How about instead of getting your knickers in a knot over "Amnesty"- for or against- you accept the fact (yes, FACT) that it can never be a crime to simply move to where you would rather be, as long as you don't trespass on private property in the process? No matter what words have been written or uttered to that effect.
Instead of hacking in futility at those branches of evil- the ones labeled "they'll overwhelm the social services" and "they'll vote for more collectivism" or "they'll take our jobs"- strike the root.
It is a disastrous idea to set up a State, or to allow one to continue. States are always, and invariably, ONLY used to violate the rights of individuals. None of the above "issues" would be imaginable without The State making them possible.
That is the source of any problem with "Amnesty". Face it, accept it, and deal with it however you see fit.
.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Becoming what you fight
I have expressed my opposition to government-imposed "death penalties" before. But maybe I haven't expressed the thing I find most horrifying. Besides the abominable error rate in convictions, that is.
It's not that I oppose the death penalty out of misplaced sympathy for murderers- I don't- it's that I hate it because of what it does to those who carry it out and those who salivate to see it done. It turns them into murderers and revenge whores.
Death at the hands of an intended victim or a rescuer is justice- or better. It prevents the violation from being carried to conclusion- it nips it in the bud. And it prevents the attacker from victimizing anyone else, ever again. There is also almost no room for error, as long as no innocent bystander gets harmed in the process. You don't get attacked by a rapist, and then in self defense kill an innocent guy who just happens to look a little like him, but was miles away at the time. Not when the attack is in progress. Afterwards....?
Death years later at the hands of some hired killer- paid with stolen money, no less- is murder motivated by revenge.
So, no. I don't hate the "death penalty" because of what it does to murderers. Death is appropriate for many of them.
But for those who kill them for The State? It turns them into worse than those they kill. That's right- "capital punishment" is worse than almost all free lance murders- done without warning, in the heat of the moment, and without any illusion of legitimacy.
It is premeditated; clinical; ritualistic; almost religious. Barbaric in the extreme. In large part because of the reverential way it is viewed by its fans. Just imagine a freelance murderer going through the motions of killing his victims in the same way- the same ritual- as the State murderers do it. You can't approve of that behavior, no matter who is doing it, and not be damaged by your approval.
It is not justice, it is the worst form of revenge. It's symbolic- cleansing society of a diseased individual. When in reality it accomplishes nothing of the sort. The "diseased individual" is already removed from society when caged. And the ritual only creates more diseased individuals.
No "government" anywhere has employees who are perfect enough or wise enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
There is no perfect solution. Some innocent people will always die, and some really bad guys will always escape justice. But that's no excuse to stick with a "solution" that is better suited to a barbaric past. The past where "The State" also belongs.
.
It's not that I oppose the death penalty out of misplaced sympathy for murderers- I don't- it's that I hate it because of what it does to those who carry it out and those who salivate to see it done. It turns them into murderers and revenge whores.
Death at the hands of an intended victim or a rescuer is justice- or better. It prevents the violation from being carried to conclusion- it nips it in the bud. And it prevents the attacker from victimizing anyone else, ever again. There is also almost no room for error, as long as no innocent bystander gets harmed in the process. You don't get attacked by a rapist, and then in self defense kill an innocent guy who just happens to look a little like him, but was miles away at the time. Not when the attack is in progress. Afterwards....?
Death years later at the hands of some hired killer- paid with stolen money, no less- is murder motivated by revenge.
So, no. I don't hate the "death penalty" because of what it does to murderers. Death is appropriate for many of them.
But for those who kill them for The State? It turns them into worse than those they kill. That's right- "capital punishment" is worse than almost all free lance murders- done without warning, in the heat of the moment, and without any illusion of legitimacy.
It is premeditated; clinical; ritualistic; almost religious. Barbaric in the extreme. In large part because of the reverential way it is viewed by its fans. Just imagine a freelance murderer going through the motions of killing his victims in the same way- the same ritual- as the State murderers do it. You can't approve of that behavior, no matter who is doing it, and not be damaged by your approval.
