An offer you MUST refuse

My head spins.

I just saw on the news that "The White House" says Edward Snowden should be returned to the US where he can be given a "fair trial".  (Like Bernard von NotHaus?)

Let's skip right past the part where a building is speaking, and focus on the part where a criminal's spokespuppet is insisting that the person who pointed out the criminal acts of the criminal is the one who is to be given a "fair trial".  What Snowden did wasn't wrong, can't therefore be really "illegal", and for the criminal to be offering Snowden a "fair trial" is absurd.

I guess that next, burglars will be offering to sell back stolen goods for a "fair price", and rapists can give their victims a chance to give consent after the attack.  And if the victims refuse, then we can all throw stones at them.

If anyone should be offered a "fair trial" it is those whose evil acts were exposed by Snowden.  The thugs have it backwards yet again.

Then, I also saw John McCain emitting rancid verbal flatulence about how what Snowden had done was "a slap in the face of the USA".  Good!  The "USA" is the anti-America, and it's thugs, scam artists, crooks, and spies should face consequences for the acts of evil they have been committing with stolen "tax dollars".  A slap in the face is too good for them.

Yeah, I have a problem with anyone making an oath to a group of thugs to begin with, but some people have to start there.

-

And please don't forget.

.

What happens when liberty is violated?

In the past few days I have watched people pointing to the bankruptcy of Detroit as an indictment of "progressive" politics.

In response, I see others point to the "Deep South", and its lack of economic opportunity, as an indictment of "conservative" politics.

Both sides are right, to a point, but both sides are wrong because they are missing the "Big Picture".  What's the common denominator?

The violation of individual liberty through the political method.

In other words, both cases are an indictment of Statism as a whole, not of a particular form of statism.  But that doesn't fit in with the obsolete and falsified "left vs right" paradigm.  So statists of either stripe will keep throwing rocks at their ideological twins while studiously ignoring the root of the problem.

Liberty would fix both places.  Stop letting the cowards set the agenda and frame the debate.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Purpose of laws is protection of life

Purpose of laws is protection of life

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 21, 2013)

Based upon my columns you might believe that libertarians oppose all laws. That isn't true at all. I am only opposed to "laws" that should never have been imposed in the first place, which therefore should never be enforced. Unfortunately, that just happens to be the vast majority of "laws" imposed and enforced today.

Freedom exists in reverse proportion to laws. Every law destroys a bit of freedom. Yet it is perfectly possible for liberty to be unaffected by law. A law against theft doesn't affect your liberty at all because you never had the right to steal. A law is only legitimate as long as it leaves liberty untouched.

The only purpose of the law- and by extension, government- was protection of life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness", including property rights. Any application of law that violates this- again, the vast majority of today's "law"- is a counterfeit substitute for real law and must be eliminated if the individuals who make up society are to ever again thrive.

But don't driver's licenses, for example, protect life and property somehow, even as they violate liberty? Hardly. Look at all the fatal accidents and vehicular property destruction caused by "licensed drivers". The safest drivers I have known were people who had managed to stay under the radar and drive without "official permission".

That license is a clear violation of liberty, especially as it gives The State an excuse to track you with another number, and because it provides another behavior modification weapon to be used against the people. How does the requirement for a driver's license protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness and property rights? It doesn't. It fails- hard. It is a net loss for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As is every other legal act imposed for our own good, for the common good, or for that current boogieman in the news: "national security".

Do I ever think a new law is a good idea? A "good law"?

Perhaps. If it ONLY exists to restrict the actions of government employees by limiting what they are allowed to do. A good law would hobble government employees and forbid them from violating you and me- in our persons or our property, or in our pursuit of happiness- and have the teeth to back up the threat. But the same results could be better achieved by eliminating the counterfeit "laws" that give them the false "authority" to violate us.

There hasn't been a good "new law" in hundreds of years. Maybe thousands.

.

"Stand your ground" or.. what, exactly?

I don't get the "controversy" surrounding "stand your ground" laws.  I can't even understand why anyone thought it necessary to make it "legal" to use deadly force against an imminent threat rather than running away "like a bitty little bug".

Basically I think it comes down to people who feel sorry for those who choose to attack others (or those who have a habit of acting in an aggressive and impulsive manner*), and those who don't.  Some feel that there is some "appropriate level of response" to being attacked-- a "proportional response", as they call it.  I give the defender a much wider latitude.

Sure, there is the potential that a bully could goad someone into approaching him in an aggressive way, and then shoot the person; claiming self defense.  Or, maybe they could just shoot someone dead and lie about the whole incident.  Nothing is to prevent the targeted victim of a scam like this from using deadly force in his own defense.  I'd rather 1,000 thugs "get away with" this than see even ONE defender be punished for defending themselves from an aggressor.

("But what about cops shooting those they stop?  Aren't they defending themselves legitimately?  Shouldn't they also get to stand their ground?"  They are defending themselves as legitimately as any other aggressor who shoots a person who resists and fights back.  Because in almost every single instance, the cop is the one who made the first aggressive move or threatened to do so.  I don't believe a bad guy gives up his right to self defense- I just hope he loses.)

