Government supremacy belief is wrong

Government supremacy belief is wrong

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 10, 2013)

I find it very sad that whenever someone wants to do something, the first question most people ask is whether government allows it, requires a license, or forbids it. That's truly tragic.

I take it as a sign that people have been successfully indoctrinated into the socialistic belief of government supremacy. That's a perversion of how life really is, of course. The reality is that the individual is supreme, and every other social construct, real or imaginary, is built- from the bottom up, not from the top down- of individuals.

Without sovereign individuals there is no society, nor any other organization of any sort.

Instead of wondering whether an act is permitted, it would be better to ask ourselves whether it violates anyone else in any way. Does it initiate force? Does it take or damage anyone else's private property in any way? Does it violate another's right to choose how to use his property, and under what conditions?

Those are the questions that matter. Everything else is a dead end.

Of course, those who act as government also need to be asking the same questions of themselves before they do anything. They have the additional burden of making sure that their acts are permitted by the documents that were supposedly adopted for no other reason than to protect everyone else from government's actions.

The funny thing is that things are topsy-turvy now. Regular people like you and me are expected to alter our behavior according to the whims of people who don't refrain from any abusive act, even though those acts are in direct violation of the only justification that can be imagined for the job they hold.

If I don't have the authority to do something- myself, individually, on my own- there is no way I can delegate that authority to someone else, or to any group of individuals. The same goes for you. And if you and I can't delegate authority we don't have, then when those things are done anyway, those acts are wrong, no matter who you are or what excuse you use.

This isn't a pointless philosophical debate. On May 5, 2013 President Obama warned The Ohio State University graduates he was addressing to reject the warnings people like me are passing along, and to simply trust government. My motivation is that I trust you to run your own life, and I want you to understand liberty and experience it in all its glory. What might his motivation be?

If you can be fooled into asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter.

.

The two kinds of laws

There are only two kinds of written "law": unnecessary and harmful.

Laws that align with Natural Law are unnecessary.  You don't "need" a law saying that murder is forbidden and punishable before you have the right to defend a life with force.  Rape, theft, kidnapping, fraud, "assault", and every other violation of life, liberty, and property/"the pursuit of happiness" are the same.  No law is needed.  Decent people know those things are wrong and will carry consequences; bad people don't care.

Every other "law" is harmful, because they are counterfeit.  Counterfeit "laws", by their very nature, are wrong.  Evil.  By their very existence they "legalize" all the violations of Natural Law listed above- at least by some "elite individuals".  Of course, they employ euphemisms to attempt to hide the truth of the acts.  Theft is called "taxation", murder is called "war" or "capital punishment", kidnapping is called "arrest", rape is called "airport security", and... well, the list goes on and on- covering just about anything done in the name of "governing".

I don't need any laws.  Neither do you.

.

Criminalizing reality- wisdom from an unlikely source

"So think about this. What happens when you make something illegal that is just a natural part of the world? You may as well make flies illegal. Or sweat. Or Monday morning." 

Profound quote, isn't it.  Where would you think I came across that one?

In a kids movie: The Tale of Despereaux.  I recommend it.

I like to imagine that little things like this slip into a kid's brain.  And maybe, just maybe, sit in there like a seed.  Sprouting and taking root.  I know my daughter surprises me all the time with things she remembers that I thought she didn't even notice.

And I hope those kids then realize that there are two kinds of things that are a "natural part of the world".  There is the coercive and the consensual.

Aggression and theft- unfortunately- both seem to be a "natural part of the world", but a part that should be opposed.  Or at least not engaged in.  Laws that make them illegal don't make them go away, though.  They only give written justification for defending yourself from those who engage in them- justification that is not necessary.

Then there are the things like Cannabis, self defense, defense of property, consensual sex, etc., that are not valid targets for "law".  They are a "natural part of the world" and any "law" against them is pointless, at best, and destructive in the majority of cases.  Trying to make them illegal is like the example of making flies, sweat, or Monday mornings illegal.  You'll never get rid of those things; you'll hurt a lot of innocent people in the process and make yourself look stupid and irrelevant.

But control freaks and those who throw law tantrums and legal hissy fits are slow learners- if they can learn at all.

