income. Not guaranteed outcomes, but no "legal" barriers. Almost every "law" now on the books is a violation of individual rights, rather than a protection thereof. The "law" has become perverted, assuming it was ever legitimate.

As a result Americans don't have much liberty left, and due to "there oughta be a law" thinking, it gets worse every day.

Yet, hardly anyone notices, and those who do notice are scorned and ridiculed. Where did this anti-American apathy and hostility toward liberty come from? Most people have allowed their fear of the freedom of others to justify the whittling away of their own liberty.

So, why isn't liberty attractive?

Maybe it is because people don't want to be responsible for their own lives. Perhaps they believe they can hand that responsibility over to someone else.

Maybe it is because people don't like to be exposed to others' "unobstructed action" even when it violates no one's rights. "I'm OK, but you need to be controlled!"

Maybe it is because so many people want to be able to dip their hands into the "tax" money fountain- believing they can come out ahead. They believe it isn't really socialism if they benefit at the expense of others, or if it has a long history of being pursued, in America, by "Salt of the Earth" people. No one wants to feel guilty. That changes nothing.

Of course, if you can convince people that they are free, then the reality doesn't matter. They'll fight you tooth and claw in denial of the fact that everything not forbidden (with the proper permits) is mandatory. They have been told they are free, so you dare not say otherwise.

Jefferson's "rightful liberty" has been replaced by the hollow "liberty" touted by a famous New York politician who claimed that liberty means doing what you are allowed to do. No wonder liberty isn't attractive- no one knows recognizes it anymore.

.

Take note and keep moving

I don't want to sound callous, but if you can't keep going with life after the latest school massacre or bombing, how will you function when the War for Liberty heats up?  When there may be dozens of such incidents every week.  Or day.  When those who value liberty are blamed- when we know it is only another false flag event calculated to turn "public opinion" toward the strong arms of Big Brother and away from scary liberty.

Don't be paralyzed by fear, or by hate.  Take note and keep moving.

I am truly sorry for all who were killed, all who are hurting, and all who had a fun day ruined by an act of violent cowardice.  But I still have a responsibility to myself and those I am accountable to.

.

Unexpected inspiration

You just never know who will inspire you.

I recently re-connected online with someone who I knew when she was about 10 through 12, when I was about 18 through 20.  At the time I worked at her grandfather's pet store.  Anyway, it has been decades since I had heard from her.

Now I find out she is a serious prepper.  She has more skills than I do, and is in a better situation than I have been in in years.  I have trouble picturing that little girl becoming who she is now, but I am in awe.

She has inspired me to work on some of the gaps I am aware of in my readiness, and to fine-tune some other areas.

She has also made me start thinking about others who have inspired me.  Some inspired me in specific areas; others inspired me in general.  I'd better not start naming names, because the list would be too long, and I'd feel awful if I forgot to list someone who was critically important to me.  But I deeply appreciate all those whose influence has made me a better person in one way or another.

So, look around you.  See the people in your life- even if they were in your life long ago- and think of what their influence has done to make you who you are.

.

Boston Marathon bombing

I thought about this a lot, wondering what (if anything) to say.

Well, I don't really have much to say about it.  My outrage has apparently been used up by one dramatic act of violence after another.

Now my only thought when anything of this sort happens (and after I am fairly sure no one I personally know* was harmed) is "what will the goons who call themselves 'government' do with this?  How will it affect me and my loved-ones?"  That is, if the FBI (or another federal terrorist group) wasn't behind it like they have been behind so many "foiled terror plots" in the past few years.  "Plots" that would have never gone anywhere without them pushing, prodding, and providing manpower, ideas, and materials.

I am under much more danger from the government extremists than from any other kind of "terrorist".  And I know it, and if you are paying attention, you know it is true for yourself, too.

Added: I've seen speculation that this will be used as justification for "laws" allowing the TSA or someone to grope people in the streets.



*I know someone who was running, and he wasn't physically hurt.  I am glad of that.

Theft Day

"Guns- The human right to own and carry them" video

My latest "Basics of Liberty" video:

 

Do you live near a Registered Liberty Offender?

I know there have been various attempts to shame liberty offenders of various stripes by putting their info online.  I also know the hazards that go with putting any information about dangerous State gang members online- they claim they are being threatened (by having the truth disseminated) and use their coercive enforcement thugs to turn the threat around.  In other words, to object to the accusation, they prove the accusation.

Still, it would be fun to find a way to set up a Liberty Offender Registry, where all the pertinent information could be posted.  Style it after the State's own sex offender registries.  Only, for this registry, list the specific offenses the registered offenders are known to have committed, rather than leave people guessing.  It would be easy since the worst offenses are committed openly, often with reporters recording the event.

Will Grigg's blog would be an excellent resource to find badged thugs who need to be registered.  But, really, you could just put every cop you run across onto the registry.  As well as the vast majority of judges.  And District Attorneys.  And presidents, congresscritters, and DMV employees.  And "mainstream media" government extremists.  Anyone who is known to molest people in the pursuit of destroying their individual liberty.