It is not justice, it is the worst form of revenge. It's symbolic- cleansing society of a diseased individual. When in reality it accomplishes nothing of the sort. The "diseased individual" is already removed from society when caged. And the ritual only creates more diseased individuals.
No "government" anywhere has employees who are perfect enough or wise enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
There is no perfect solution. Some innocent people will always die, and some really bad guys will always escape justice. But that's no excuse to stick with a "solution" that is better suited to a barbaric past. The past where "The State" also belongs.
.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Your "Right" to be evil
I have been scolded by people who say that if government goes away it would violate the rights of people who want to be a government employee. What?!
Taking away the "right" to be a cop or an IRS agent doesn't actually violate anyone's rights. It's the same as taking away the "right" to be a mass-murdering cannibal. You have no "right" to violate other people. Not freelance, and not as your "9 to 5 job".
If I had the ability to push "the button" and make "government" instantly evaporate- and with it, your tax-parasite "job"- I wouldn't be violating your rights in any way.
Now, not too many dedicated statists have tried this argument, but I've heard it a few times.
Sorry, but if you have a strong desire to rob and attack people, you can do it without the myth of "government legitimacy" backing you up and see how long your choice remains viable. You'll still have the same choice you've always had: live by the economic method (voluntary trade), or by the political method (theft and coercion).
I, for one, don't fall for the lie that your evil acts are somehow mitigated by the "consent of the governed" or "the Majority" or who your employer might be. If you act like a thug, you are a thug.
.
Taking away the "right" to be a cop or an IRS agent doesn't actually violate anyone's rights. It's the same as taking away the "right" to be a mass-murdering cannibal. You have no "right" to violate other people. Not freelance, and not as your "9 to 5 job".
If I had the ability to push "the button" and make "government" instantly evaporate- and with it, your tax-parasite "job"- I wouldn't be violating your rights in any way.
Now, not too many dedicated statists have tried this argument, but I've heard it a few times.
Sorry, but if you have a strong desire to rob and attack people, you can do it without the myth of "government legitimacy" backing you up and see how long your choice remains viable. You'll still have the same choice you've always had: live by the economic method (voluntary trade), or by the political method (theft and coercion).
I, for one, don't fall for the lie that your evil acts are somehow mitigated by the "consent of the governed" or "the Majority" or who your employer might be. If you act like a thug, you are a thug.
.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Protective talismans
I was reading an article about some private group "illegally" painting crosswalks on streets because the local thugs who claim ownership of the streets wouldn't. They said the lack of painted crosswalks was too dangerous, and that several members of their group had been hit by cars due to the lack of clearly marked crosswalks.
They took the initiative and did something, with their own time and money, that they believed needed to be done. And didn't violate anyone's property rights in doing so.
I don't have a problem with that (even though the local thugs had a big enough problem that they spent as much money scraping away the crosswalks as it would have cost to paint them in the first place), but it does raise some other questions in my mind.
Whatever happened to pedestrians (as people) being responsible for watching out for themselves?
Whether I am walking, biking, or driving I know my safety is MY responsibility. I never assume the other guy sees me or cares whether or not he runs over me. Sure, it is nice if others are watching out for me, but I don't trust my life on that gamble. I don't assume that a stop sign means oncoming cars will stop. Or that a "law" that says they must will make it so.
The ultimate responsibility for my safety is mine- not that I can always avoid accidents. That doesn't absolve anyone else from their responsibility if their carelessness causes an accident. So, sure, I might seek restitution for harm if someone else is at fault. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
But seriously, does anyone really believe that paint on the asphalt will prevent accidents? Stripes painted on a road accomplish nothing real- it's magical thinking to believe they do.