.

NSA spying. Yawn...

Isn't it cute how people pretend to be "shocked!" that the NSA is spying on them?

Seems like a perfectly logical outcome of "government" to me.

Seriously, what other outcome could you possibly imagine when you allow thieves to gather together in the light of day and not only survive, but thrive?  Doesn't this just encourage them to keep pushing the envelope to see what else they can get away with?  Of course it does.

Allowing a group of thugs to coordinate and operate under the name "government" is a losing game.  When you justify their gang in any way, however carefully, you have already lost.  You may not know it yet, but you will either learn or you will die ignorant.

I hope that if you are a supporter of any of the "wars on everything" or "law enforcement" of any sort, you will learn something from this.  If not, keep crouching and licking those blood-dripping hands.

.

My daughter dabbles in communism

Sometimes as I walk around the park I find change.  Usually fifty cents or so.

Yesterday my daughter was wandering around with me and saw me find a penny.  She wanted it, so I handed it to her.  I told her she could find money, too.  So we walked around looking some more and I found another penny.

This gave her an idea.  She told me that any money I found I should give to her, and she'd give me any money she found.  I told her I thought it was better to just keep what we each found but she didn't like that idea.

The next penny I saw, I casually "pointed" at it with my toe without looking at it, and she "found it" and picked it up.  I said "Yay!  Now give it to me."  She refused even though I reminded her of our deal.  A minute later she found a quarter and a penny together.  I told her she was still supposed to be giving me the money she found.

She didn't want to.  So I said I'd just keep what I found, too.

Then I started finding more change than she was.  Quickly she had a "new" idea: She would keep everything she found and I would give her everything I found.

I said I still thought it was better if we just each kept what we found.  So, she complained a little at first, but that's what we ended up doing.

She wound up with 29 cents and I had 30.

Communism appeals to 5 year-olds (and those with similar intellects) until the reality of it hits home.  Then it doesn't seem quite as appealing anymore.

.

Liberty Lines, June 6, 2013- Farwell's new "Drug Dog"

(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM State Line Tribune, 6-6-2013)

We can debate the merits of the failed War on Politically Incorrect Drugs 'til the cows come home, but my observation is that prohibition- for "the common good", "for the children", or "for your own good"- always brings negative consequences.

In fact, I think the evidence is clear that the current prohibition, and the enforcement efforts related to it, have destroyed more lives (and trampled more liberty in the process) than all the drug abuse that has occurred since humans first discovered that ingesting certain substances made them feel different than normal.

And now I see that Farwell is joining the ignoble ranks of those who use trained dogs to "alert" on these forbidden substances.

It's faulty "science".  Yes, the "drug dogs" are trained to alert to the smell of drugs or similar odors, but dogs have a strong desire to please their pack leader.  This quickly translates into "I'll say I smell something because I know that's what my Alpha wants".  Even imperceptible unconscious signals quickly train the dog to do what is wanted.  Just like magic, you get the excuse you needed to violate the Fourth (and Ninth) Amendment- with the dishonest collusion of the Supreme Court.

Can dunking witches be far behind?

In past societies witches were "discovered" using similarly questionable tactics.  Burn the accused with red-hot iron, and if they survive unharmed, they are innocent.  Or tie them up and toss them in the cow pond; if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty and can then be killed without burdening your conscience.  "They had it coming."  Everyone "knows" it's reliable, because the authorities insist it is.

Do I think abusing drugs is a good idea?  No.  I think it's stupid.  But abusing "law" and violating liberty in the name of criminalizing drug use is even worse.

These trained dogs are just for the convenience of the police and are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- which are the only justifications any government can ever have for existing.  When society is structured for the benefit of police, it is a police state.  This has no place in Farwell, or anywhere else liberty is given lip service.

.

Show me yours...

I've seen pictures of Gadsden "Don't tread on me" tattoos, but that has got me wondering...

I'm just curious if anyone out there has a "Time's Up" flag tattoo, yet.  With or without the flag border.  Do you, or does anyone you know of?

If so, I would like to see a picture of it.  I'll keep it private if you'd prefer.