It would be vitally important to list all the local Offenders, so you would know who lives near you, in order to protect yourself and your children from them, but don't forget the gang leaders and enforcers who have nationwide influence.  For Registered Liberty Offenders #1 and #2, I nominate Joe Arpaio and Barack Obama (AKA "Barry Soetoro"), not necessarily in that order.

To be protected from being molested by those who act as "The State", you need to know who these registered liberty offenders are.

Think they'd squeal like a stuck pig?  Think I care?

.

Anti-gun "laws" may be sealing fates

No, don't answer.  But, as the anti-gun "laws" get more insane, will you comply?

If the penalty for owning a semi-auto "normal" gun approaches that for owning a fully automatic weapon of war (you know, the kind the Second Amendment is actually referring to- complete with the safety attachment called a suppressor) why settle for the lesser weapon?

If everything you want to do with your gun is "illegal", will you bury it, or will you push back?

If you know you are going to be targeted, or maybe even droned, for what you own or what you say, why just sit and wait for it to happen?  Why not "make a splash"?

The buffoons who sit around throwing their law tantrums must believe, contrary to reality, that they are immune to the law.  All the laws, actually.  The law of unintended consequences, Natural Law, and even the counterfeit "laws" they pass in their tantrums.  Because they have hired goons with fully-functional weapons surrounding them most of the time, they are not concerned about you or me.  "Crime" doesn't usually touch them.  That's for the "little people" to worry about.

But I don't worry.

They are the bad guys.  I know it, and the people who matter know it.  Some of their hired goons even know it.  The real Laws won't be thwarted.  Nature won't be cheated.  It doesn't even matter what you or I do, in the long run.  The Universe will balance out.  The general trend has been towards more liberty.

These anti-liberty bigots are on the losing side of history and they are fighting against the coming darkness that they hope will not engulf them.  So they target gun owners and other people who understand Liberty.  We are not their real enemy.  They have already lost.  Their nerve signals are still sluggishly transmitting the news of their death to their reptilian brains.  They will be so surprised in that moment when they suddenly get the news.  And I hope I'm still around to enjoy their pain, and to relieve myself in their dying faces.  No pity- not anymore.

.

Bitcoin- a fun ride

Bitcoin.  Seems like lots of people are talking about it recently.  Some extolling its virtues, and others screaming "Scam!".

I finally started accepting Bitcoin a while back- at a good time, it would appear.

Now, I am still not convinced that Bitcoin is as wonderful as some seem to think.  I may be wrong, and that would delight me.

My suspicions center on a couple of things:

Bitcoins are not based on anything tangible.  You can't hold a Bitcoin and turn it over in your hands.  This may not bother people accustomed to digital FRNs in their bank account, but it does bother me a little.  Anything digital can vanish without a trace- without you even doing anything negligent to lose it.  Maybe the digital world will keep getting more robust so that this will become a complete non-issue.  Other than government records, I would like to see information become impossible to accidentally lose.

The second part of my suspicion is less justifiable- I don't completely understand them.  Yeah, I have read volumes of stuff and watched numerous videos, but my ignorance must go deeper than mere information can fix.  Perhaps it's because I am more of a "stone knives and bearskins" sort of person, and not a computer geek.

Still, I don't like keeping all my eggs- or money- in one basket.  So I will keep dabbling in, and accepting, Bitcoin to see where this ends up.  It's good entertainment anyway.

.

Biggest pest: Government-owned property

Biggest pest: Government-owned property

(My Clovis News Journal column for the week.)

Clovis' Park Land Prairie Dog Poison Pellet Program shows some of the flaws with "public" property, and with the sad state of property rights in general.

Some people, me included, really appreciate prairie dogs for their historical significance to the region, and for their vital niche in the ecosystem. Wildlife of any sort is a valuable addition to the area.

Others want them eradicated. Nearby landowners are claiming damage from prairie dogs that wander- or emigrate- from Ned Houk Park onto their property. They want the city government, which claims the park, to pay for killing all the prairie dogs in the park so that no more will wander where they are not wanted. Sadly, no government ever truly pays for anything- that falls to all those who are "taxed", whether they consent to that use of their money or not.

I understand the economic damage that prairie dogs and other wildlife can cause to property owners, and I would never demand anyone "put up with it" on their own property. But don't expect others to bear the burden that is yours.

If all property were privately owned, and private property rights were actually respected, this entire situation would be less of a problem. Land owners who want prairie dogs could have them. Those who want to kill any on their property could do so, however they saw fit, as long as they didn't violate their neighbor's property rights. They could shoot them, poison them, or send tunnel-roaming killbots after them. As long as their bullets, poison, or killbots didn't affect anyone else's property no one would have any say in the matter.

Deals could be worked out between land owners for who is responsible for keeping prairie dogs where they are welcome, and away from where they are not. Any damage migrants cause to a neighbor's property could be dealt with through agreement, arbitration, or insurance.

There would be no issue of forcing people to pay to kill a species they like, nor any issue of forcing people to host animals they consider to be pests.