Let arbitration or shunning sort it all out as well as possible after the fact.  Nothing is perfect, but that's as close as you are likely to get.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean chasing a fleeing bad guy down the street and shooting him in the back.  But in some cases... like if he is running off with some of your property, or you have reason to (credibly) believe he is running off for now, but knows where to find you or your loved-ones and plans to "finish this" later.  And I believe only the defender can accurately assess that threat.  But that has nothing to do with "standing your ground", while still being self defense.

I can't see any sense at all in "requiring" people to flee from a threat.  That only rewards the thugs, and demands that people act like cowards.  It's not a sustainable strategy for a civilization.  Or an individual.

-

*Now, "acting in an aggressive and impulsive manner" stops short, in most cases, of initiating force.  I get that.  However, if that is how you are in the habit of acting, you run a high risk of being misinterpreted and having a situation escalate out of your control at some point in your life.  It might be OK to act that way in some situations, or around certain individuals, but I don't see it as a good survival strategy in the long term.  But think for yourself and do what you want.

-

And please don't forget.

.

I ain't white

All the media-driven "racial" strife made me look closely at myself, trying to find any evidence of white.  I failed.  At least on my skin.  My teeth are closer, and the sclera of my eyes, closer still... but my skin?  Not white at all.  I held a piece of white paper against my skin and it made my skin look very non-white.  In fact, I looked brown.  How can that be?

Even my pasty pale legs are not white.  I'm not really sure what color they might be considered.  Should I protest that the color of my skin doesn't have a common name?

So, I am not white.

I suppose "Caucasian" might be a more technically correct term, but although I can find the Caucasus Mountains and "Caucasia" on a map (I'm not an idiot) I have never been to that region and feel no connection to it whatsoever.  Because of that, referring to myself as "Caucasian" always seemed like a lie.

Ah, but perhaps they are labeling "the culture" with the name of a color that has no basis in reality.  In that case, which "white culture" are they referring to?  There are many, and I don't really relate to any of them.  Or, are you simply referring to any culture that isn't "black culture"?  But that wouldn't work either, since there are not only "black" and "white", but a great many variations of culture even right around here.

I guess no one is talking about me at all when they go on TV and try to get "whites" and "blacks" angry at each other.  That's good.  It's one time that being "no one" is just fine.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Admitting you messed up

Collectivism wasn't forced on most people. They were seduced into it. They don't want to admit that this happened, and they don't want to be forcibly freed from it now.  Even those who now see the collectivism, and see how it is hurting them, may not want to admit they screwed up.

I try to offer these people a way out that lets them save face.  As I see it, the ZAP is a great way out.  Just don't initiate force again, and you won't face any retribution from me.  (Well, if you have hurt one of my kids in the past I can't promise to not go insane and violate my principles, and I don't believe it would be right for me to do so ... but you have been warned.)

-

And please don't forget.

.

Trust me, you’re not that gullible

Trust me, you’re not that gullible  (link fixed, unless the paper sees fit to change it again)

(My weekly Clovis News Journal [and Portales News-Tribune] column for June 14, 2013.)

Are you surprised at the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on you? Yes, you. Personally. Not you, you say? Well- as long as you don't ever use a phone, a computer, or any other form of communication. You don't, right?

I hear some good, patriotic citizens claim that as long as you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried.

OK. Sounds good.

So please give me your phone number, your bank account numbers, all your passwords and PINs, your mother's maiden name, your Social Security tracking number, all your kids' personal information, and whatever else you think no one else knows. Then take your curtains down and leave your door unlocked 24 hours per day. No hiding in the bedroom or bathroom either, since you have nothing to hide.

And drop the "please" from the preceding paragraph.

It'll be OK. I don't steal, and I have no desire to run your life or harm you. I won't share your information with anyone who doesn't need access (for reasons I can't share with you). I have only your best interests at heart. Trust me.

You're not that gullible... are you?

It's not about secrecy; it's about privacy. It's not that your life is shameful; it's that it is no one else's business. Giving up your privacy destroys your liberty, and is not even in the interest of "national security"- it is in the interest of totalitarian surveillance and control. Old Soviet Union levels of control and tyranny. Or worse.

Any State that claims it needs this information in order to be secure is a government based upon extreme paranoia. It doesn't deserve your support or loyalty.

So what will you do, now that you know? Will you adjust your behavior, stop supporting these domestic enemies, and finally realize that you are responsible for governing yourself and that no one else can ever "represent" or protect you better than you can? Will you finally accept the liberty of self-ownership and reject the slavery and coercion of statism?

Or will you continue to make excuses for these crooks and deny the facts? Will you accept the "official story" and the empty assurances that your private information will stay private (beyond the offices of those spying on you, anyway) and will never be misused? Will you pretend nothing happened, or just turn on the TV and ignore unpleasant truth, believing it will go away?

Which course do you think future history will show you should have taken?

.

Who's against everything?