Someday, if I ever have the money to waste- and if I could overcome my aversion to needles- I might consider getting one.  Not sure where I'd place it, though.  Also not sure if I'd want the flat version above, or want a more dynamic "waving" flag design.  Or, if I'd only want the striking snake and "Time's Up" without the flag around it.

Probably it's nothing I'll ever have to worry about.

(Just a note:  This is my 2,700th blog post.  Here I thought I'd run out of anything to say in a week or so- and that was almost 7 years ago.)

.

Order without coercion is possible

Order without coercion is possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 3, 2013)

I have seen people say that there is no point in being libertarian because there will never be a libertarian society. Or because there will always be bad guys who will take advantage of others, or because someone will always be setting up some form of government.

That seems to be a very myopic view of the situation to me.

I'm not libertarian because of a belief that the future won't have problems.

I am libertarian because I know it is always wrong to initiate force- to throw the first punch. I am libertarian because I know it is wrong to steal. Calling theft something else doesn't make it right.

Perhaps there will never be a libertarian society. No one can really know that for sure. It would be a missed opportunity, but it changes nothing for me. It seems silly to refuse to do what's right because there will always be uncooperative troublemakers who will look for excuses to keep attacking and stealing.

Should you refuse to do anything good because it may never quite arrive where you want to end up? Maybe humans will never live on any other planets, but that doesn't make the study of science, which could be used for space travel and extraterrestrial colonies, pointless. Knowledge is power.

Living by libertarian principles gives an ethical foundation that serves you well here and now, making your life better today; not only in some hypothetical future society.

That there will always be bad guys is obvious. Why let them dictate your choices? Why give them power over your life?

True, some people are addicted to telling others what to do, or being told what to do. Those people will forever be trying to set up some sort of system to force everyone to join, "or else". Some people are simply in favor of being stolen from and being coerced to live by someone else's rules. So? Let them.

When you claim some job can't be done without government, remember that slavery was once considered necessary for farming cotton. You can have organization without coercion and theft. Your organization can be fluid, changing to fit the evolving needs of those who are a voluntary part of it at the moment. If you are afraid of allowing people to opt out, it shows you know how unpopular your scheme really is.

If you wait until there's a bandwagon to jump on you may jump too late. If you wait until everyone else is already doing it, does it really count in your favor?
.

Storm chasing: "Too dangerous"?

This past weekend's deaths of the storm chasing scientists in Oklahoma, and the injuries of the crew of a second car manned by Weather Channel storm chasers, has spawned some really stupid comments about how there needs to be "a conversation" about whether storm chasing is "too dangerous".

When people say there needs to be "a conversation", what they are really saying is that you and I should shut up and allow authorities to discuss and decide among themselves whether more liberty needs to be violated, by "law", for our own good.  Oh, you and I can chime in as long as we encourage those violations or are begging for someone to come save us.

The "consensus" will undoubtedly be that government-approved scientists and other authorized people will be "allowed" to continue storm chasing, but people like you and me must be discouraged from doing so- probably subject to some "fine" or other violations if we don't take the hint.

Storm chasing- even the most "irresponsible" kind- is an invaluable tool for learning more about storms and how other people (those who don't want to risk chasing the storms) can survive or avoid the storms.  The near-religious belief that only authorized scientists can make valuable discoveries and contributions seems to be widespread among believers in The State.  But it's wrong.

People know chasing tornadoes is dangerous.  That is why they do it.  They know, intellectually, that there is a risk of death (even if emotionally they feel invincible).  NASCAR is dangerous.  Over-eating is dangerous.  Driving is dangerous.  Thinking for yourself is dangerous.  Without danger, what is life?

I would bet that everyone does something that someone else, somewhere, would consider "too dangerous".

Don't force people to do things that they feel are "too dangerous", but don't prevent those to whom boredom is the biggest danger from doing what gives them enjoyment.  Especially when it can benefit the rest of us so much.

.

Sneak on over...

He hungers for a "4 digit pageview day".  Just for fun, let's give him one.

.

"Nope, we can't sell you that..."

I don't get the whole logic of "laws" forbidding selling alcohol to obviously drunk people, or prohibiting the sale of Oxycontin to addicts.