With "public" property you always have a conflict in how that property is used and administered. You always end up with people being forced to pay for things that disgust them. When there is no individual owner who is responsible, the buck gets passed and suboptimal decisions get made and forced upon everyone. Someone always ends up very unhappy.

This is the way it always works any time socialism is embraced. "Public" property is a cornerstone, if not the foundation, of socialism.
.

Freedom vs Liberty

Freedom is sex; Liberty is consensual sex.
Freedom is violence; Liberty is defensive violence.
Freedom is making a profit; Liberty is making a profit honestly.

OK.  What others can you think of?


.

No "good cops"

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  There are NO good cops.

This offends a lot of people, especially those who have family members who are in "law enforcement", and those who love a cop who claims to be a "peace officer".  But, the truth is still that there are no good cops.

If there is even one, show me.

But then consider:  Has this person ever enforced a single counterfeit "law"?  Any anti-drug "law", anti-gun "law", "tax law", speed limit, seat belt enforcement, property "code", asset forfeiture, etc.?  If so, the person isn't a "good cop"- certainly not a good person while acting as a cop.

Some cops may be less evil than others; I certainly hope so.  But "less evil" falls very short of "good".

Don't use the excuse that "the people" wanted the "laws" the cop is enforcing.  Majority rule is just as illegitimate as dictator rule. If 100 billion people "decide" to violate the rights of one individual, it is still wrong. Enforcing a "law" based upon that violation is wrong.  If you have no choice, then you can't be good and do your job.

Cops don't enforce every "law" on the books, anyway (as some claim); it is utterly impossible. They will always use their discretion to decide which "laws" to enforce and which to ignore when they see them being broken. And they almost always ignore broken laws when it's other cops they see doing the lawbreaking.

And don't give me that BS about having taken an oath to enforce the "laws".  "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."  Any "law" that violates the Constitution has been declared by the Supreme Court to not be a law. (Even if they now weasel-word their way into claiming that anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" and health care "laws" and compulsory schooling "laws" don't violate the Constitution.  Ha!) If a cop took an oath to the Constitution, and then ever enforced a "law" that violates the clear language of the Constitution as written, then that cop violated his oath. But that's small potatoes.

If you, as a cop, ever enforced any "law" that violated anyone else's Natural Rights, then YOU were the thug and the bad guy. Don't try to pass the blame and say you were "only doing your job".  It didn't work at Nuremberg and it won't work at Nuremberg II.

You have a brain- use it.

I still say show me ONE cop who doesn't initiate force or theft as a part of being a cop- regardless of what the majority tells him to do- and I will accept that he is a good cop. On an individual by individual basis. I have never, ever been shown even one... and I have been asking for years for just one example.

If you can honestly say the person you are claiming to be a good cop has never once enforced a single counterfeit "law", then you still have to answer what they did about all their "brothers in blue" they knew who were enforcing those "laws".  Because if they didn't stop them- using everything up to and including deadly force- then they are not a "good cop".  They allowed bad cops to commit evil acts and get away with it.

A "good cop" wouldn't survive with his job for even one day.

Thus, there are no "good cops". (There are, however, "nice cops".)

But there are good ex-cops.  I know because I have met a few.  And they generally despise cops, and admit that the things they did while a cop were wrong.  Not everything, but enough things to make their cop past a shameful thing.  There is no honor in being a cop.
.

"Why don't you like cops?" video

*I'll add this to the related post later this morning, but here it is as a stand-alone.

"We need to talk..."

What is this "citizenship" thing I have heard so much about?  If you want to sell me on the idea, and get me to join up and be a "citizen", you'll have to do a better job of convincing me that it's in my best interest.  So far I have seen no evidence of that.

No, I didn't consent when I was born, nor did I "implicitly consent" [sic] because I failed to move away from my friends, family, and home at some later time.  Don't keep feeding your delusions about our imaginary "relationship".

These "services" you pretend to provide in exchange aren't good enough.  In fact, most of them are downright unwanted and disgusting.  Keep 'em.  And don't expect me to pay for crap I don't want.  Understand?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  ("idiot!")

For a relationship of this type to work, I realize there are obligations on both sides.  I'm sure you have quite a list; mine is simple, but non-negotiable.

First off, before we get into what you expect of me, let me tell you my conditions- your obligations, if this is to be considered.

First- Don't interfere with my Natural Rights or my defense of them.

That means don't steal from me, don't attack me, and don't whine when I defend myself from those who do.  And NEVER get in the way when I need to protect my life, liberty, or property- from anyone, including your hired thugs.

Second- Don't ever do any of those things to other people, claiming it is on my behalf.  It's not.  I don't consent.

Until you can abide by those conditions, we have no "relationship"- you are just a bully barging in where you are not welcome.  Go away.

... Wait... There was no one here.  I was talking to myself all along.  The State is an imaginary mental construct without any basis in reality whatsoever.  Whew!  That was close!


.

"Net Assets"- Carl hit the bull's-eye!