A few months ago, after I had commented on someone's Facebook post, one of his "friends" said I was "one of those people" that she called an "aginner"; someone who was simply "against everything".

Against everything? I can't even wrap my mind around that bizarre mischaracterization.

I am against aggression and theft in all their varied forms. Nothing else.

Of course, as I seem to remember, I was speaking out against aggression and/or theft committed in the name of The State.  Apparently that didn't sit well with her world-view, so she had to try to make it appear that I was just unreasonably against everything.  It showed me what she was against, and worse, what she was "for".

Not that people like her will ever listen, but it might be fun to just ask what, exactly, they are supposing I am against in the specific instance that gives them such a problem.  It might be very enlightening to see just exactly who the "aginner" really is.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"What do you want to be...?"

When I was a kid people would always ask me "What do you want to be when you grow up?"  I never had an answer to that question.  I don't even remember secretly having an answer I was embarrassed to tell others.  The answer just wasn't there.  I'm not sure I could relate to the question at all.

I also remember in elementary school hearing other kids saying which college they were going to attend, and asking me where I was going to go.  I had no answer to that, either.  I never understood why they were even thinking about it, and wondered why it mattered to them.  I remember thinking that they would probably change their minds several times before the day came.

There were a lot of things I wanted to experience, but nothing I wanted to do to the exclusion of everything else.  And, I suppose, without a clear picture of what I wanted to "become" I couldn't get interested in going to college to become something.  Even when I did go to college, I never "declared a major".

But it all came back to not having any answer to "What do you want to be when you grow up?"

Now I regret that to a certain degree, but I'm not sure what I could have changed.  Because I still "suffer from" the same ... lack, or absence.  It's probably a personal failure on my part, but I swear it feels like a genetic glitch- like I'm missing an organ from birth and no amount of wishing or pretending will make it spontaneously grow.  Perhaps if I had been a more motivated person, I could have forged on ahead as if I had an answer.  And sometimes I wish I had.

I will say that there were some things I wanted to do.  And each and every one of those things I was told was not possible because it was "illegal".  Of course, now I realize that "illegal" doesn't mean "impossible", or even "wrong", but at that young age all I thought was that I didn't want to be the bad guy breaking "laws" and going to jail just for doing what I selfishly wanted to do.  It's a difficult delusion to kick.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Playing the Game

I understand why some people keep ignoring the imaginary nature of The State- they don't want to be shut out and made to feel invisible.

When everyone is wringing their hands over what "government" is doing, you don't get listened to when you point out that you can't fix the problems by doing more of the same, but only by walking away from the silliness.

But that isn't the solution that people want to hear.  It's too "simplistic" and doesn't involve exciting things like running for office, writing "your" congressvermin, or throwing your support behind a "law".

But it IS the only thing that will ever succeed.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Zimmerman verdict

I'm not so sure I want anyone ever convicted of anything in "government" courts. I've come to the conclusion that every "not guilty" chips away at the delusion of legitimacy that supporters of that imaginary monstrosity known as The State cling to.

And really, if someone is guilty of something, restitution works better than a caging, which doesn't "work" at all or "help" anyone (other than tax addicts and the abominable "prison industry"). And restitution needs to be done privately, without the involvement of the aggressive thieves who call themselves "government".

I'm not saying restitution works perfectly, because it doesn't (nothing does or ever will).  But it is so far beyond "imprisonment" that there is no comparison.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Zimmerman/Martin in an alternate reality

This isn't exactly about the Zimmerman/Martin case, but just sorta a few thoughts inspired by it.

I have stated my opinions on the case in the past.

I am not saying all these thoughts mirror exactly the events on the night Zimmerman shot Martin, but some are still relevant to the opinions I have formed.

If I am in a place where I have permission to be, doing something my neighbors have encouraged me to do on their behalf, then it is not an initiation of force to follow or question someone whom I suspect does not have permission to be there.

There are good ways to approach a suspected trespasser, and there are confrontational ways to approach.  Which way is more likely to lead down a dangerous road?

There are also good ways to respond to being approached, and confrontational ways to respond.  Which way is smarter?

If someone does approach you due to his suspicion that you are up to no good, it doesn't help anything- and certainly not your position- to get a cocky attitude.  Even if the accuser is a cop or other enforcer type (the only "difference" being a false veil of "legitimacy" draped over one and not the other).

A cocky attitude is not a justification to initiate force.

If someone starts hitting you, I would not blame you for shooting that person.  Yes, it is self defense even if the other person is "unarmed" (whatever the meaning of that might be to you).

I seriously believe, had I been magically placed into the shoes (or, rather, the skin) of either Martin or Zimmerman right at the instant of "first contact", the result would not have been deadly.  But that is only a belief, not a proven fact.  However, I have been in situations that could have turned deadly had I not defused the other person.  So, there is that...

-

And please don't forget.

.

