Why fear "falling" when you can fly?

(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise, May 19, 2013)

Sitting outside, watching some birds swooping around in the sky, gave me some insight recently.

I try to put myself in their place- high above the ground with nothing but air holding me up- but I get vertigo just thinking about it.  I try to imagine what it would be like to naturally exist in that environment- without fear.  It's hard for me to do.

Yet the birds are no more afraid of heights than I am of horizontal distances. That is because they have the inborn ability to navigate that vertical space. They are in no more danger of falling than I am of "falling" across a field and bumping into the side of a house.

You don't fear that which you naturally navigate.

Which birthed a revelation: Statists are afraid of liberty because they haven't discovered their natural abilities. On the other hand, I'm not afraid of liberty because I can navigate it with confidence- I can't "fall".

Sure, someone can shoot down a bird, and sometimes circumstances shoot down a libertarian, too.  That's no reason to sit hunkered over in fear.  It's a reason to stay alert and learn to swerve and swoop.  And accept that sometimes bad stuff will happen anyway.

Everyone has the potential to "fly" in liberty just as well as you and I do.  They just have to try their wings. When you see a statist trying to convince you that you can't fly in liberty, or that he can't, or that too few people could for it to "work", have pity on him.  He's just scared, more than anything, of his own untested abilities.

Don't let him convince you that it is impossible to do what you have been doing all along.

.

The Kokesh armed march

(Note- Because I write almost everything at least a day in advance, so that I can have it post early for you to read with your morning coffee, I wrote this before his "arrest" [kidnapping] at the Smoke Down Prohibition V event.  The "arrest" changes nothing about what I've written below.)

It seems everyone is talking about Adam Kokesh, and his peaceful armed march on DC.  And it seems everyone who is talking about it is casting stones at those who take a position different than their own.  I'll try to not do that.

So, what would I do?

I wouldn't go.

But maybe not for the reasons you might think.

Is what he's planning to do wrong?  No!

Will it draw negative attention to gun owners, make the anti-liberty bigots say bad things about us, and might it lead to more "laws" and crackdowns from hoplophobic bigots with political power?  Probably, but who cares?

I hate to tell you this but the enemies of liberty aren't impressed when you try to make them like you.  Or when you try to not offend them, or when you play by their rules; when you obey their counterfeit "laws".  They will be offended by anything you do, short of turning in ALL your guns, and then politely dying to remove yourself from the gene pool.  Do you really want to appease people like this?

Personally, I make an effort to stay away from places where political scum pools.  Courthouses, city hall, police stations, state capitols, and especially DC.  I don't want to be in that toxic environment, armed or not.  Those who congregate there don't care what you or I have to say unless it is in line with what they are already planning to do.  Contrary (peaceful) voices are ignored, and there's nothing you can do to change that.  If you show up to petition them they assume you still consent to their Rule, if you show up armed they assume you are dangerous/crazy and should be caged- and killed if you resist.

I think it's mostly better to stop acting like these are people you need to influence and just let them play their little rigged game while you prepare to deal with the inevitable results of their tyranny.

I have had my differences with Adam Kokesh in the past, but he has done things that changed my opinion of him since then.  He may be more of a showman than I am generally comfortable with, but that's just his way.  Will I put Kokesh down for his planned march?  Not at this time.  I think there are lots of ways to exercise your liberty- his way, or yours, might not be mine (and vice versa).  But I don't think this event is any more harmful in the long run than voting or writing congresscritters.  Anything that pretends that politicians' opinions or "law tantrums" are valid just doesn't seem to be the best use of talents and energy to me.  You may think differently.

I don't understand those who object to his march on the basis of it being "illegal".  I have no intention of ever being "law abiding" when those "laws" are wrong, or even when they are null and void.  And I don't have much respect for people who make being a "law abiding citizen" their goal.  But if you are talking "legality", then his march is perfectly legal.  No legitimate law can violate the Constitution, which was amended by the Bill of Rights to say that the right to own and to carry guns "shall not be infringed".  Any "law" to the contrary is null and void.  His march couldn't possibly be more legal.  That doesn't mean the badged thug/criminals of DC won't murder people for doing the right thing, though.

I have my doubts that anyone actually plans to go through with the march, but I could be wrong.  From the first I suspected it might be more of a shot across the bow to get some attention.  If it happens, I hope no violence occurs- but I also hope any initiation of force, if it happens, is met with appropriate self defense.  I do not believe I can be armed and yet stand by and watch "law enforcement" violate peaceful people without doing something to stop the violation.  Sorry, but I am NOT a pacifist.  And that is another reason for me to stay away from such events.  I do not want to intentionally put myself into a position where I either need to kill someone or make myself a part of the problem by not killing someone.

That's just my take on it.

.

Considering conspiracies

Chem trails, fluoridation, vaccines, GMOs- these are some of the conspiracy theories that I am highly doubtful about.

I'm not saying that those in government/corporations wouldn't harm people for their own evil purposes- just that I'm not convinced that these are examples of that being put into action.

I don't denigrate those who pursue the exposure of their particular conspiracy- it's just that I wonder if more important things are being ignored while focusing on these.