I just finished reading Carl Bussjaeger's book "Net Assets" and I can't say enough good things about it.  I'm sorry it took me this long to get around to reading it.

I found myself smiling on each page- it just made me feel that good.

It's non-science fictiony science fiction.  It's a feel good liberty-beats-tyranny tale.  It's just a really good book.  The only thing that would have made it better would be if the spontaneous militia gathering he describes in the book had included a few Time's Up flags among the Gadsdens.  But he wrote the book before I created the flag, so that can be forgiven.

So, go download the PDF and give Carl a few bucks or some metal as a "thank you" to him for putting forth the effort to write the book.  You'll want to reward him after you read it, so just go ahead and do it now before you forget.

I just downloaded the sequel.

.

Liberty Lines 4-4-2013

(Written for an audience that still gives lip-service to the Constitution and "government": State Line Tribune, Farwell TX.)

I love liberty.  Mine, yours, and the other guy's.  This gets twisted around and misinterpreted.  Some mistake liberty for "complete freedom from responsibility and consequences" and suggest it indicates "a lack of discipline and maturity".

How completely backwards they have it.

Freedom is only a component of liberty; not the whole story.  Freedom is doing whatever you want to do.  That can be good, bad, or neutral.  Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical liberty.

Thomas Jefferson phrased it like this: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”  In other words, you have no liberty to attack or steal, even if you have the freedom to do so and get away with it, because doing so violates someone else's equal rights.  You have either violated their person or their property.  Everything else is within your liberty to do, whether listed specifically in the Bill of Rights or not, even if some are offended by your actions- it's just none of their business.

Respecting liberty is the mature and responsible way to live among other people.  It is much more ethical and moral than relying on hired hands to enforce silly rules- rules which invariably violate Jeffersonian "rightful liberty"- against your neighbors.

When you ask others to violate the liberty of another person you are asking those you send on your behalf to accept all the responsibility and consequences for the wrong things you send them to do.  By doing so you are showing a definite lack of discipline and maturity.  But the responsibility is still yours, whether you accept it or not.

I, like Jefferson, prefer the "inconveniences" of "too much" liberty to those of too little.  You have chosen your side whether you know it or not.  Where do you stand?

.

"Good" is in almost everyone

You don't have to be a libertarian to be good.  There are good liberals and good conservatives out there- I have met some of both.

The trick is that they are only good when they are acting in accordance with libertarian principles- whether or not those align with the rest of their beliefs.

Everyone follows a lot of libertarian behavior in their daily life- otherwise we'd all be dead.  Both "progressives" and "conservatives" embrace plenty of libertarian ideals even though they'd probably rather ignore that fact.  But those ideals are the times when they are being the best they can be.

As long as you are not attacking, stealing, defrauding, or trespassing on privately owned property you are acting as a libertarian, no matter what you might call yourself.

The flipside is that libertarians are also only good as long as they are behaving in a libertarian manner.  None of us is perfect.

I have learned to be very skeptical when a celebrity (or anyone) claims to be "libertarian".  Actions speak louder than words, and most people haven't got the slightest hint of a clue what it means to live by libertarian principles.  However, I am willing to give anyone a chance until they show me they don't deserve one.

-

Personal note:
I had an interesting April Fool's Day.  I was super busy, and mostly stayed away from the computer, which saved me from being exposed to a lot of the mean-spirited "jokes" I see online every year.  But the universe wouldn't let me get out of it that easy.  My dad invited me to run some errands with him.  And we got stuck in a car wash when it broke down.  Stuck for around 20 minutes.  Several other "funny" things happened which included me taking a nice, painful gouge out of the tip of my thumb with a piece of PVC pipe I was trying to repair for my parents' sprinkler system.  And then I got a tetanus shot.  Typing is more difficult than usual right now, but be glad I don't text these blogs, since the injury to my thumb has made texting incredibly difficult.

.

Not a libertarian? You're not free

Not a libertarian? You're not free

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 1, 2013)

So, you're still not a libertarian? Why not?

Let's get beyond misguided religious excuses, justifications regarding "fairness", and overblown, irrational fears.

What all these excuses boil down to- as reasons why you can't embrace libertarianism- is wanting to feel OK with having someone available to hurt other people who are not harming you.

Yes, that really is at the foundation of all acts non-libertarians are trying to justify.

Libertarianism recognizes your absolute right to self defense when you are being attacked, and to defense of your property against "takers". You can't claim you need to reject libertarianism in order to protect yourself from villains. The rejection of libertarianism is based instead upon a desire to hurt people who are minding their own business, but doing something you don't like.

It is not "self defense" when you use force against those who are not harming the innocent, but who are somehow offending you. If this is the case, don't join in. Ignore them or laugh at them. Speak out against what they do. Just don't use aggression or "the law" against them.

If you are supporting "taxation" it means you want someone else to be responsible for taking property from the rightful owners to pay for things you feel are important enough to steal for.

