"Laws" don't trump reality

Why do I have a tendency to ignore "laws"?  I am not a disagreeable person.  The problem is that I can't ignore reality in order to obey "laws".

Your "laws" can't override my knowledge and common sense. 

"Fire ban"?  It just rained a huge amount- everything is drenched.

"No guns"?  Do you really think murderers and robbers will obey that?

Sorry, but my need to look to someone as "authority" goes away as soon as that "authority" demands I do something that goes against what I know is the right thing to do.  I defer to (actual) authority, and I tend to ignore "authority".  You can tell the difference by the way they act.

Authority gives advice, helps you if you ask, and isn't stupid.  These are the leaders.

"Authority" makes demands, shoves you around, and is so stupid you wonder how they remember to breathe.  These are the Rulers.  You know, like Bloomie.

That means their "laws" make no sense, and obeying them makes even less.  Why do something that goes against reality?

.

Print a new generation Liberator!

Here, have a gun.  Or at least download the CAD file and save/share it.

The new Liberator pistol can serve the same purpose the original Liberator was intended to serve.  Funny how the tables have turned, though.  Now the tyrants most in fear of Liberators work for the same organization that was responsible for the originals.  The fear comes from knowing they are on the wrong side.


.

Bussjaeger's "Bargaining Position" is another great book

I just read Carl Bussjaeger's sequel to Net Assets, called Bargaining Position, and it is also a very fun book.

It is a sequel of sorts- set in the future from the perspective of Net Assets, but has none of the same characters.  In this book, people have moved into space and are living and working there.

I really enjoyed the (to me) realistic descriptions of life in the space habitats and of the liberty the people had.  There are still bad guys, but no melodramatic villains- just the sorts of bad guys you might experience in everyday life, but in a decidedly not everyday circumstance.

Go over and download the PDF (or some of his others) and send him $5 or so in exchange for a few hours of enjoyment.  Value for value.  It's like prostitution, but cheaper, and you won't catch anything this way.

And, thanks, Carl.  I wish your writing had made you rich so you'd keep writing more.

.

Prefer government to the mob? Why?

Over and over again, when discussing a free society with statists, they object that without "government" there would be freelance mobs forming that would still steal from and attack the innocent, and that these mobs would be worse than government- which is supposedly restrained by the laws.  To me it is a very weak, and bizarre, justification.  It's grasping at straws.

I don't doubt that freelance thugs would arise.  There will ALWAYS be bad guys.  The freelancers might even be more openly brutal than the tax parasites that infest society now.  (Although, I am beginning to doubt that, after seeing how many people are killed mistakenly (?) by reavers and other Registered Liberty Offenders every week.  Dead is dead- what do the dead care who it was that murdered them?)

Even so, I would prefer the honesty of a mob to the lie of government.

Plus, if I shoot a mob goon who is threatening or robbing me, few people would pretend I had done wrong.  If I shoot a puppetician or an IRS mugger I can count on being tried, convicted, and executed by a brainwashed "majority", and probably in reality by the perforated government employee's gang.

Even if the dead freelance mobster's associates came after me, I could keep shooting them.  I could hire people to help me shoot them, or even invite people with a grudge against the mob to shoot with me.  They'd probably jump at the opportunity.  No one would pretend I didn't have the absolute right to do so.  Well, no one but the mobsters, themselves.

With government it is different due to the fact that even people who recognize how corrupt, evil, and broken the "system" is have been brainwashed into believing there is some sort of nebulous "legitimacy" in the theft and aggression committed by government goons.  So not only do you have to face The State's wrath if you justifiably kill some of its employees in self defense or defense of property (really, the same thing), but you have to face condemnation and betrayal by your neighbors who support the bad guys.

If the same sorts of people will always find some gang to join so that they can attack and steal, why not remove the veil of legitimacy and make them at least be open about what they really are? Since cops and criminals have virtually identical personality traits, why let any of them practice their craft openly?  Good people still outnumber the bad- we don't need them.  I don't need them.

Mob or government... why pretend a difference, beyond indoctrinated perception, exists?  Cast off your indoctrination and see things as they really are.

.

.

Exercising the libertarian brain cells

There is a conversation taking place between me and another person over on my Dispatches from Libertopia blog.

It is a very typical "libertarian vs statist" conversation.

He thinks I am simplistic and I think he is blindly Utopian about The State (and buying trouble for himself).

I try to keep in mind that this is really how a lot of statists think: they are scared or suspicious.  Of other people, of liberty, and- seemingly- of themselves if no one is looking over their shoulder.  They believe in the worst case scenario when it comes to liberty, but think The State can work out just fine "if we get the right people running things" or "if we hold those in government accountable".  They will grasp at any straw to keep believing government can be "good", and will desperately search out any potential problem they can imagine to keep from just being free.