My question to those who trust signs, paint, and "laws": What other magical talismans do you believe in? Do you blindly trust stop signs to physically stop oncoming cars, too? Do you never look for yourself, trusting that the signs and paint will reach out and protect you from harm? It seems some people do.
.
They took the initiative and did something, with their own time and money, that they believed needed to be done. And didn't violate anyone's property rights in doing so.
I don't have a problem with that (even though the local thugs had a big enough problem that they spent as much money scraping away the crosswalks as it would have cost to paint them in the first place), but it does raise some other questions in my mind.
Whatever happened to pedestrians (as people) being responsible for watching out for themselves?
Whether I am walking, biking, or driving I know my safety is MY responsibility. I never assume the other guy sees me or cares whether or not he runs over me. Sure, it is nice if others are watching out for me, but I don't trust my life on that gamble. I don't assume that a stop sign means oncoming cars will stop. Or that a "law" that says they must will make it so.
The ultimate responsibility for my safety is mine- not that I can always avoid accidents. That doesn't absolve anyone else from their responsibility if their carelessness causes an accident. So, sure, I might seek restitution for harm if someone else is at fault. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
But seriously, does anyone really believe that paint on the asphalt will prevent accidents? Stripes painted on a road accomplish nothing real- it's magical thinking to believe they do.
My question to those who trust signs, paint, and "laws": What other magical talismans do you believe in? Do you blindly trust stop signs to physically stop oncoming cars, too? Do you never look for yourself, trusting that the signs and paint will reach out and protect you from harm? It seems some people do.
.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Appeasement contortionists
If an act qualifies as theft, or aggression, or is wrong in some other way, I don't care who is doing it or what excuse they use- it is wrong. Your wishes won't change that.
To pretend I only object when the evil act is committed by a government employee is completely missing the point and is in denial of what I care about.
To twist yourself around and upside down to try to appease the thief/aggressor/bad guy- because you feel he is "necessary" in some way- destroys your credibility.
Just sayin'
.
To pretend I only object when the evil act is committed by a government employee is completely missing the point and is in denial of what I care about.
To twist yourself around and upside down to try to appease the thief/aggressor/bad guy- because you feel he is "necessary" in some way- destroys your credibility.
Just sayin'
.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Using right tool for the job is key
Using right tool for the job is key
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 17, 2013)
Humans have always created tools to give them more power than would be available with bare hands.
Hammers, can openers, computers, and guns are tools.
The State- what most people mean when they talk about "the government"- is also a tool.
Any tool can be used in ways that could be said to be good and bad. However, only one tool- The State- can't be adequately aimed and can never be used without creating victims.
Some people compare my desire for the end of The State with the demands of anti-gun advocates for the end of privately owned firearms. Just as with guns, they claim it isn't the tool, but how the tool is used. That would be true if it were possible to use the tool of The State without harming the innocent.
Imagine being forced to pay for a neighbor's gun and ammunition, even though you know he is dangerous and plans to harm innocent people. His right to own a gun does not negate your right to keep your own money or your right to defend yourself from him when he endangers life, liberty, and property. Nor does the human right to own and to carry a gun include a right to use that gun to harm innocent people in any way.
Similarly, your right to organize doesn't negate anyone else's right to live peacefully however they see fit.
The State is a singular kind of tool. Even when "good" results from its use, it comes at the cost of some amount of bad. That bad is an inherent part of the tool- one that can't be eliminated without abandoning the tool. If you don't have coercion and theft, then you have a voluntary arrangement, and it is, by definition, not The State.
You might like some of the "services" The State provides you, but do you stop to think about the true cost? People who don't want those services are forced to pay for them regardless. This is like using a gun that fires two bullets simultaneously every time the trigger is pulled- one at the target, and another in a random direction from an unseen barrel.
The State probably isn't going away soon, so if you love it and want to keep it around, don't worry. You'll never lose your security blanket because of me. Only you can free yourself by growing to accept your responsibilities, giving up theft and coercion, and working out your conflicts using the economic method rather than the political method.