It isn't enough for you to contribute your own money, and you apparently don't think you can convince enough people to join you. Since you fear your argument for your position is too unconvincing to get support, you want to force others to pay for what you want through "taxation". If not enough people are willing to pay for it voluntarily, without the threat of "legal action", then it needs to go away.

A rejection of libertarianism means a recognition that everyone has equal and identical rights is not enough for you. The right to stand up for the victimized is not enough. You believe some should have "special rights", and you want someone else to punish those you think are treating someone unfairly.

Sure, some people- an increasing number with each passing day- reject libertarianism because their livelihood is tied to The State. That is tragic, but it is at least an honest reason to reject liberty in favor of slavery.

Johann von Goethe said "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."

Shed the inconsistencies. Free yourself.
.

Opposition to the "law" doesn't mean support for the act

Just because I know "laws" against prostitution are stupid and evil, it doesn't mean I want my sister to be a hooker.

Just because I know the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is destructive and wrong, it doesn't mean I want my daughter in a relationship with a drug dealer.

Just because "laws" forbidding suicide are pointless and stupid, it doesn't mean I want my best friend killing herself.

There are lots of things you have a right to do that are not the best thing you could be doing.  I really don't want to see anyone doing anything to hurt themselves even when they have every right to do so.

Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

.

A thought

It isn't that certain things need to be "made legal"; it's that it was wrong to ever make them "illegal" to begin with.

.

Asset forfeiture? No. Theft.

Government (well, in reality, those who claim to be part of government) possesses nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen/counterfeited money.  "Asset forfeiture" is just another twisted example.

I can't make up a rule- say, I declare you can't have any dogs that are a color other than black- and then claim that by violating my "rule" you forfeit your property rights and I get to take your "illegal" dogs and other property.

And it is no more "right" when goons calling themselves "government" do the same thing simply because you have bits of a plant or a gun or anything else that they decided you shouldn't have.

.

Slavers and thieves

If you ever want to help me out financially, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

If you ever want to hold a gun to someone else's head- in person or through "taxation"- to "help" me... don't bother.

It isn't compassion or generosity to give away other people's money.  It is nice to help others and share when you can.  It isn't "nice" at all to share what isn't yours to share.

I also don't wish to benefit from slavery.

If you want to force an expert to provide me with services against his will or without compensation based upon mutual consent, then you are advocating in favor of slavery.  It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe it to be, or what you call it.  The truth is the truth.

I was watching a video the other day that was ridiculing "conservatives" for their opposition to socialized medicine.  The above points- which are indisputable if you value reality- were never considered.

The slavers and thieves are all around us.  They are pretending they are the last bastions of compassion while carrying out the Old Evils.

.

"Coexist" doesn't mean you get to kill me

I can coexist with those who worship flags; who parrot "patriotic" utterances; who pretend a State can be anything other than a massive mafia.

Life is what it is.

What bothers me is that those people aren't honest about what they are supporting.  They pretend they are The Good, and everyone else is The Evil.  They pretend their favorite flavor of socialism, fascism, tyranny, and mass murder is none of the above.

Or, they are cryptostatists and pretend they aren't supporting statism at all, when they are.

Either way, I could let them go their own way if only they'd stop trying to force me to go along with them, and pretend that they aren't full of ... "humbug".

But that isn't the Way of the Statist.  Misery loves company, and rabid statists hate to see anyone who isn't under the same delusions they enjoy.  Their slavism is too wonderful to not be "shared"- with force.  Funny, but if you have to force someone to join you, perhaps your path isn't as superior as you pretend.

I wouldn't force you to be free even if I could, but refusing to allow you to feed off of me isn't "forcing" you to do anything.

Statists wish to be left to the wolves, whom they see as their protectors.  I simply don't wish to let them drag me along.  Not without trying to defend myself.  And, that, to a statist, is unforgivable.


.

Defense of Marriage...?

My marriages failed because of ME.

Before I had ever heard of gay marriage.

I probably could have saved at least one of my marriages by doing a lot of things different; by putting forth a lot more effort and sacrifice.  But what uninvolved "others" were doing couldn't have saved them.  My marriages would have failed regardless of what relationships or marriages other people- most of whom I don't know and will never meet- choose to engage in.

So, to claim you are "defending marriage" without addressing the reason mine failed- probably the same reason the vast majority of marriages that fail do so- is silly.

No one else's relationship status can threaten my relationships, or weaken them in any way, unless I let them.  And that would probably mean I am focusing on the wrong thing.

.

You are being played

Arbitrarily changing rules to benefit yourself isn't right- especially when those new rules violate someone.  Even my young daughter has figured that out (it hasn't stopped her from trying to get away with it, though).

She was complaining that one of her playmates changes the rules as she goes in order to make sure she wins.  I pointed out that when someone does that it makes makes others not want to play their game.

As I said it I suddenly thought of The State.

"Theft is wrong, unless we do it and call it 'taxation'."

"Here, change your clocks so that you can be forced to get up early and feel sick for a month or so."

"Stop for at least 4 seconds at this red metal octagon or we get to steal money from you so that we can afford to keep stealing money from others who fail to stop 'good enough' at this and other red metal octagons."