Hanging Kokesh out to dry

To the anti-liberty bigots there is no difference between what Adam Kokesh did and smuggling regular capacity magazines into states that have declared them "illegal"*.  Or "carrying" when and where State thugs have said you aren't allowed to.  Or owning some type of gun that has been criminalized because of cosmetic features or safety equipment.  Or whatever the individual anti-liberty bigot's particular "hate" happens to be.  It might be politically incorrect drugs, freedom of association, the right to not be stolen from, freedom of travel, sex of some sort, or myriad other possibilities.

You'll never get the anti-liberty bigots to like you (or even stop hating you) by doing what they believe you should be doing, in the way they believe you should be doing it, unless you completely go over to their side and renounce liberty.  Why would you even try?

Nothing Kokesh did in this most recent case was wrong in any real way.  Anyone who takes any action that is noticed by thuggish State employees will be faulted by someone on the "liberty side".  Whether it's writing a blog or a newspaper column that doesn't worship the State, or violating some counterfeit "law", or engaging in acts of self defense or defense of property.  If it's noticed, it will be criticized as "foolish", "unnecessary", "untimely", or something.  Just because it isn't what the speaker believes should be done now.

I am tired of all the second guessing and accusations of "government plant!" every time someone speaks out above the hushed murmur of the crowd.  Sure, some government moles are undoubtedly out there, but as long as you don't get caught up in a cult of personality, and don't violate the ZAP, it makes no difference to what you should be doing.  As long as a person is doing what they have an inalienable human right to be doing, even if it isn't what I am doing, I am not going to be joining in on the crucifixion.

"We" are not hanging together so I guess that means "we" are lining up to hang separately.


*And I am pleased to note Mike V. has NOT joined in the criticisms by making a false distinction over this.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Speculative pondering

Would Nazi Germany have been better if the Germans had just elected "the right guy" to replace Hitler?  Or, was the guy at "the top" not the whole problem?

Would NSA America really be better today if "we" elected "the right guy" to replace Obama?  Or, is the guy at "the top" irrelevant?

The entire ship is rotten to the core.  Switching figureheads won't make a difference.  It will still fall apart and sink.

Are you prepared?

-

And don't forget.

.

"Terrorism" depends on cowardice

"Terrorism" can only be used as an excuse for anything because of pervasive cowardice in certain quarters.  After all, only cowards want to dictate to everyone else based upon their own fears.

Government officials are cowards, so they try to make themselves feel better by shifting the blame  to those who scare them.  You don't have to admit you are a coward if you call the other guy a "terrorist" and pretend he possesses superhuman attributes that he uses for evil.

Of course, that just makes the cowards more obvious once you begin to notice them.

I never hear anyone talking about "terrorism" unless they are commenting on something said or done by the "powards" in DC.  Real people just don't worry about it.  Real people aren't that easily frightened.  At least on their own.  That's why the cowards with political power have to work so hard to overcome people's natural courage and replace it with cowardice.  And, in making that attempt, those cowards become the only real terrorists out there.

-

And please don't forget.

.

A bleg

I apologize for the begging, but I'm falling behind on some things I need to catch up on. If at all possible.

 I had some unexpected and unwelcome expenses rear their ugly heads recently, so if you've been considering donating or subscribing (links on the left) to help keep me writing, and to keep me writing without the constraints of trying to not offend a boss with what I write on my personal time, this would be a good time.

Writing is how I earn my money (when and if I earn it), and if not for the generous support of readers who have been helping me keep the bills paid, I would have already had to curtail the writing for something less fulfilling (and less controversial) but more lucrative. I won't "share" this bleg on facebook, twitter, or anywhere else but here, so if you know anyone who might want to contribute, send them the link.

 If you can't help out, then please don't! I never want anyone to feel bad for not contributing. Not ever!

If you can, and just don't want to, then I also don't want you to. Nor do I want you to give it a second thought. No problem.

 If you can, want to, and do- then I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Or, you could buy lots of my books and help me out while spreading the liberty meme.

.

One-size-fits-all system is immoral

One-size-fits-all system is immoral

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 7, 2013.)

Most libertarians would be perfectly happy to stand aside as you form any society your little heart desires. You could form a democracy, republic, theocracy, dictatorship, or even a nostalgic "Communist Utopia". Whatever melts your butter. It's none of my business how you organize your community, as long as it is consensual.

As long as you give the rest of us the same respect.

Therein lies the problem.

Most forms of government don't permit any competition, or even any real variety, in their vicinity, and the True Believers tend to believe it's OK to kill in order to prevent others from opting out or forming a parallel system.

They are even willing to risk everything they value and believe in just to prevent others from forming their own way of operating outside the one-size-fits-all system that is in fashion. Instead of "live and let live" they prefer "if you don't like it you have the same opportunity to vote to change the government that everyone else has". In case of success they'd be the outcasts in the minority, then.

Besides being ridiculous and socially suicidal, it completely misses the point. Since libertarians don't fall for the belief that it's right to force a minority to live under the rules of the majority- especially when those rules are understood to be immoral and unethical- then we know it would be wrong to do so even to impose what we know would be in everyone's best interest. The suggestion is like saying you must drink whiskey until you can manage to "vote" it into water. It's not going to happen like that.