I can't go through life terrified that everything I eat, breathe, drink, or do is killing me, and trying desperately to avoid exposure to all those things.  That doesn't mean the theories aren't true, of course.  Life is a fatal condition, and people do seem to be living longer today than they did 100 years ago before any of those things were around.  Maybe that trend will reverse because of all the conspiracy issues listed above.  Maybe that trend will reverse due more to socialized medicine.

If the evidence is ever sufficient to convince me... well... I'm not sure what I'd do because those things are things I am not in a position to do anything about other than complain or get completely stress-ridden over.  And I don't need to stress myself out over things I am not convinced are real, or are a real problem.  There are too many other things I can do something about.

.

Crime- the solution is ready and waiting

I was just reading something I found on Rational Review News (you do get their daily email digest, right?):

"Within reason, you can have any violent crime rate you want by manipulating the gun laws. Absolute gun bans result in violent crime rates as bad as Venezuela. Or worse.
Semi-absolute gun bans with large quantities of forbidden weapons coming in from the outside results in Chicago."

That is so true.  And you and I have witnessed that fact play out in the real world over and over again.  The anti-liberty bigots have also witnessed the same thing.  Which means "safety" can't be the goal of the anti-liberty bigots who keep advocating anti-gun "laws".

I want to see people all around me with a gun on their hip.  Not "law enforcement"; people.  This is because I prefer civilization to whatever passes for "civilization" now.  An armed society is a polite society- and I have been a part of polite societies before and would like to see them spread over the globe so that police states become the exception rather than the rule.

Anyone who doesn't want you armed- right now, wherever you are- is saying he doesn't trust you, doesn't like you, and doesn't care if you are harmed.  That's sick.

.

Control freaks show their nature

Control freaks feel the need to keep nagging and "reminding", and then- if given the power- forcing.

I think part of that comes from insecurity.  They fear they can't get things done themselves, so they seek to force others to do things on their behalf.  Instead of developing skills and talents, they try to co-opt the skills and talents of others to their own ends.  They see others as existing only to satisfy their whims.  Then they consider this behavioral problem to be their particular "skill".

Perhaps they suffer from delusions that if they don't act like that, the things they want to happen won't get done.

The problem is, if what you want done has to be accomplished by coercing other people, it probably shouldn't be done at all.

Sadly, those who nag and coerce will probably never learn that the right way to get people pulling with you is to convince them to join voluntarily and then lead them by your example.  If your goal can't get enough voluntary support, then it should probably die on the vine.

.

Radical change needed in America

Radical change needed in America

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 12, 2013.)

Imagine a few years into the future- you are returning home from a family visit over the Thanksgiving holiday when a deer runs into the road in front of you. You slam on the brakes, but it is too late. You hit the deer and lose control of your car which runs off the road, flips, and in spite of your seat belt, you die in the crash.

Your worries are over. For your survivors, the tragedy is just beginning.

In this hypothetical future, the growth of government has continued on its present course. Do you think your death was punishment enough? The State doesn't think so.

After all the applicable estate taxes have been charged, and automatically deducted from your bank accounts and forfeited property, the real frenzy begins.

Your family gets a bill from the police who wrote up the accident report, along with surcharges for "emotional distress" due to seeing your tattered remains, and an "ObamaCare" fine on behalf of all "first responders" involved because they were exposed to potentially hazardous fumes and bodily fluids.

Your survivors are ticketed for the deer you killed without a license, and your family's hunting weapon- one black powder rifle per family being the only thing still legal- is confiscated for "poaching".

Your car's "black box" indicates you were over the speed limit by a tiny amount, so your estate is charged a fine for your speeding, as well, plus the fine is doubled because a couple of years ago when self-driving cars were made available, at great expense, you chose to forgo that new technology and keep doing the driving.

The EPA charges your loved ones the standard fee for the gasoline spill clean-up, even though your tank was almost empty and nothing spilled. Also, since there was a small fire, a fine for polluting the air is levied, as well as a fine for the bio-hazard created as your life-blood seeped into the soil, and one for littering due to all the car parts scattered around the crash site.

It gets worse. The autopsy confirms the presence of tryptophan, due to the recent turkey dinner, so your life insurance won't pay out- it's the law. You were "driving under the influence". Did you really think the zero tolerance and ever-tightening DWI laws would remain where they stood in 2013?

You may think this scenario is far-fetched. "It can't happen here." It is already happening. Americans have a choice: radically change the path that is being followed, or "stay the course" to see where it leads.

.

"The Theorist"

Here's a film called "The Theorist" that was made for the "Operation Paul Revere" film contest (infowars.com).

If you have been reading this blog for long you probably know I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, and this is probably the very first time you have ever seen me mention anything connected with Alex Jones- anywhere.  The guy just isn't to my taste.  However, even a blind pig finds a nut sometimes, so I don't automatically write anyone off.

So I watched the film.