But the comments over the years really are like a broken record.  It's the same old things again and again- even in the same thread.  Nothing new.

But I shouldn't complain.  It's good exercise to get these same old questions again and again, and be able to deal with them without getting frustrated, because these are the same objections to liberty you'll face in "the real world" if anyone knows you don't buy the statist propaganda.  And if you can't answer them there, are you sure you know what you claim to know?  And the person asking the questions today has no way of knowing you have answered the same thing innumerable times in the past.

.

Your brain- use it.

"Conservatives" and "progressives" are both blind.

Some things should not be "conserved" and some things should not be "progressed" beyond.

You've got to use your brain instead of digging in your heels and hanging on to whatever bizarre notion sets up housekeeping in your head.  If you are trying to justify theft or aggression for your cause, you lose.  Go back to "Start".  Try again.

.

Heroes and ZAP

It is never heroic to violate the ZAP, so if that's something you do, you are not a hero.

.

Double standard makes government its own counterargument

Double standard makes government its own counterargument

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 29, 2013.)

Civilization depends on unwavering respect for property rights, and the recognition of the right to defend property. Without the ability to own property, use it as you see fit, and defend it from those who wish to steal or destroy its value, we would still be living a nomadic stone age life. I don't know about you, but I enjoy some of the trappings of civilization, though, and I don't appreciate those who are tirelessly working to roll them back.

If you can't feel confident about your ability to hold on to what is yours and use it to your advantage, there is no reason to make any improvements or put any effort into anything beyond basic survival.

Long ago, some people decided the best way to protect those property rights, and other rights, was to establish governments.

Obviously they were very mistaken. The biggest violator of property rights is- and has for a long time been- various iterations of government.

Double standards never work. If it is wrong for me to take your property, to tell you what you can do with your land, or to demand you hand over your money, then it is wrong for everyone, and for any group, to do.

If you prevent a person from using their own property as they wish, even if you say you will pay what you believe is a fair price for your violation, you have stolen a portion of that property's value. Even if you "generously allow" them to retain possession- in exchange for a yearly ransom, of course.

The act of "eminent domain" is a growing threat to property in America. It was never right, and has grown beyond what any of its early advocates ever imagined. It is now used to benefit businesses, supposedly in "the public interest". If you want to use another person's property you either need to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement with them, or you must find an alternative. Asking someone else- a government, for example- to steal the property on your behalf is not ethical, even if it is said to be "legal". So sorry if doing the right thing is inconvenient or costly.

All government control of private property is a violation of property rights. Eminent domain, being outright theft of real estate, is just the worst example. Taxation, property codes, licenses and permits do the same thing, in less obvious ways.

If government was instituted to protect rights, then by violating property rights government invalidates its own existence. It becomes its own best counterargument.

.

"No guns (for you!)"

If you attempt to disarm anyone who is not threatening you right now- through "laws", words, policies, or whatever else you might use, you are the bad guy.

Go ahead and do it- however you seek to justify it.  You may even have the right in some instances.  But you are never "good" for doing so.

.

My Bicycle Set-up (updated)

Thomas Knapp was talking about his Bicycle-Based Transportation System, so I decided I should show and tell, also.  I use the bike a lot around town, to save gas.  And just because.  It's not like I have to ever worry about rain.  LOL.  Only wind and blowing dirt.

I took the pictures at the park so you could see a grassy scene instead of dirt.

Here's my whole system:

Below is just the bike.  Years ago I bought it for $10 at a yard sale.  It was red, and I painted it black.  I added a rack over the rear wheel and screwed on a small ammo box for hauling small stuff that needs to stay dry or to not blow away.  It carries mail a lot of the time.  You can see my rear-view mirrors (one of which has broken off a few times after the bike has been blown over by the wind), water bottle holder, black painted ammo box (with cunning stickers), and the leather pouch (an old purse with no strap) on the side.  You can see that the seat is one of those hornless seats that is MUCH more comfortable:

The trailer, which cost me around $100 (4 or 5 years ago, and has probably paid for itself in saved gas several times over) is pretty handy for hauling a kid or even groceries or a big box from the post office.  I replaced the orange "safety flag" on the trailer with a Time's Up flag.  I don't always haul the trailer along since it acts like a sail and catches our excessive winds to give me lots more drag.  But when I don't have it along, I often wish I did for one reason or another:

Next, see the bike from other side.  The can beside/below the ammo box is an old coffee can (painted black and lined with foam rubber) for holding those big 44oz fountain Dr Peppers:

From the rear.  You can see the red reflector I attached to the back of the ammo box:

This is my folding "grabber" attached to the fork.  I use it to pick up litter at the park, or wherever I find it.