Libertarians are at a distinct disadvantage in this game since we can't pretend it's OK to kill people if they won't agree to live by the Zero Aggression Principle, at least until they attack someone or the property of another. See the problem?

It's amusing that those who claim their system is "The Best" seem the most terrified of allowing anyone the freedom to experiment with alternative ways. It's as if they don't really believe their own propaganda and are afraid that a better way might actually be found, and that it might become popular enough to replace their system.

The good news for you is that if libertarians ever become the majority, they'll not interfere with you as long as you keep your hands to yourself and don't damage the private property of those outside your group. After all, we'll always need living reminders around so our kids can see the folly of statism with their own eyes.
.

Self-incrimination in front of averted eyes

I can warn people every day of my life that cops are thugscum, but my words will usually make no difference to anyone.  Only cops can prove me right by their actions. And they do.  Daily, in spades.

So why are so many people still in denial?  I think it's because they are desperate to have heroes. They want someone to be their protector.  They manage to talk themselves into believing that everyone murdered, robbed, kidnapped, and caged by cops somehow deserved it.

They grew up being brainwashed that "The policeman is your friend" and it is hard to shake that programming even in the face of overwhelming, deadly, evidence to the contrary.

Cops have become their own worst enemy- they just haven't realized it yet.  And considering that a low IQ (along with a total lack of ethics, and aggressive psychological disorders) is now a requirement for the "job", I doubt they ever will.

.

Consequences: natural and artificial

Actions have consequences.  No one should be in denial of that fact.  You step off the edge of a cliff and you will discover the consequences of living on a planetary surface under the influence of gravity while being a non-flying mammal.

There are natural consequences and artificial ones.

Saying that jail is a "natural" consequence of drug use is a lie. It is an artificial consequence made real by evil actions committed by sick people. The natural consequences of drug abuse (note: not use) can be horrific.  But there is no justifiable reason to heap artificial consequences on top of the natural ones.  

You don't "help" a person by caging them, stealing their money and other property, by making them lose their job, and by alienating them and their family.  Only a truly sick individual would see that as "helping" them.

An honest drug warrior would acknowledge that it is all about punishment.  But that is also evil.  You can't be a decent human being while punishing people for harming themselves.  And don't forget, almost ALL the negative consequences of drug use have nothing whatsoever to do with the drugs, but everything to do with prohibition.  Drug users (and abusers) who manage to avoid detection by the authoriturds generally live productive lives due to the absence of the life-destroying artificial consequences.  And even if they do destroy themselves, that is their right.

If someone's actions harm another person or their property, then it makes zero difference if they are "on drugs" or not.  Stop pretending otherwise.

.

What are little wars made of? Not sugar and spice...

War is crime.  It is murder, kidnapping, theft, destruction of property, trespassing, and every other evil act all rolled into one neat package.  That means the solution to it- the way to prevent it from happening- is the same: a universally armed populace.

Designating one family member as being responsible for defense of all is a poor tactic.  Even if every family member is supposedly supporting the armed defender, you are weaker than if everyone is taking actual, physical responsibility.  You must make sure every family member is ready and equipped for defense.

The best way to keep from being harmed by the bad guys is to prevent them from attacking in the first place.  Don't be a sheep.

You don't prevent them from attacking by becoming the bully, or by goading them into a fight, or by becoming what you claim to be preventing.  And taunting them is just asking for trouble.

Telling your neighbor what he is allowed to own, or do on his own property, and backing up your demands with force or the threat of force, is an act of aggression.  Invading his property to make sure he is complying with your meddlesome edicts qualifies you for a bullet to the head.

Really want "national security"?  Then get rid of all anti-gun "laws" and disband the military.  Anything else is just looking for trouble.

-

This began with every intention of making it a CNJ column.  It quickly became obvious there could be no way to neuter it enough to get it past the gate.  So, here it is in all its glory.

.

Government is childishness

I notice my young daughter is skilled in the art of bait and switch.  "Let's go outside" becomes "Let's go to the playground" as soon as we are outside, which then becomes "No, I meant the other playground" (which is farther away) as soon as we head across the street.  Even the farther playground can become a waystation for McDonald's or something... if I let it.

Dealing with her bait and switch tactics makes me laugh.  But some people's bait and switch is no laughing matter.

"Let us take care of you in your old age" became "Let us take care of your medical bills when you can't pay them" which became "It's illegal to work without our tracking number and permission".  Sure, there were a lot more steps than that.

It's the same with "immigration", guns, drugs, "taxation", regulation, licensing, and everything else people have allowed the perverted molesters of State to get away with having some say in.

In everything that government-employed bureaucrats and other thugs do, they employ the old bait and switch routine.  Get you to accept the first step, and then keep changing the goal and taking advantage of your momentum.

Which goes to show that all "government" is stuck in 5-year old behavior of some sort. Whether it's communism, bait and switch, or being afraid of imaginary monsters.  Sometimes you just wanna grab those supposed "adults" by the collar and warn them to grow up.

.

Fourth of July

Independence Day is dead. Long live The Fourth of July.