Before long I expect to see similar "laws" forbidding grocery stores from selling food to fat people, or prohibiting restaurants from serving "obviously obese" customers.

Because, really, what's the difference?

In each case it's obvious that the customer has had (someone else's definition of) "too much" of what he is seeking to buy more of.  It's also obvious that it's no one else's business- until a credible threat is made of causing imminent harm.  And "might hurt someone" is never good enough an excuse for me.

.

Bad jobs

I think most people don't want to admit that there are some jobs that are legal that are just bad and should never be done.

They can call freelance aggressive thugs and thieves bad people, as well as people who do the illegal jobs that are honest- like those who deal in politically incorrect drugs or trade in sexual favors- but they pussyfoot around the fact that every TSA employee is a rapist, every cop is a thief and bully, and every politician is a mobster.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

When those jobs are illustrated to the general public, especially if children might see, the core nature of the job isn't shown.  These bad guys are shown to be helpful and necessary.

Just watch some kids' cartoon where one of those jobs is shown and you'll never see any resemblance to reality beyond the ridiculously superficial.  And all the main parts of the job will be ignored and never shown at all.

Of course, they can sometimes show politicians and lobbyists as bad guys, but only if they work for "the other side" - the politically incorrect "minority" (which may actually be in the majority) side.

Makes me wanna produce TV shows.

.

The worst politician quote ever

Someone recently reminded me again of the worst thing I think I have ever heard a puppetician utter.  And he said it in public and no one shot him for advocating slavery!:

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

That's like claiming that life is all about the willingness to rot in your grave forever.  It shows that this turd doesn't have the first clue what "freedom" is (and I'll bet liberty is really scary to him).  It shows he sees it only according to what he can do to you.

Of course, he would consider himself and his hired goons to be "lawful authority", which they most definitely are not.  

Yeah, it sounds like something that psychopath Mikey Poopie Bloomers would say, but it was actually a previous NY thug who said it.

.

Accommodating the Damaged Ones

Cops are such crybabies.

I am now expected to structure my life around the demands of these most broken, twisted, violent, and terrified individuals.  When society is fashioned for the convenience of the police, you have a police state- even before the brutality reaches a crescendo.

I have to remember they can do anything to me their paranoid little minds justify in the name of "officer safety".

I am expected to comply with their prying demands to know who I am, where I am going, and what my business is once I get there.

I am expected to switch lanes if I see one robbing a traveler on the side of the road, so as not to "endanger" the life of the distracted thief.

I am told to not carry a gun- or if I do, to drop it at the first fearful whimper of a LEO- because I "might want to kill the cop".  And why wouldn't I, under these conditions?

I am tired of being told I have to accommodate these broken, perverted individuals, and then fawn over their "service" and "sacrifice" to "society".

Screw that.

.

Peace

I find myself more at peace recently- with regards to non-libertarians.  Maybe I have more pressing things on my mind.  Or maybe I have matured a little.  Or maybe it is a temporary thing and will soon pass.

That doesn't mean I don't speak up, it just means I'm not going to get too worked up by those who continue to reject liberty in favor of slavery- unless they come to me.  They are wrong, obviously, but my telling them so probably won't make them accept it.  Sometimes when I start to respond to someone, on someone else's blog, or on a news story somewhere else, I take a moment and decide it's not worth it.

Of course, this only applies to "other" places, statist places- not "my own territory" (such as this blog), or friendly spaces around the internet.  And, if you come to me defending statism and other forms of slavery, I'll probably not spare my keyboard.

.

Self-reliance not such a bad idea

Self-reliance not such a bad idea

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 26, 2013)

Throughout most of American history, interference in an individual's life by government employees, even under the worst administrations, was rare. Government and its regulations were practically invisible, like a ghost, and most people never noticed government because its laws didn't affect their lives or normal behavior in ordinary circumstances. The regulations that did exist were generally consistent with Natural Law; "don't steal", "don't attack the innocent", and "don't trespass". The rest of the rules, like "give the taxman his cut", were easily complied with (or ignored).

Now it seems almost unnatural to go about your day without being confronted with some sort of State interference.