The tool of The State is dangerous and obsolete. You can do better.
Humans have always created tools to give them more power than would be available with bare hands.
Hammers, can openers, computers, and guns are tools.
The State- what most people mean when they talk about "the government"- is also a tool.
Any tool can be used in ways that could be said to be good and bad. However, only one tool- The State- can't be adequately aimed and can never be used without creating victims.
Some people compare my desire for the end of The State with the demands of anti-gun advocates for the end of privately owned firearms. Just as with guns, they claim it isn't the tool, but how the tool is used. That would be true if it were possible to use the tool of The State without harming the innocent.
Imagine being forced to pay for a neighbor's gun and ammunition, even though you know he is dangerous and plans to harm innocent people. His right to own a gun does not negate your right to keep your own money or your right to defend yourself from him when he endangers life, liberty, and property. Nor does the human right to own and to carry a gun include a right to use that gun to harm innocent people in any way.
Similarly, your right to organize doesn't negate anyone else's right to live peacefully however they see fit.
The State is a singular kind of tool. Even when "good" results from its use, it comes at the cost of some amount of bad. That bad is an inherent part of the tool- one that can't be eliminated without abandoning the tool. If you don't have coercion and theft, then you have a voluntary arrangement, and it is, by definition, not The State.
You might like some of the "services" The State provides you, but do you stop to think about the true cost? People who don't want those services are forced to pay for them regardless. This is like using a gun that fires two bullets simultaneously every time the trigger is pulled- one at the target, and another in a random direction from an unseen barrel.
The State probably isn't going away soon, so if you love it and want to keep it around, don't worry. You'll never lose your security blanket because of me. Only you can free yourself by growing to accept your responsibilities, giving up theft and coercion, and working out your conflicts using the economic method rather than the political method.
The tool of The State is dangerous and obsolete. You can do better.
.
Mutually exclusive things shoved into one tight box...
From a letter to the editor in Guns magazine, December 2011:
Sorry, but two of those things are irreconcilable with the others. You can't be "conservative"* or "pro-military" and be "pro-Constitution", much less "honest", "pro-American", and "pro-Second Amendment". Not in the real world, anyway.
Of course, it is telling that the only reason the guy wrote in the first place was to complain that in one of the articles about a "shoot", the author had been "PC" by referring to "he/she"- the letter-writer doubted any women were even in attendance, much less actually shooting. But, according to the reply by the author, women were there and were shooting. So, there!
The troglodytes are still out there. Waving (federal) flags and trying to stay blind and deaf.
(*Reminds me of something funny I read last week. It said that "progressives" were always pushing to mess things up, and "conservatives" were afraid to fix the messes. LOL!)
.
"...a publication whose content has historically been conservative, honest, pro-American, pro-military, pro-Constitution, and pro-Second Amendment."
Sorry, but two of those things are irreconcilable with the others. You can't be "conservative"* or "pro-military" and be "pro-Constitution", much less "honest", "pro-American", and "pro-Second Amendment". Not in the real world, anyway.
Of course, it is telling that the only reason the guy wrote in the first place was to complain that in one of the articles about a "shoot", the author had been "PC" by referring to "he/she"- the letter-writer doubted any women were even in attendance, much less actually shooting. But, according to the reply by the author, women were there and were shooting. So, there!
The troglodytes are still out there. Waving (federal) flags and trying to stay blind and deaf.
-
(*Reminds me of something funny I read last week. It said that "progressives" were always pushing to mess things up, and "conservatives" were afraid to fix the messes. LOL!)
.
Random Acts of Anarchy 2013
It's my birthday- one of those Big Ones. Yuck.
But you can still help me celebrate it in a good way. Go out and commit random acts of beneficial anarchy.
Or, if you feel the overwhelming need to send me a birthday present... here are some suggestions.
.
But you can still help me celebrate it in a good way. Go out and commit random acts of beneficial anarchy.