It used to bother me that people never called the day "Independence Day".  But I finally realized they were right all along. I was wrong. It isn't Independence Day.  Not anymore.

Now it's all about dependence.  Dependence upon military worship- called "patriotism".  Dependence upon what the "laws" allow you to do to celebrate the watered down version of the holiday.  It's all about worshiping the greatest enemy that America ever faced- The State.  The way "The 4th" is celebrated now is spitting in the face of the original reason for the holiday.

I'm against "capital punishment" but it seems that the honest way to celebrate Independence Day, a real Independence Day, would be to tar and feather, or hang- depending on the damage the individual has done- a few anti-liberty bigot politicians.  Each and every year.  That would be appropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.  It would serve as a warning that the death of independence will not go unpunished.

But that's just wishful thinking.  So instead I will honor independence in my own mind while I ignore everyone around me celebrating The Fourth of July.

And I'll fly my own flag, thank you very much...
.

Spreading cowardice

What causes cowardice?

I think it is a suspicion that you can't handle a situation.  Maybe due to lots of past failure.  Or because you have been discouraged- or prevented- from testing your wings. 

"Government" seems to be designed to prevent people from gaining the necessary experience which would lead to confidence.  Or to bravery. 

And without cowards "government" would wither away and die.  It (well, those who call themselves members of that coercive, thieving gang) breeds what it needs. 

I plan to work towards countering the brainwashing.

.

You can't give away what you don't possess

You can't give away what you don't possess

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 31, 2013)

Can you give me an actual living, breathing, Tyrannosaurus rex? No. Why not? Because you don't have one to give. You can't give away something you don't possess- especially if it doesn't exist.

So how can you pretend to give government employees the authority to do things on your behalf which you never had the authority to do on your own? Things such as to forbid guns in some circumstances, some methods of carry, or to certain people. Or to kick in doors to get drugs. Or to require licenses for driving or conducting business. Or to take a percentage of everyone's property.

The truth is, you can't give that authority because you never possessed it; no one did- it never even existed. In every case it's completely wrong to do those things since no one has the authority to violate the fundamental rights, under Natural Law, of their fellow humans. When someone chooses to do those things anyway they become an enemy to other individuals, and by extension, to society. Even to civilization.

Theft, aggression, and every other violation of individual sovereignty need to be seen as the destructive forces they are, and they need to be universally rejected, not delegated to some authority.

As one example of this truth, police don't have any "special authority"- or at least they were never intended to. Just as you hire someone to haul your trash to the landfill, even though you are perfectly capable of doing so yourself but would rather not be bothered with the mundane task, police were to be paid to do full-time what everyone had the authority to do anyway: stop theft and aggression.

If only society would return to this principle, and individuals would take responsibility for themselves again instead of leaning on the crutch, it would solve a lot of problems.

As it is, police are now believed to have special authority; authority that never existed and therefore can not be delegated to them by you or anyone. This imaginary "special authority" creates an "us vs. them" gulf that will only keep growing wider and more dangerous until it is stopped cold, and reversed.

Police are only one small facet of the problem. Any "law" that pretends to give any government employee more authority than any random person on the street is not a legitimate law. In fact, as their boss, you have more real authority than the job can ever confer upon them. Never let the uppity servants order the masters around, and never tolerate their violation of anyone's liberty.

That is within your rightful authority.

.

Keeping your promises to a murderer

Let's say your best friend swears you to secrecy before he will tell you something juicy.  Then, after you swore to keep his secret, he tells you he raped and murdered a young girl.  Who in their right mind would believe the promise to keep the secret was more important than an attempt at justice?  Or to inform others of the danger he poses?  Who would be angry with you for breaking your oath to the murderous rapist?

And why is the Edward Snowden case any different?

.

Again with the cowards

The guy whose fear opened my eyes to the cowardice surrounding me wasn't really one of those "powards".  He lacked any real power.  But he was grateful for the powards who had made up, and enforced, the rules that gave him the fragile illusion of "safety".  The illusion that he had accidentally glimpsed a crack in.

You could see the fear in his eyes as he spoke of the GUN he had almost encountered.

These cowards will never feel "safe enough".  They would really like for everyone else to be as afraid as they are.  Those who aren't shine the light of pity on the fearful.  They expose the shortcoming.  The cowards don't want to feel bad about themselves, so they would like to reduce everyone else to a quivering puddle so they'll have no one exposing them for the pathetic people they truly are.

So they advocate, pass, support, and enforce all manner of pointless and counterproductive "laws" that can never really even make them feel safe, while seeking to harm- yes, HARM- those who aren't as cowardly.  Their rules actually make them much less safe by empowering the real bad guys.  Which makes me wonder if the cowards actually get a thrill out of being fearful.

Of course, these "laws" could also be explained by the fact that the people who advocate, pass, support, and enforce them are just plain evil.  So you are seeing the results of evil and/or cowardice.

There are things I am afraid of.  Heights.  Aggressive large dogs.  Probably something else, too.  The difference is that I am not such a coward that I want to level the world to remove all heights, ban people from washing windows on skyscrapers, or make big dogs "illegal".  I know my fears are my problem and it isn't your obligation to coddle me.