Now how often do you find your course of action impeded by a law, fee, permit, license, tax, etc? How many times every week are you forced to interact with a government employee to satisfy some bureaucratic edict? Even once per week would have been too often to a person just a generation or two ago.

Yet, it only gets worse as government gets in our faces more every day.

We are watched by cameras so that any infraction can be fined. We are tracked in our cars and on our cell phones and computers. We must go through a gauntlet of groping hands, or worse, to get from Point A to Point B in many cases. We are told to pay for the privilege of exercising our fundamental rights. In short, we are ordered to submit to treatment worse than that which spawned a revolution. We are fast approaching the condition where everything not forbidden is mandatory. And we are always deceived and told it is for our own good or for "security".

Benjamin Franklin knew the score: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He understood that tyrants claim you must give up essential liberty for the illusion of security- for that is all security ever is when you allow liberty to be diminished even the smallest amount: an illusion.

So, does all this government intrusion make your life better? Are you better off when you are not permitted to make vital decisions for yourself? Do you need a Big Brother watching your every move so that you don't hurt yourself or others? Or so Big Brother can make sure you don't defy his commands?

I can handle my own life, and I know you can too. Neither of us needs to be treated like a stupid or naughty child. Big Brother can go jump off a cliff.

.

Slavery is wrong, whatever you call it

Yesterday, on my "Death-by-Government Day" post, blogger "Bonnie Gadsden" asked a very pertinent question:

"Kent, what do you think about draft dodgers?"

I responded:

"You might as well ask what I think about the slaves who escaped their captivity up until the 1860s- or those in Africa who escaped being captured and enslaved in the first place. Because conscription IS slavery.
 It isn't cowardice to keep your freedom, especially when you know the price will be high, it is bravery."

Do we revile those three women in Cleveland who recently escaped after a decade of captivity as sex slaves?  What about those who foil a kidnapping attempt?

Runaway slaves, those who hid to avoid being enslaved, and those who escape or avoid a kidnapping.  I'd say "draft dodgers" are in honorable company.  They are the ones who actually sacrificed for freedom.

.

Happy Death-by-Government Day

Or, should it be called "Dead Government-paid Murderer Day"?

I know that many people who were in the employ of the US government truly believed they were doing the right thing.  I know that a lot of people actually fall for the "they fought for our freedom" propaganda, and have a powerful desire to honor the dead for that reason.  I know I come off as a heartless monster for seeing it differently.

But, if you are in the military you are only fighting for one "cause": the power (and wealth) of those who run the mafia called the US government.  You are their pawn; their tool.  That you get angry at that revelation is proof of how effectively you have been brainwashed.

Your scars, your death, and your murders don't protect one single act of liberty.  No one is free to write even one anti-State phrase on the "government's invention" because of your sacrifice.  No one is able to carry a fully functional M16 onto a flight from Texas to DC because of your "service".  No one is allowed to drive across the country without having to possess a plastic national ID card because of those you killed.  No one is allowed to buy morphine for their cancer-stricken grandmother, over-the-counter in Walmart, because you were blown to bits in Iraq.  Your lost leg, shattered and bleeding in the hot sun beside some nameless dirt road in Afghanistan, doesn't buy the liberty to do one single thing.  Your dead "brothers" didn't accomplish anything that was worth losing their life for The State.

I realize it is hard to accept this when you have been told the lie all your life, and when you want so badly for all those who have died in the past to have not died in vain (or worse, in service of evil).

I'm sorry.

(Also, check this out.)

Kokesh released- now what?

Now that Adam Kokesh has been released, and the most serious(ly fraudulent) charges against him have been dropped, there are a few thoughts I have.

First off, I would be careful around him.  Maybe he is a great guy who would NEVER snitch, but I don't know what they might have done to him or threatened him with while he was held prisoner.  I hate to admit I would think this way, but it's something to keep in mind.  It has happened before with other activists- maybe Adam is a better, stronger person than the others, but how do you know?