Or, if you feel the overwhelming need to send me a birthday present... here are some suggestions.
.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Anti-liberty bigots
I love that term: "anti-liberty bigot". It drives them mad.
Yet it is completely honest and applicable.
The most enjoyable use of the term is against those smug anti-gun advocates. They go berserk when you point out their true nature.
"Bigotry" is an automatic bias against something. It doesn't only apply to "race", gender, sexuality, or things of that nature. The "progressives" would like for you to be ignorant of that fact, though.
"Liberty" is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical rights. Liberty isn't a "pick and choose" buffet- each bit is an inseparable part of the whole.
Anti-liberty bigots can't stand being called out for their bigotry or for the fact that they are enemies of liberty- which basically means they are advocates of slavery.
People who advocate for anti-gun "laws" have an automatic bias against liberty. Often in more ways than just that one.
If you believe a private business owner should have his right of association violated by force (from government employees) if he chooses to refuse to do business with certain people based upon their "race" or sexual orientation, then you are an anti-liberty bigot. The business owner is also some kind of bigot, but his flaws don't justify yours. He is within his rights (as long as he doesn't attack or steal), and he will suffer at least the loss of that potential customer's money. If I find out about his bigotry, he will also lose my business. Why would I want to trade with someone who refuses to trade with people who are not initiating force or stealing, but who just happen to be something (?) he hates?
You have every right to be an anti-liberty bigot or any other kind of bigot. And everyone has the right to defend themselves from you if you take it beyond bigotry and put it into action by initiating force or theft- or make a credible threat to do so. (Don't think you'll escape consequences by advocating having someone else do so on your behalf.) And I have the right to refuse to associate with you in any way, even if you stop short of aggression.
.
Yet it is completely honest and applicable.
The most enjoyable use of the term is against those smug anti-gun advocates. They go berserk when you point out their true nature.
"Bigotry" is an automatic bias against something. It doesn't only apply to "race", gender, sexuality, or things of that nature. The "progressives" would like for you to be ignorant of that fact, though.
"Liberty" is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical rights. Liberty isn't a "pick and choose" buffet- each bit is an inseparable part of the whole.
Anti-liberty bigots can't stand being called out for their bigotry or for the fact that they are enemies of liberty- which basically means they are advocates of slavery.
People who advocate for anti-gun "laws" have an automatic bias against liberty. Often in more ways than just that one.
If you believe a private business owner should have his right of association violated by force (from government employees) if he chooses to refuse to do business with certain people based upon their "race" or sexual orientation, then you are an anti-liberty bigot. The business owner is also some kind of bigot, but his flaws don't justify yours. He is within his rights (as long as he doesn't attack or steal), and he will suffer at least the loss of that potential customer's money. If I find out about his bigotry, he will also lose my business. Why would I want to trade with someone who refuses to trade with people who are not initiating force or stealing, but who just happen to be something (?) he hates?
You have every right to be an anti-liberty bigot or any other kind of bigot. And everyone has the right to defend themselves from you if you take it beyond bigotry and put it into action by initiating force or theft- or make a credible threat to do so. (Don't think you'll escape consequences by advocating having someone else do so on your behalf.) And I have the right to refuse to associate with you in any way, even if you stop short of aggression.
.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
"USA! USA!"
I have long made a distinction between "The United States of America" (or "The United States"/"US"/"USA", as it is called) and America.
America is the land, the people, the traditions, the ideals enshrined imperfectly in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. America was to be an experiment in rightful liberty. America is the potential good.
The United States is the "government"- the thugs, the politicians, the counterfeit laws, the militaristic Empire, the corruption, the "official secrets"- that currently infests America. The United States is everything evil that is now being done in the name of "America".
Some people angrily tell me I am wrong. They say the two are the same thing.
OK. So if they really are the same thing, let's just call it The United States of The United States, then. Leave America out of it.
