Doing it for the love of the thing

If "government" doesn't do certain things, by forcing people to do them, or by funding those things through "taxation", they just won't get done.  Right?

Well, no.

One of the "things I do" is orphaned and/or injured animal rescue.  I have done it since I was a pre-teen.  It pays nothing, and in fact, sometimes costs considerably more (in food, medicine, supplies, and occasionally vet bills) than I can afford.  And those who find the animals that need to be rescued almost never think of helping defray the expense*- and I don't ask because I'd rather they not hesitate to call me for help when it's needed.  I'll find a way, somehow.

Because it matters to me, I do it anyway.

In fact, I just took on a new rescue Monday.

How it is possible that I do this without being coerced, or without seeking "government" subsidies?  I thought this was supposed to mean these necessary functions would go neglected.  I truly believe people are better than that.  Sure, as long as someone is willing to use theft and coercion to make something happen, there will be those doing it who otherwise wouldn't.  What good is that for anyone?

I'd rather see people filling a need because they want to, than because they see it as a way to get (stolen) money or (illegitimate) power.  But if they can get rich doing what they love, without theft or fraud (redundant, I know), and even if it affords them a certain amount of power, as long as it isn't based upon aggression or threats, then they can still fill a place in the world that I will not complain about.  I might even envy them a little on weak days.

I take pleasure knowing that art, charity, creativity, and all the other small good stuff will still be a part of the world even when there is no gun in the room forcing anyone to pursue it.  Don't you?

- 

*It has happened exactly twice in all the years.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Libertarians’ heroes all-too-human

Libertarians’ heroes all-too-human

My Clovis News Journal column for July 19, 2013.

Just like anyone else, most libertarians have heroes, both real and fictional, who inspire them through traits we share, or wish we shared.

Libertarians' heroes are also all-too-human. They are flawed and don't always manage to do the right thing- the libertarian thing. Very few people can always avoid initiating force. Most people will sometimes violate private property rights. Yet, there is something that can be learned from just about anyone.

Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the science fiction television series "Firefly", and its movie sequel "Serenity", is a particular favorite of mine. Yet he does throw the first punch on occasion, and he is an admitted thief. At least he usually seems to avoid stealing privately owned property. He keeps his word, rights the wrongs he is made aware of committing, and stands up for those who need help. Right and wrong matter more to him than legal or illegal.

The character "V" from "V for Vendetta" is an even more flawed hero- if he is a hero. He brings down a tyrannical regime, but admits he is a "monster". While he targeted for revenge mainly those (or the minions they sent) who were guilty of war crimes against their own subjects, he also kidnapped and caged an innocent person against her will "for her own good". She eventually makes peace with him over this, but it was still wrong for him to do so.

Han Solo from the "Star Wars" movies is possibly the most libertarian character in that series. He is called a smuggler by The Empire, which is just another name for a free market supplier. Unless you count the "Han shot first" revision in one of the latest re-releases, he always fought in defense.  (I have been corrected- "Han shot first" was the original, and the revision changed that.  But Greedo was holding Han at gun-point, so it was still self defense.  Greedo had it coming ...) 

Paladin from "Have Gun, Will Travel" was generally on the side of human rights, and only a time or two worked for the local protection racket. He usually sought the libertarian solution rather than the more expedient, and expected, coercive short cut. And he was chivalrous.

The real life heroes to many libertarians could include Clint Eastwood, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, or Robert A. Heinlein. Each has good and bad points, while being mostly libertarian. One danger with real people is that they tend to be less predictable than fictional characters (thus not as easily pigeonholed), and more likely to disappoint if you place their pedestal too high.

Fortunately, you aren't trapped by what others do. Try to mimic the good, learn from the failures, don't idolize, and always think for yourself.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"I submitted- so should you"

"I was raped, so you need to just shut up and cooperate with your rapist, too!"

That's what I hear when immigrants who jumped through all the "legal hoops" to get into the former America claim that "illegal immigrants" should have done the same.

That's what I hear when gun owners, who have begged permission from The State to be "allowed" to carry their gun, jump on a gun owner who recognizes there is no legitimate authority to violate his rights in any way.