Second, I see a lot of claims about how it has been revealed that he been working for Barry The Enemy all along.  Supposedly, The Enemy needs an "Incident" in order to declare martial law across the country, and Adam's armed march on DC is just that incident.  Well, I hate to say this, but Bring It On.   If The Enemy wants to get the preliminaries out of the way, I suppose now is as good a time as any.  Then we will know "It's Time".

Third, if this is going to be the standard way from now on to treat every activist who sticks his or her neck out, then why would anyone go to the trouble anymore?  Whether you agree with their methods or not, not everyone who does something you don't agree with is working with The Enemies.  They may simply be wrong.  Or YOU may be wrong.  (Hey, it's a possibility.)

As always, think for Yourself.  Don't follow anyone unquestioningly.  If your conscience or your rationality say "stop!", listen to them!!  You have a brain for a reason.  Even if something is a great idea, it may not be right for you.  We each have our path to liberty.  Don't initiate force; don't steal/defraud/damage property- but other than that find what works for you.  No person is infallible or great enough to blindly follow.

And, don't let this Kokesh issue distract you from continuing to live in liberty as you seek even more.

.

Don't look! You might see something unpleasant!

Statists seem to have infinite capacity for denial. Just watch what they write.

"I don't break any laws!"

"It's wrong because it's illegal."

"Just one more law will fix it." 

"Just elect the right people..."

"The Constitution was fine, it just needed us to keep the government in compliance."

It's almost cute the way they twist and turn trying to keep believing.  It's like kids trying to convince you that their imaginary friend is "really real".  The thing is, kids grow out of that (usually), while statists just get more adamant and angry when you point out how their imaginary friend keeps failing to deliver.

.

Reward the bully- punish his victim

I recently saw a quote* that was intended to show the absurdity of supporting gun owners' rights.  As you'll see, it utterly failed:

"When one child hits another with a rock, the answer isn't to give every child a rock."

And, if that were the whole story, it might be true.  But it isn't.

The truth of the matter is, that when you know there's a bully out there who intends to hit an innocent kid with a rock (or his fist, or a hammer, or a "law"), and you frisk the intended victim to make sure he has no rocks in his pocket, and then you threaten him with severe punishment if he dares to try to defend himself- well, then you are the bully's accomplice.  You are a friend to the villain and an enemy to all that is good.

The answer may not be to "give" every child a rock (they can find them on their own just fine- just like the bully did and will continue to do), but that would still be a better answer than the anti-liberty bigot tactic of trying to disarm all the decent folk.  The worst possible thing you can do is to try to take away the rocks the good kids have.  Or punish those who fight back.  When you do, you are only rewarding the bad guys and making it easier (and safer) to be a bad guy.

Anti-liberty bigots expose the festering evil in their hearts everytime they think they have come up with a clever new slogan.

I'll give my daughter some rocks, and expect her to abide by the ZAP.  Count on it.


(*I apologize that I forgot where I saw this quote.  I copied it, but neglected to copy the source.)

The Red Pill: "Down With Power"

I just recently finished reading L. Neil Smith's "Down With Power".  Excellent book!

Maybe not quite as excellent as "Lever Action", but I'm probably prejudiced since the latter book was the one that finally showed me where I fit in the scheme of the world.  And pretty much made me who I am today.  Whether you consider that a good thing or not being a separate issue altogether.

OK... maybe it is just as good.  The only reason I might choose "Lever Action" is purely emotional.

I recommend you get yourself a copy of "Down With Power", read it, and then loan it to people who need to read it.  If your "conservative" or "liberal" friends and family keep subjecting your to their vacuous statist opinions, invite them to get "the other side".  I'll bet the conversations will get more interesting.

They won't realize you have handed them "The Red Pill" until it is (hopefully) too late.

.

Do what's right, not what's legal

Do what's right, not what's legal

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 19 [4-19!], 2013.)

When a law is silly, good people may break it; when a law is wrong, good people have to.

I wouldn't tell you what to do, beyond telling you that you probably already know the right thing to do. I will tell you that if I see you breaking silly laws without hurting anyone or their property, I will respect you. But if I see you breaking, or even openly defying, bad laws, I will consider you a true hero.

Look at how many heroes from the past are heroes because they broke and defied bad laws. Rosa Parks and Henry David Thoreau come to mind. How many heroes from the past do we look up to strictly because they obeyed laws? I can't think of any right now.