Maybe this is why I feel such contempt for cowards.  I have fears; I deal with them without violating you.  Why won't they do the same?  I think it's high time I insist they do.

.

Down With Powards!

Down With Powards! 

(My latest contribution to The Libertarian Enterprise)

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that America has become a culture of cowards.

"No guns" = cowardice. "War on terrorism" = cowardice. "War on Politically Incorrect Drugs" = cowardice.

Cowards, cowards, cowards, everywhere cowards, cowering in their pools of cowardice. I am saddened and disgusted by displays of overt cowardice. I don't want my kids to suffer from your cowardice or to catch it from you. I'd rather they not be exposed to it, either. And I want them to know it when they see it.

Cowards hide behind "policies" that they falsely believe will protect them from the oh-so-scary and dangerous world. But their policies just reinforce their cowardice, infect others, and attempt to weed out the non-cowards. As they say: The Brave die once; a coward dies a thousand times—at least once each and every day, I would bet.

I had a little discussion with a couple of city employees a few days ago. Because of the way I dress, they were worried I might be armed. They even got "the vapors" over the knife on my belt and asked me to leave it in my car. As far as they know, I complied.

As I was leaving, one followed me outside to explain that there had been an incident the night before with an ARMED PERSON with A GUN on the premises! That is why they were twitchy and cautious. No indication there had actually been any aggression committed, but that's beside the point to the cowards of the world.

I told the guy his concern and the policy were stupid. Yes, I probably should have been more diplomatic. I said all he was doing was handing the rest of us over to the bad guys by worrying about guns. I told him no bad guy will ever obey a "no guns" sign (which wasn't displayed there anyway), and he agreed. He countered by saying that in today's world, though, you can be shot for wearing the wrong color shirt, so you can't be too careful. I said that tragic reality is directly because of policies aimed at disarming the good guys, since good guys are the only ones who would ever obey such a policy. I told him all he's doing is empowering the bad guys and giving them the advantage and encouraging them to be bold. Once again, he reluctantly agreed. I told him the policy was cowardly and made me sad. He said he is only a city employee and it's a city policy and he has to enforce it. I said that's just sad, and I walked away.

Look, if you think your anti-gun policy is enhancing "safety" or "the Peace", you are wrong. All you are doing is punishing everyone else and handing your friends and neighbors over to the aggressive parasites on a silver platter. You are basically saying "Here, I've prepared your prey for you just the way you like it. Do with them as you will before I can get other armed thugs here to sort it all out." That's the way of the coward, and it disgusts and saddens me. I want no part of your cowardice.

I'd rather face a few dangers (which would be fewer without the cowards making "policy") than be surrounded by the surrender monkeys.

Surely I am not alone in that.

I aim to recognize bravery and never silently acquiesce to the cowards in power. Down with Powards!

.

Sick of cowards!

Cowards.  More specifically, "powards".  Powerful cowards.

The world is in a terrible mess because normal people have too long coddled cowards and accommodated thieves and thugs.  Most people have been too nice to call out these people who are ruining things for everyone else with their cowardice and parasitism.

Most positions of political power are held by people completely crippled with cowardice.  Just look at all the anti-gun bigots in congress and try to tell me those people aren't completely enslaved by their cowardice.

A recent event brought this home to me.

I, personally, have been too nice to cowards just about all my life.  And it is making me a little ill to think about.

Why should we who aren't crippled with cowardice bend over backwards to make the cowards more comfy?  Why would we let them dictate what we can do in order to make them feel safer- especially when it will never be enough, since the problem isn't with us or with the world, but within themselves?  Their damaged, frightened selves.

Well... more on this in a bit.

.

Who's responsible for "offense"?

That you have no right to not be offended can also be stated as others have a right to offend you.  Just as long as they don't initiate force or steal/damage your property.

The offense that you feel is not part of them or of their non-coercive act, but of you and your response to them or their act. They are not responsible for your reaction.

But you are responsible for how you behave after you are offended.

That's a hard one for some people to swallow.  It has been difficult for me at some points in my life.  Things go easier for me when I keep that in mind.

.

Don't misunderstand the ZAP

Saying "You have no right to initiate force" is not the same as saying "Thou shalt not initiate force".

Sometimes I wonder if people get the distinction.  Probably not, since most seem to have been programmed to see things only in terms of "Thou shalt not...".

If you feel you "must" initiate force to prevent what you believe to be a looming disaster (an obviously drunk/impaired driver, for example), then go ahead and do it with the full understanding that you are acting outside of what you have a right to do, and accept ALL the consequences, even if you feel they are not "fair".

And don't think it's OK to steal money to pay for others to do it on your behalf.  It isn't.  In fact, I think that's even worse than initiating force yourself.  It just makes more people guilty.

.

Want to be a slave?

Do you consider yourself a slave to gravity?  Or to your body?

If not, why would you consider yourself a slave to "government"?