I also have a headlight.  Yeah, it uses a candle:

Here's a better view of the pouch.  It holds tools for bike repairs, and plastic grocery bags for the trash I pick up.  I need to replace the Gadsden stickers on the ammo can:

Here's a close-up of the coffee can.  I also use it for hauling little odds and ends, since I don't actually get drinks that often.  Today it held some cedar bark tinder I collected at the park:

Both trailer tires and my bike's front tire have "No Mor Flats" innertubes.  The rear bike tire has one of those horrible innertubes filled with air, that leaks at the worst time (thanks to "goat head stickers"!).

I'm not a sports person, or a "serious" rider.  It's just another way to get from here to there and back again.  If you see me, don't run me down, please.

UPDATE 7-11-2016:

The bike trailer's canvas has been weathering badly for a couple of years, and my daughter is too big to ride in it anyway, so I turned the trailer into a cargo carrier.

.

Flaunt your stupidity for all the world to marvel upon

Sometimes it is helpful for me to see signs like this:

Because I know you can't read it, it says "No guns allowed beyond this point" and "No knives allowed beyond this point".

Without signs to remind me that, yes, there really are people so incredibly stupid that they believe a sign will prevent a bad guy who wants to hurt people from doing so, I might forget and believe people are as rational as most of the people I actually interact with.

Silly me.

.

Another failed justification for cops

The existence of cops doesn't stop bad behavior, or even "crime", no matter what copsuckers would like you to believe.  Sure, if there is a cop watching you right now, you probably won't steal that candy bar, or shoot that little old lady, or rape that holstein.  Right now.  But if you are the kind of person inclined to such acts, you will just delay until that cop is no longer looking.

And no matter how all-seeing the surveillance state becomes, there will always be dark corners.  Because I promise you The Watchers don't want all their acts witnessed, either.  And people will always find ways to defeat the eyes and ears of the State- at least when they need privacy.

The "best" that can be said about the existence of cops with regards to "crime" is that it might drive it underground.  Maybe.  But, if it does so, is that even a good thing?

Is it better that people plot in private?  Introduce self-medications into their own bloodstream in private?  Familiarize themselves with their "forbidden" gun in private?

I may be odd, but I don't think it is better.  I think driving things underground has negative consequences that exposure to the light of day would avoid.  I think being forced to do all the "illegal", but non-coercive, things in secret means a great deal of added harm to innocent individuals- even those who aren't doing any of those things.

Once again, the justification for having Registered Liberty Offenders prowl the streets fails.


.

"First responders"?

How Orwellian.

How is it that the LAST guys on the scene have come to be called "first responders"?

And, they even make certain they are the last ones on the scene by setting up a "perimeter" to keep anyone else away.

If an incident involves you, and you respond, you are your own "first responder", and you are less likely to harm innocent people by your response than are the Johnny-Come-Latelies who show up after the smoke has cleared.  If you don't (or are unable to) respond, then maybe your neighbor is your first responder.  Until the Last Responders chase him away (or kidnap him, or shoot him if he looks alert and armed- they hate that).

But, just keep chanting it: War is Peace.  Freedom is Slavery.  America is NOT a police state.  First responders.  Don't you feel better already?

.

Can you communicate with a statist?

How can you communicate with someone who is so deeply mired in statist thinking that you are hardly speaking the same language?

Recently I got into a discussion with a guy whose vocabulary revolved around words like "system", "punishment", "enforcement", and so forth; he couldn't even think beyond those concepts. To him, everyone needs to be forced into "a system", and directed.  If government isn't doing it, it isn't getting done.  To him, individuals are nothing more than atoms of the collective.  And yet, this person would probably get really angry if it were pointed out that he is a collectivist.

I do not need to be coerced into being a part of a "system", nor do I want anyone else to be forced in, either.  If it is a good system and suits my wishes and needs at the moment, I will join willingly- as long as I can opt out at as soon as my wishes and needs are no longer being met.

And, I don't need anyone directing me.  Nor do I want anyone else to be directed.  I'll gladly take my chances with other free individuals.

It comes down to this: "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein

And that common thread of history, the question that never changes: shall man control his own life or shall others control him?*

I don't want or need to be controlled or "directed" and I have no need of that for anyone else.  I know this from real world experience.  No amount of statist meme parroting can change reality, nor can it make me fear other people enough to want to have them "governed" on my behalf or "for their own good".

That means there is a gulf between me and the statist that there may be no way to bridge.  We just see the world too differently- he with suspicion and fear, and me with "trust, but verify".

_

*I wanted to use this quote, but I have been told it isn't "real".  “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Well, "real" or not, someone said it, because there it is.  And it's true no matter who said it or didn't say it.

.

True freedom carries no demands

True freedom carries no demands

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 22, 2013- with a headline more bizarrely assigned than usual.)

How much freedom do you have? How much freedom do you need?