The law only deserves respect as long as it is respectable. "Laws" which attempt to control or regulate things other than theft, aggression, or damaging or trespassing on privately owned property do not deserve respect. In fact, they deserve contempt.

This also means that anyone I see enforcing silly laws is someone I have no respect for, and anyone I see enforcing bad laws I see as the enemy of everything America was supposed to be, and an enemy of liberty and decency.

No excuses involving "the will of the majority" or "just doing my job" hold any water. And any claims of "upholding my oath" are worse than pointless when your interpretation of your oath requires you to do wrong.

This doesn't mean it's always nice to break all silly "laws". Some behaviors are just not polite, regardless of the law. It isn't always smart to do everything you have a right to do. You need to look at unintended consequences that can result. Of course, this applies to proposing and enforcing "laws" too.

This profusion of "laws" has caused a condition I call "law pollution". It has been estimated by attorney Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties advocate who has researched the issue, that each and every one of us commits at least three felonies every day; usually without knowing it or having any ill-intent. That's hilarious.

When everyone is some sort of a criminal it means the laws are wrong; not that everyone is bad.

If I were inclined to give you advice I would say "do what's right, and don't worry about what's legal". Come to think of it, that's the same advice a retired deputy sheriff once gave me.

.

The "only purpose" for cars...

The next time some foamy-mouthed anti-liberty bigot makes the standard claim that guns should be banned because "they only have one purpose: to KILL people!" I think I'll claim that cars only have one purpose: getting food at the drive-through.

That is just as "true" as the other claim.

I have used guns a fair amount, and I have never killed anyone.  Never even tried.  Yet, I don't have any trouble finding a "purpose" for my guns.

Or I could say a car's only purpose is to be a get-away vehicle after a hold-up.  Or as a teenager's motel room substitute.  Or as something to watch bikini-clad cheerleaders wash.

Of course, the argument that the "only purpose" for guns is to kill people is only believed by stupid people anyway, so the humor of claiming an "only purpose" for cars- whatever it might be- would go right over their heads.  It'll be fun to see the "mental" gymnastics performed by the anti-liberty bigot in response, though.

.

Lessons from Kokesh's kidnapping

If you can be kidnapped ("arrested") for- and charged with- "assaulting an officer" or for "resisting arrest" when you have clearly done neither, why not fight the cops like your very life depends on it?

Because it does, you know.

.

Adam Kokesh's arrest

I am not an advocate of using institutionalized kidnapping- euphemistically called "arrest" when committed by people who work for "government"- to remove "undesirables" from society.  But when that kidnapping is used against a person who wasn't doing anything wrong it is even more disgusting.

It doesn't matter if the kidnap victim was Adam Kokesh or that genocidal monster, Abraham Lincoln- if the victim isn't initiating force, stealing/defrauding, or trespassing on PRIVATELY owned property, the "arrest" is wrong.  If you won't speak out against the unjust kidnapping of your worst enemy, then you need to reexamine your commitment to liberty.

I have been frankly horrified at the things I have seen written relating to his "arrest" at the Smokedown Prohibition V event.  Gun owners, especially those who were not in favor of his planned armed march on DC, have been acting like statists.

The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War Against Gun Owners are not separate issues.  They are both aspects of liberty, which can not be cherry picked to make you feel better.  You don't have to smoke Cannabis or own guns to support the absolute human right of everyone to do either or both.  Among other things.  But if you claim to love (and understand) liberty, you don't look convincing when you seem willing to throw someone else to the wolves.

Maybe Kokesh was seeking to be arrested.  Maybe he wasn't.  Maybe the feds wanted to get him out of the way so they wouldn't have to face the armed march in July.  Maybe it isn't smart to put yourself in a position to invite being kidnapped when you are planning something "bigger" for the near future.  Maybe, maybe, maybe...

You can always second-guess anyone's actions.  You can even disagree with what they are doing.  But if a person is not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't ever support their abuse at the hands of government employees.  I can't support the abuse of anyone by government employees at any time, but that's just me.

Free Adam!

.

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.

.