The theft and coercion that get called "government" are a reality of the world.  (Just as are theft and coercion that don't get any particular label attached.)  To say that this makes you or others a slave is a defeatist attitude.  It may be all around you, but it only enslaves you if you let it.

You have a brain.  Use it to find ways around the theft and coercion.  Find ways to use "government" against itself (not against others) when backed into a corner.  It can be satisfying to watch a pack of dogs turn on each other.

Don't accept the status of slave that the thugs and goons would want you to accept.  Navigate the real world the best you can, always living by the ZAP, and never giving the bad guys more power than they really possess.

"Government" exists.  You are not a slave to it unless you want to be.

.

Column incubator for feds' ideas

Column incubator for feds' ideas

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 24, 2013)

Federal employees must read my columns and use the warnings therein as a blueprint for future schemes, just as Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and George Orwell's "1984" seem to have been adopted as suggestions for governing rather than as the dire warnings they should have been.

Recent news that the National Transportation Safety Board is seeking to further lower the "legal standard" for the blood alcohol content that would be called "drunk"- to 0.05%- echoes a warning I gave in a previous column in this space about a hypothetical future where driving after eating a turkey dinner is criminalized as "driving under the influence". Welcome to the future.

No one I know of thinks driving while drunk is a good idea. There is, however, a legal concept known as "prior restraint". Actions that "might" harm someone can't be a real crime and can't legitimately be punished as one. Otherwise everything you do would be illegal and make you subject to arrest. Which might just be the real goal, after all.

Every action has some probability of causing harm, and the "law" is a poor method of deciding what the odds are. Unless an incident occurs where someone has actually been hurt or private property has been damaged, there is no individual victim and no crime can have been committed. No matter what the "law" might say, how strictly it is enforced, or how much you disapprove of the action involved. "The majority" may want to punish "pre-crime", but it will always be wrong to do so.

Anytime a "law" is expanded to criminalize more people- even if the intentions are supposedly good- a larger net has been cast and it creates more criminals and further delegitimizes everything else the "law" is expected to accomplish. It's a form of inflation- the more of something you make, the less each unit of it is worth.

The "law" can't lose much more value and continue to exist in any meaningful way. For an increasing number of people it has already lost all legitimacy.

Instead of "prior restraint", what is needed is real restitution for any and all harm that is done to an individual victim (which is never the State)- no matter the circumstances.

If you cause a wreck and an innocent person dies as a result, what does it matter whether you were drunk, texting, "running a license plate", sleepy, scolding a child, or sneezing? Do you really think the family of the dead victim cares what your excuse is? They don't, unless it happens to be their adopted "cause".

.

Mixing eras for enjoyment

As you may have realized, I am not a man much constrained by any particular historical era.  I have been known to be dressed in buckskins with a cell phone on my belt next to my flintlock pistol and bowie knife.

I tend to go with whatever works, as long as it doesn't violate my principles.

In following this personal quirk I discovered a cool way to listen to the music on my cell phone.  I turn on the music and place the phone in the horn of my knock-off victrola and enjoy the rich sound, amplified enough to actually be heard perfectly.

Yeah, it works.

Try it some time, assuming you have one.  A phone that plays music, I mean.

.

In the dog house. Again.

My Clovis News Journal columns may be watered-down a bit more- at least for a while.

The publisher is unhappy that the theme "government is theft and coercion" seems to keep cropping up and I have been instructed to avoid mentioning that particular 800-pound gorilla until he cools off.  Or until he stops paying attention to me again.  I'm usually OK until he notices me.  Yes, a lot of that is my fault.

I realize that I have a very thin rope to walk in my newspaper columns.  I will not compromise the message or the principles, but I also have to try to offer it in as gentle a way as possible.  Don't wanna startle the herd and cause a stampede.

So, for a while, I have to find ways to promote the idea of voluntary, consensual society, without contrasting it to the current situation too obviously.

If I didn't need the money/pittance, and if I didn't get so much positive feedback- in person- from people I run into around town, it wouldn't be worth it.  But, I can see I am making a difference in at least some individual lives around me, and that is as powerful a motivator as the money (which is desperately needed).

I really need to start asking the "locals" who tell me how much they appreciate my columns to please consider sending the publisher an email letting him know.  I'd like him to hear from someone other than the local politicians and partisans who apparently have such a problem with him publishing my columns.  But I invariably think of it when it's too late.

.

Doom, Disaster, and Amnesty!

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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'

.

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.

.

Mutually exclusive things shoved into one tight box...

From a letter to the editor in Guns magazine, December 2011:

"...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.

.

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.

.

"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.

-

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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?

.

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 was taught killing is bad."

"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.

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?

.

Government supremacy belief is wrong

Government supremacy belief is wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

The two kinds of laws

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

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

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

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

.

Criminalizing reality- wisdom from an unlikely source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

NSA spying. Yawn...

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

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

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

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

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

.

My daughter dabbles in communism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She wound up with 29 cents and I had 30.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can dunking witches be far behind?

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

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

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

.

Show me yours...

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

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

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

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

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

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

.