I am SO not the guy in the film.  I am not nearly as tweaked.  I don't imagine my lone voice will change the world- not sure I'd want that responsibility if I thought it could.  My life doesn't revolve around my blog and writings- except when I have nothing else to do (which, I admit, is more often than I'd like).  My lack of a "real job" is due more to my parenting responsibilities than to anything else- and I don't fight about it.  Or much of anything (you do NOT want to really get me mad, though).

Still, the film is interesting and made me think.  I agree with some of the points brought up in this fictional account of the life of this one very vocal conspiracy theorist.  I'd rather not end up like him, but I don't think the risk of that happening would be enough to make me shut up.  I'm just too stubborn.

So, give it a watch and see what you think.

 

The REAL mother of invention

Happy Mother's Day!

Don't forget to be appreciative to the mother of all human achievement: Liberty.

It is said "necessity is the mother of invention", but without the liberty to actually solve the problems, nothing can ever be accomplished, no matter how necessary it might be.

Remember that those who would violate your liberty are doing their best to force a return to the Dark Ages (at least for everyone but themselves).

Resist and refuse to cooperate.  Honor your other mother.

.

"Who are you? Why are you shooting at me?"

If someone is shooting at you, it's not your responsibility or obligation to figure out why they are shooting, or who they are- you just need to shoot back.  Killing them is a good thing.  Unless you are the one trespassing or stealing.  But you wouldn't be doing that, would you?

Anyone wanting to prevent that by "law" or in any other way is NOT a friend of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  They are a murderous monster.  Treat them as such.

.

Doing the opposite of what's called for- "the government way"

If I am wandering lost in a raging blizzard, and I get cold, does it make any sense to douse myself all over with ice water?  Judging by the actions of government employees the world over, but especially in DC, the answer must be "yes!"

Assuming that the "official version" of 9/11 is the true story, Atta and his fellow suicide murderers would be very pleased with the results of their "sacrifice".  The US government was goaded into doing the bulk of the terrorists' work for them.  The terrorists' plan succeeded more thoroughly than they could have hoped in their wildest delusions.

Their act was like opening a supercooled Coke and watching it freeze solid in fractions of a second.  The US police state was beyond ready to "react", and was waiting for any excuse to crystallize.  Any act would have sufficed, but that one was just too convenient.

The same could be said of the Boston Marathon bombers, whoever they might really be.  Their terrorism was like a pinprick compared to the samurai sword stab wound immediately administered by the "law enforcers" who responded.  I'm not saying the bombs weren't evil and didn't destroy many lives, I am saying that history will show the subsequent acts of State to be even more harmful in the long run.

The same goes for any and all of the mass-murdering "gun free zone" shooters.  They are only a minor catalyst, and the State is the one who does the majority of the resulting harm, by proposing and enacting anti-gun "laws" which only disarm those inclined to obey "laws".

The right way to respond to terrorist attacks is to increase liberty- you know, that principle the terrorists supposedly hate so badly they are willing to kill and die to oppose.  The right way to respond to massacres is to make it easier for more guns to be in the right hands and stop encouraging "gun free" killing zones.

The State always does the opposite of what should be done in these cases, which makes me think that prevention is NOT the goal.

.

Laws do not determine right and wrong

Laws do not determine right and wrong

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 5, 2013)

Should "wrong" be illegal? Telling lies is generally acknowledged to be wrong, so should it be illegal to tell your wife she doesn't look fat in that dress when she does? Should it be illegal to tell kids Santa Claus visits them?

When you criminalize everything you make it all subject to ridicule and increase the likelihood that your "laws" will be ignored.

When you do something wrong, there are often automatic consequences. No law or enforcement is necessary. If there are no consequences, then normally that means no one was harmed by your actions. That, or you are well-connected with those in power.

Should things that aren't even wrong, but are criminalized due to some people believing you are hurting yourself by engaging in them, be illegal?

Is not wearing a seat belt wrong? Of course not. It is certainly illegal. Just like driving without a "license" or going one mile-per-hour over some arbitrary speed limit.

Having and using marijuana isn't wrong, yet look how many lives have been destroyed on the altar of The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs for this non-offensive "offense".

Tattooing your body probably does more physical harm than smoking pot, yet it is legal. As it should be.

Sitting around watching TV certainly does lasting physical and mental harm, yet only the most enthusiastic Nanny State advocates would propose putting you in jail for wasting your life in front of the screen.

Carrying a gun without official permission isn't wrong. Robbing a bank, with a weapon or without one, is wrong. The fact that both are often looked upon by "the law" in the same light is ridiculous.

Everything was legal until someone wrote down words to forbid or regulate it. It isn't that certain things should be "made legal" again, it's that it was wrong to have ever made them "illegal" to begin with. Without "laws" to forbid them, physical attacks such as murder, kidnapping, and rape, and economic attacks like theft and fraud are still wrong. Just about everything else is none of your business, regardless of what the "law" says or what "majority opinion" may be. Even if something is wrong, it isn't the business of "the law" as long as no third party is harmed.

It is sad that people seem to have decided that anything they don't approve of, and consider "wrong", needs to be forbidden, and every prohibition must be enforced by people, with guns or offices, who are largely unaccountable.

.

"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.

Here's a bonus video:

 
.

"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?

.