"This gun was OK here last year, but today if you are caught with it we get to kidnap you and murder you if you resist."

Some rules were changed to benefit the bad guys centuries ago, and some will be changed tomorrow.  It makes no difference when the change occurred if the new rules go against liberty, and benefit those who want you to believe you owe them allegiance.  You know what the rules should be- anything more is going backwards.

And on and on it goes.  Smart people know they are being played.  How do they respond to that knowledge?

.

Judges shouldn't have final say

Judges shouldn't have final say  (and they don't!)

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)

I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.

The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.

Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.

Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".

The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.

Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.

Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.

You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.

And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.

--

Bonus video:

.

Equality... in what?

There are some "imperial entanglements" in my life I have avoided, and others I have gotten dragged (unwillingly) in to.

I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty.  I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.

The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.

If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them.  But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture.  Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.

So I posted this status on Facebook:

I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.

Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people.  People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.

Here is part of what was said:

This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.

So, without the State, there can be no contracts.  Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread.  And, so, I finally "blocked" him.

Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:

Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!

I really need to remember that it's only the internet.  I can laugh and walk away at any time.

.

The mall adventure

A couple of days ago I was at the local mall- a very small and slow mall by "mall standards"- so my daughter could see the Easter Wolverine... umm, Bunny.

Anyway, while trying to convince her that the scary costumed critter wouldn't eat her, we were sitting on a bench and this group of people walked by.  I noticed that one had a nice, modern semi-auto pistol on his hip, and was obviously not "law enforcement".  I thought "Good job!" and wanted to thank him, but I was in the middle of an explanation to my traumatized daughter about how most people in Easter Bunny costumes don't want to hurt her, and even if this one wanted to, I wouldn't let it happen.

A few minutes later I noticed an obviously excited- but reservedly so- mall cop pacing around.  I wondered if he had just encountered the armed patron, or if someone had "reported" the guy, but mall cop hadn't been able to find him.  Or, if he was just always one to act testosterone-pumped and the one thing had nothing to do with the other.  Although, I had seen mall cop just a few minutes earlier and he seemed much more relaxed as he sauntered along in a daze at that time.

I watched but never saw "open carry guy" stroll through again.  Too bad because I wanted to shake his hand and give him my card.  I was also willing to say something in his defense if mall cop got out of hand.

I have never noticed any "No guns (unless you plan to massacre)" signs anywhere in the mall, and New Mexico is an "open carry" state.  But it is a rare sight around here, indeed.  I would love for it to become a lot more common.  (Of course, living as I do between two states, and Texas being one of the shameful states on that map, I'd have problems.)

One thing I know is that I feel much more endangered by cops (not the unarmed mall cop) than I do armed residents.  Any mall cop ought to be glad to see armed patrons, since they are most likely on the same side.  Unless mall cop decides to come down on the wrong side, that is.


.

Two wrongs don't make a right

"Two wrongs don't make a right."  True, and forgotten far too often.

However, defending yourself or your property from those who seek to attack or steal is not ever "wrong".  No matter who those attackers are, or what justifications they may grasp at.  It may not be smart- depending on the situation- and you may not be able to do it without "collateral damage" [sic] which is NEVER right (no matter what certain thugs may claim), but defense against a thief or aggressor is not wrong.  It doesn't figure into the "Two wrongs don't make a right" equation at all, but is a separate thing altogether.  Don't let anyone fool you by claiming otherwise.

.

Don't forget yourself

What to DO?  I feel the need to do something "important" for my personal liberty.  I realize that the urge to "do something" is a dangerous thing.  It leads people astray.

I'd do better to focus on my life and the things I can immediately affect, rather than concerning myself with what goons calling themselves "government" are doing to someone over a thousand miles away.

But I can't help caring.  I like people- until certain individuals do things to make me dislike them.  If I didn't like people I wouldn't care if they were being violated- or even if they were destroying their own lives by being the violators.

But, still, if I don't focus on my own life, who will?  I am no one's responsibility but my own. I can't really affect the "laws" that the thugs who call themselves "government" impose- no matter how often I am told I can.  Every time in the distant past I tried, I eventually "lost" and the advocates of "more rules" won.  Yet, those rules only affect my life if I let them.  Sure, I might get kidnapped, robbed, and caged for violating some of the "rules", but that is always a possibility no matter what you do.  I'd rather deserve it.

So, I suppose I will keep "prepping" and learning skills, keep trying to sharpen my observational skills, keep meditating on liberty, and do the best I can in this world in which we exist.  If you have other ideas I'd love to hear them.

.

Who should be ashamed?

Some people act as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed for expressing my support for liberty.  Isn't that backwards?

I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name.  I think "Don't they understand what they are saying?  Don't they see what they are really supporting?"

No, most of them don't.  And they don't want to.  It would be inconvenient or even painful.

But, I realize I am in the minority.  When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one.  No one completely agrees with me on anything.  And that's fine.  It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.

That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting.  I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing.  I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.