I still believe that The United States is the greatest threat America has ever faced, and in fact, America may have already been defeated. Or driven underground. All the things that make America America have been criminalized and portrayed as "potential terrorism". America is being shoved aside to make room for The USA. There is no room for liberty in The USA.
But, whether as "America", or something else, somewhere else, the ideals will survive. Because right is stronger than evil. Because Liberty is always right. Because individuals are real, and coercive collectives are nothing but a gang of evil individuals, no matter what they call themselves.
.
America is the land, the people, the traditions, the ideals enshrined imperfectly in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. America was to be an experiment in rightful liberty. America is the potential good.
The United States is the "government"- the thugs, the politicians, the counterfeit laws, the militaristic Empire, the corruption, the "official secrets"- that currently infests America. The United States is everything evil that is now being done in the name of "America".
Some people angrily tell me I am wrong. They say the two are the same thing.
OK. So if they really are the same thing, let's just call it The United States of The United States, then. Leave America out of it.
I still believe that The United States is the greatest threat America has ever faced, and in fact, America may have already been defeated. Or driven underground. All the things that make America America have been criminalized and portrayed as "potential terrorism". America is being shoved aside to make room for The USA. There is no room for liberty in The USA.
But, whether as "America", or something else, somewhere else, the ideals will survive. Because right is stronger than evil. Because Liberty is always right. Because individuals are real, and coercive collectives are nothing but a gang of evil individuals, no matter what they call themselves.
-
From now on if I use the term "USA" I will mean "Universal Surveillance of Americans". At least that's an accurate representation of the reality..
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Edward Snowden- "oath breaker" or not?
What is your opinion of Edward Snowden "breaking his oath" and spilling the beans about the NSA spying on you?
My opinion: an oath made to a criminal thug (one who violates life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) or a gang of criminal thugs can't be in any way binding. Especially when they don't keep their oaths.
If you swore an oath in good faith, but you later discover that the guys you had sworn your oath to had broken their oaths and were requiring you to do the same, under the guise of keeping your oath to them, you are released from any obligation.
To me, an oath made to someone who breaks their part of the oath first is null and void. You may choose to keep your end of the bargain even after they have broken it on their end, but you are not obligated to do so.
As soon as Edward Snowden discovered that those he was working for/with were oathbreakers of the most dangerous kind, he was released from any obligation his oath may have created.
Confused military tools to the contrary.
In my opinion.
.
My opinion: an oath made to a criminal thug (one who violates life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) or a gang of criminal thugs can't be in any way binding. Especially when they don't keep their oaths.
If you swore an oath in good faith, but you later discover that the guys you had sworn your oath to had broken their oaths and were requiring you to do the same, under the guise of keeping your oath to them, you are released from any obligation.
To me, an oath made to someone who breaks their part of the oath first is null and void. You may choose to keep your end of the bargain even after they have broken it on their end, but you are not obligated to do so.
As soon as Edward Snowden discovered that those he was working for/with were oathbreakers of the most dangerous kind, he was released from any obligation his oath may have created.
Confused military tools to the contrary.
In my opinion.
.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Edward Snowden. A hero too late?
Why does it seem necessary to have been "an evil twit who changed your ways" to be a hero? Why can't someone be a hero without first doing evil?
Bradley Manning is a hero. Now. But first he was a part of the problem. He signed on with the military and worked with, and for, the bad guys he later exposed.
Edward Snowden is a hero. Now. But first he was part of the problem, working with and for the CIA and NSA, trampling your liberty with everything he did as part of his "job" and with every paycheck he cashed.
Why can't people have a foundation of Principle that lets them recognize they shouldn't be doing certain evil things before they start doing them?
My real heroes are those who didn't need to join forces with the bad guys first to see what needed to be done- and what should never be done. But those are the ones who rarely get noticed and almost never get hailed as the heroes they truly are.