You are free to vote for people to take money from your neighbors on your behalf.

You are free to vote to prevent your neighbors from using their property as they see fit.

You are free to support violent early morning home invasions in the name of protecting people from plant leaves and unprescribed chemicals. For their own good, and "for the children", of course.

You are free to travel where you want, as long as you pay for permission to own a vehicle, and pay for permission to drive it, and pay "taxes" when you buy your fuel, which then permits you to travel- as long as you drive below some arbitrary speed, fasten a restraint across yourself, and follow rules designed- not for safety- but to provide an opportunity to milk you for money. By going along with all this you are also said to be consenting to random acts of roadside theft and violence against your person and property by employees of The State.

And that's just if you travel in your own (?) vehicle. To travel by air, and increasingly by other forms of mass transportation, you must agree to be sexually violated and otherwise treated like a prisoner.

You are free to earn money, as long as you can prove you have government permission to have a job in America. Or, if you wish to operate your own business, as long as you pay multiple fees for permission and agree to be a "tax" collector and steal from your customers. Then you must follow reams of rules, controlling how you are permitted to operate your business, and what private property violations you are required to submit to.

You are free to watch entertainment as long as the subject matter isn't too offensive to some individuals.

You are free to eat whatever you want as long as someone hasn't declared your food choice to be too unhealthy for you. And as long as the person you purchase it from has jumped through all the hoops and barriers and agrees to steal the proper amount from you to send in as tribute to those who claim to rule.

You are free to marry, unless you seek government sanction for your union, and then you are subject to more fees and restrictions.

But, really, how much freedom do you need?

Actually, the more rules imposed, the freer you become. When you realize how much your freedom threatens those who wish to control you, the less you'll worry about complying with their demands.

.

Yellow Ribbons

I just watched "The Hunger Games" again.  It made me realize there is little if any difference between their "74th annual Hunger Games" and the latest government war.  And little if any difference between the human sacrifice of the "tributes" and the "troops".  It's pointless government extremism in both cases.

It gave me an idea.  Someone should print up some of those yellow ribbon magnets with the caption "Support Our Tributes" on it.  Or, maybe just "Support Human Sacrifice" if you don't want to leave any doubts to the meaning.

If you use this idea and make a billion dollars, I'd appreciate a cut.

.

Deadly flailing

I remember a scene from some movie (that I can't remember more of) where a "rescuer" rushes into a crowd of people who were supposedly on his side and under some threat from someone from "the other side", and the "rescuer"- with a battle cry- starts gunning down everyone who dumbly believed he was there to kill the opposition.

Why does this come to mind after hearing about how the government enforcers go after "suspects" in America now?

Whether or not innocent people are killed in the "enforcement", there is a credible threat, and a violation of liberty, property rights, and decency.  In such an environment I would understand who is the bigger threat, and I would not help that threat against others in any way.

.

Education is too important

Have a look at "public" [sic] schooling. Is it the best way to educate a human?


 

Doing wrong to prevent wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  And it is not right to do something wrong to prevent someone else from doing something wrong.  That is a huge foundational delusion behind the myth of government.

The local Registered Liberty Offenders are trying to work out a plan for stealing cars.  Their only concern is whether to wait until a person has been convicted of violating their "laws" or to steal the car upon accusation.

Stealing cars, using any justification, shows a total lack of ethics or morality.

So, a dissenter commented: "As opposed to them killing someone with their car? What is wrong with you? Sheesh!!!!!"

No one is talking about a person who has killed (or even injured) anyone, or damaged private property in some way.  In that case there would be a victim and there would be restitution owed.  Nope.  What is being proposed is stealing property for the benefit of The State, which is claiming victimhood.  Impossible.

This is the lie behind "gun control" [sic].  "Your gun is a credible danger so you must give it up, even if you haven't harmed anyone with it."  Even if someone is handling a gun in a dangerous way, I would be wrong to take it from them and keep it.  I could take it, unload it, and give it back.  If they use it to rob me or shoot me they have chosen to be in debt to me and then I can take their gun as payment.  But not before.  And, again, in this case there would be an individual victim, not some nebulous "society" you claim has been harmed.

Do I "like" "drunk driving"?  No.  But I like the police state and all its apparatus even less.  And I understand how "drunk driving" has been redefined into absurdity- to the point where people with nothing whatsoever, which could impair their driving ability in any way, in their system, have been charged with some form of "drunk driving"... just because.

-

The same goes for imposing a police state and illegally/unethically/immorally locking down a city and invading homes to catch a suspect.  Every cop who entered any property without the explicit permission of the owner/renter deserved to be shot dead.  Immediately.  Good thing for those stormtroopers that the "people" there gave up their responsibility and guns long ago, and are cheering fans of Big Brother.  Makes me furious to even think about.

.

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.


.