Nope.  I'll shout it from the mountaintops.  Or rooftops.  Depending on where I find myself standing.

.

Through the meat grinder

Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green.  Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.

Your life is worth only what it can do for "society".  You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey.  Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes".  And I could go on and on with examples.

The government extremists may claim innocence.  They lie.

Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good".  They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.

No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation.  If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators.  And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences.  I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.

No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem.  Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do.  But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt.  How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin?  I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again.  I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf.  Not even if it makes me look like a kook.

.

Eustace vs. The Thieves

A few years ago- maybe more than I thought, now that I think about it- I read a book about a guy named Eustace Conway.  The person who loaned me the book thought I would enjoy it, sensing a sort of kindred spirit I might share with Eustace.  And I did enjoy it.

Now Eustace needs help.  I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.

Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from.  Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property.  It's value to you is being diminished.  Theft has occurred.

I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest.  And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter.  I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.

Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.


.

Rights don't change, even if details do

Rights don't change, even if details do

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)

Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.

It doesn't matter.

Do you enjoy First Amendment protection of your religion or denomination only if it existed in it's present form in the late Eighteenth Century?

Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?

This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.

Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.

The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".

The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.

.

Don't just accept- weigh it all.

I can be wrong.  That realization keeps me from ever simply saying "this is how it is and I will never change my mind".  Well, I might say it, but I don't really believe it.

Everything I believe has gone through the wringer.  Usually more than once.

I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life.  "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?"  "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?"  "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"

The questions lead to a couple of different actions.  I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind.  Deeply and constantly.  And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter.  Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.

I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past.  It may happen again.

The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit.  I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.

Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people.  I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted.  Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.

If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist.   Oh, wait...

.

I care nothing for nations...

You just never know where something to make you smile will crop up.

I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix.  A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment.  Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals."  Awesome.

My thoughts exactly.  "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything.  It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil.  And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong.  Anti-gun "laws" are wrong.  "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong.  Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.

I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.


.

Truth vs. "truth"

In "Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau said "The lawyer's truth is not the Truth..."

That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.

A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking.  But sink it will.  And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.

The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.

And keep respecting the Truth.


.

Grab it when you can

I have this habit as I walk along a trail (or a non-trail).  I see a bit of dried inner bark, or a nice chunk of chert, and I pick it up, knowing it is something I may need later on down the trail.  I don't worry that I might not need it later, or that I might find some later that is even better.  I am glad for what I found and take advantage of the opportunity.

Why pass up something of value to you when you have the opportunity to pick it up?  People who worry that the price of gold or silver might fall after they bought it seem to be doing this.

Don't worry that you have traded FRNs for it, and that the price might be lower tomorrow; be glad you now have it.  If the price falls later, get more and be glad you got a good deal.

And, if you don't want to have silver or gold on hand, don't feel I am telling you that you must.  It is a part of the survival strategy, not the whole picture.  I prefer to cover as many bases as I can- you do what you want.

.

A lesson in aggression and property rights

...taught* at the park.

A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park.  It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...

Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids.  There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so.  One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.

I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends.  The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.

The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike.  The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".

OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike.  At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.

As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear.  OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.

My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared.  Not sure which.

I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB.  He turned and looked at me.

He said "I'm not messing with him".

I said "Yes, you are.  Now stop."

YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear.  He said OB hit him.  OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.

OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything".  I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.

So OB changed tactics.  He said that he only wanted to ride the bike.  I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that.  OB said that he bought the bike for YB.  I asked "Did you give it to him?"  He said he had.  So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to.  OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it.  I said "not unless he wants you to".

So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing.  No personal responsibility for his own actions.

OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance.  OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching.  Finally YB said he was going home.  OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".

I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me.  I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing.  Social standing needed to be recovered.  I'm fine with that.

(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)

.

Law tantrums from spoiled brat Bloomberg

LawGiver Bloomberg may (or may not) be smart, but if he has a high IQ then he is a high IQ idiot.

His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot.  He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child.  (I like Joel's take on it.)

Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization.  I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now.  In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now.  They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared.  They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better.  They count on you not seeing them as they really are.

That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life.  I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings.  But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.

.

Don’t wait to stand up for rights

Don’t wait to stand up for rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 8, 2013)

How many times have you thought to yourself that you wish others would "wake up" and realize how important some issue is? Probably as many times as I have.

Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.

People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".

It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".

The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.

Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.

These are disaster-level "awakening events".

Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.

.

Nutty for Liberty?

One of my fellow CNJ/PNT columnists wrote something about secession the other day.

He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway.  But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions."  I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land?  Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner?  But we'll pretend for a moment.

His vision for my future?  Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:

"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic]  bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic]  criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."

Sounds pretty good to me!  I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.

And, I seriously doubt that such a free society (even if we left the fence standing) would permit "police and military protection" at all.  Self defense and militia- of course.  But not professional "Only Ones" who are paid through theft and allowed to initiate force and get away scot free.