I will say this, though: seeing the chorus of semi-hominid scum that is screaming "treason!" over Edward's whistleblowing, I know he's on the right side. I hope he outlives his detractors.
I will say this, though: seeing the chorus of semi-hominid scum that is screaming "treason!" over Edward's whistleblowing, I know he's on the right side. I hope he outlives his detractors.
.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Ignoramus on display- Constitutional oath version
Isn't the military in danger by allowing people this dumb in the "club"? Isn't it a danger to America because of them?
I mean, not only does he seem to have no reading comprehension skills at all, but he seriously seems to believe that taking an oath to the Constitution means he is obligated by that oath to violate every single thing in that Constitution. And, somehow, he equates obeying his oath with doing the bidding of the very puppeticians who fear those who would take the oath seriously. He doesn't understand that he is taking the side of those he pretends to oppose! Ignorance this monumental is stunning and frightening!
Sorry, but since the Snowden whistle-blower case became news I have seen example after example of "military patriots" spouting similar nonsense.
Are the flying drones really a greater threat than the meat drones?
.
I mean, not only does he seem to have no reading comprehension skills at all, but he seriously seems to believe that taking an oath to the Constitution means he is obligated by that oath to violate every single thing in that Constitution. And, somehow, he equates obeying his oath with doing the bidding of the very puppeticians who fear those who would take the oath seriously. He doesn't understand that he is taking the side of those he pretends to oppose! Ignorance this monumental is stunning and frightening!
Sorry, but since the Snowden whistle-blower case became news I have seen example after example of "military patriots" spouting similar nonsense.
Are the flying drones really a greater threat than the meat drones?
.
Idiots vs Chewbacca
Idiots. They are all around us.
I mention killing in self defense and one of them exposes himself right there in public.
I mention killing in self defense and one of them exposes himself right there in public.
"Waaah!"
Yeah, and I'm sure you were also taught that it is good to support "your government"- even to the point of going to war (and killing) if you are told to do so. You were probably taught it is "bad" to "cheat on your taxes". And that "the policeman is your friend". You were taught a lot of crap that you should have tossed aside by now.
Yeah, and I'm sure you were also taught that it is good to support "your government"- even to the point of going to war (and killing) if you are told to do so. You were probably taught it is "bad" to "cheat on your taxes". And that "the policeman is your friend". You were taught a lot of crap that you should have tossed aside by now.
Instead you expose yourself as someone unable to rise above your indoctrination. All over a story about the nasty and stupid TSA agents who tried to steal "Chewbacca's" light saber cane.
Oh, there was much more to the conversation that added up to my assessment of this guy. I will say that my estimation of Peter Mayhew's chances of being a nice guy just went up considerably due to this imbecilic person saying he met him once and he wasn't very nice. Seeing how this guy acts, how could a decent person be very nice toward him?
Oh, there was much more to the conversation that added up to my assessment of this guy. I will say that my estimation of Peter Mayhew's chances of being a nice guy just went up considerably due to this imbecilic person saying he met him once and he wasn't very nice. Seeing how this guy acts, how could a decent person be very nice toward him?
.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
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.
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.
.
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.
.
Monday, June 10, 2013
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.
.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Saturday, June 08, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
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?
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.)
(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.)
.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
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?
.
(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.
.
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.
.
Monday, June 03, 2013
"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.
.
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.
.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Saturday, June 01, 2013
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.
.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
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.
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:
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.
.
"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.
.
Monday, May 27, 2013
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.)
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.)
Sunday, May 26, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
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."
"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.
.
"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.
.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
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:
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.)
"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.)
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
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.
.
(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.
.
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.
.
Monday, May 20, 2013
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.
.
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!
.
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.
.
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.
.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
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?):
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.
.
"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.
.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
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.
.
(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.
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.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
"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.
.
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.
.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
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.
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?
.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Monday, May 06, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Sunday, May 05, 2013
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.
.
.
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.
.
.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
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.
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.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)