He assumes that inside the "escape-proof, tumbleweed-lined fence would truly be a government-free, man-eat-dog, shoot-Big-Birds, survival-of-the-nuttiest nirvana" for folks like me.  Sounds like a concentration camp, or one of those FEMA camps we hear about.  Which brings up just about the only flaw.

The only problem with his suggestion is that there is no such thing as "a" secession advocate.  Some want secession for anti-liberty purposes, or just because they happen to hate a particular person who calls himself "president", but would be fine with some other idiot occupying the same chair.  Me?  I've already seceded and laugh at the whole circus act.  I need no "government" or any of its parts and pieces.  It's believers may surround me, but they are the problem, not their imaginary "frienemy".

I'd be willing to move to Mars or any other survivable (with the right technology) planet (or whatever) for just the sort of chance he's denigrating and ridiculing.  That's how sure I am that liberty really works in the real world we inhabit, and is vastly better than any other "system".

.

Sure, I'll help... LOL

All you Nigerian princes, widowed diplomat's wives, orphaned African bank president's adult children, dying heiresses, lottery winners, and US soldiers "serving" in Muslim countries who have multi-millions of dollars you desperately want to send me so that I can help you sneak it out of wherever... go ahead.  Send it to me.  You can trust me.  My Paypal donation button is right over there on the side.  Or you can change the money into Bitcoins and send it to me that way.  Just attach a note saying who you are and how much my cut is, and give me a hint when you'll want yours.

I promise I will split it with you however you want.  Later.  After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.

But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).

Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.

Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".

Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.

.

Now THAT hurts!

Well, maybe just a little.

I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."

Someone is more radical than me?  Where have I gone wrong?

OK, so I'm mostly kidding.  My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right.  It's just that being right has become such a radical position.  I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am.  I suppose I still have a lot to learn.

.

Ground Zero!

Do you know what the above is?  It's an environmental disaster- according to the feds.  Mercury contamination!  Sharp edges!  Plastic!  Yet, it wouldn't have happened if not for the feds and their silly meddling in the market.

As I was biking around town I happened to see this broken CFL (compact fluorescent light) beside the curb.  No HAZMAT team was scurrying around trying to cordon off the area.  I was in such horrific danger but no one came to rescue me.  So I stopped to take a picture.  Should I have sent this to MSNBC so they could send a team to interview the survivors?  I neeeed to tell them how I feeeel about it.

I assume this is still there, if anyone wants to come save us.  Or, I might use my mighty grabber tool and pick it up and illegally put it in a dumpster- if it's still there- next time I pass by.

.

You wouldn't be wrong...

No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or your pursuit of happiness- as long as your pursuit doesn't violate the identical rights of others.

You are not wrong if you kill a person who is attempting to murder you.

The same goes for anyone who is attempting to violate your liberty or pursuit of happiness.  For instance: no one has a right to insist on their right to molest or license you as your "price" of being allowed to travel.

You are not wrong if you kill someone who is trying to violate your liberty in any way.  The burden lies with the aggressor.

That doesn't mean that it is smart to do so when those who most commonly violate your liberty and pursuit of happiness belong to a huge gang, who are somehow permitted to decide that you are never to be allowed to defend yourself from members of their gang, and who have claimed they get to "arbitrate" disputes that involve themselves.

But you wouldn't be wrong.

Someone trying to kidnap you?  You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt.  Someone making up rules that violate your property rights?  You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt.  Someone trying to enforce some rule that violates your rightful liberty in some way?  You wouldn't be wrong to kill them in trying to stop them.

I'm not saying you "must", I am saying you wouldn't be wrong.  You will be killed by the gangbangers for defending yourself from their "brother" gangsters- that is just a given.  That's why it probably isn't a smart thing to do in the current situation in which we find ourselves.  But never make the mistake of thinking someone is wrong for killing anyone who is trying to violate their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.  If I were on a jury and you were "on trial" for killing a liberty-violator, I wouldn't convict you no matter how much I personally didn't like you if I saw that you were only defending your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness from someone trying to violate you.

I would hope to be given the same respect, but I wouldn't expect it.

.

Better than that?

I'm better than that- I'm libertarian.

So why don't I always act better than that?

I am on the right side.  There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty.  No, not one.

So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line?  Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds.  Yet, I let them get to me.  How can I let that happen?

Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses.  It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it.  I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive.  That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.

I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that.  Liberty is better than that.  And I am libertarian.

.

Selfishness not necessarily evil act

Selfishness not necessarily evil act

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 1, 2013)

One of the self-evident tenets of libertarianism is that of self ownership. You own your life, and the products of your life.

If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.

Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.

Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.

Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.

Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.

Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.

Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.

.

Fans of "Joe"

What's your favorite justification for The State?  Roads?  "Drunk" driving?  The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs?  "National defense" [sic]?

Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".

That's just sickening.

There is no such thing as an "illegal" person.  Rights don't depend on where you were born.  Governments can't "own" anyone.  Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.

How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath?  The two are mutually exclusive.  But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.

Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case.  If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty.  Own it.

.