It's what I hear when "drivers" refuse to support a person caught for "driving without a license".

It's what I hear anytime someone supports the violation of another person because that person didn't submit to the same abuses that others submitted to.

You would never do this... right?

Seems a cowardly way to live, if you asked me.

-

And please don't forget.

"It's a choice"?

Is libertarianism a choice?  Why would anyone choose to embrace peaceful anarchism after observing how the statists prosper?

I never chose to be an anarchist. I must have had some predisposition to it, at least.

It was just who I always was and there was nothing to "choose" about it. It was the natural progression of my "self" as I matured.

I often look at the statists* around me- including the members of my own immediate family- and wonder why I had to be different. They prosper and have no qualms about getting their "paychecks" through theft. Why would I have "chosen" to be an anarchist, seeing how being a statist is so much easier and economically more rewarding?  Why would I have chosen to be a pariah?

-

*Yes, I realize this means most of them probably did not choose to be statist.  However, once they see that statism can not be separated from initiation of force and theft, at that point they have no choice but to make a choice: Either continue to be aggressive thieves, or be decent people.  That's why, I suspect, so few of them allow themselves to see.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Pardon me... could you spare a quoyne?"

If I ever manage to have my Silver Dubloons minted, I  think I shall call the thing which they are, a "quoyne", pronounced /koin/.

Only an absolute moron with a government "job" could mistake that for any other word which is spelled completely differently.  Right?

-

I am looking into financing the project on Kickstarter, but that's not looking too hopeful at the moment.  Too many different "issues", there.  Perhaps I can overcome them all; perhaps I shan't.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Shove 'em ALL off the edge

Those pictures of the Egyptians tossing an armored car full of enforcers right off the side of a bridge is very interesting to me.  It just goes to show that no matter the technological disparity between The State and regular people, it is still a fact that "we" outnumber them by a huge margin.

Thugs can do all sorts of things to try to domesticate the rest of us, but as soon as the illusion is broken- or the anger gets piqued enough- their technology becomes a death trap.

I wonder if the domestic US enforcer thugs in their armored vehicles will learn that lesson before their time comes.  Low IQ + cowardice + paycheck = not likely.

-

And please don't forget.

Selecting for Bad Guys and parasites

Let's say you live in a town that a great many people want desperately to live in due to its reputation for opportunities.  You have a few gates where new prospective residents (and visitors) are expected to enter.

At those gates you put the people through a lot of abuse- you treat them as suspects, demand they give up all sorts of rights and property, and expect them to voluntarily become property of the city.  And you have quotas so that a lot of people who want to get in are denied entry for no reason other than because of where they were born.

Yes, a lot of people want in bad enough to try to do it your way, but many times that number of people know they haven't got a shot at being allowed in if they do it by the book, so they find other routes in.

And, obviously, really bad guys don't even bother with your silly screening process; they just find a way to sneak in.

So, is it any wonder that by limiting the number of good guys coming in under your "system" you select for a glut of bad guys among the new residents?  And then you whine and say you will enclose your town inside a fence, not realizing a fence will change nothing- nothing good, anyway.  It will weed out more of the good people and even further select for the bad.  When you notice this unfortunate trend, you'll do more of the same- harder and harsher, and be "surprised" when the results get even worse.

The smart thing to do is to make it easy for everyone to make a living honestly (don't allow regulations, licenses, and "taxes"), and make it hard to survive being a thug or parasite.  That means don't offer freebies (which are never free) to anyone, and don't do anything to discourage everyone from being adequately armed at all times.

Don't fret over credentials, but only concern yourself with actions.  If someone tries to steal from you (or anyone), deal with it.  Nothing like "where he was born" or "what hoops he jumped through to get into your town" has any bearing on his actions.  None at all.

Until more people accept this truth, silly things like (unconstitutional and unethical) "border control" will keep making America into a worse and worse cage, to the detriment of everyone on both sides of the "border".

-

And please, don't forget.

.

"The Elites"

Are you concerned about the "elites" who "control everything"?

Good news.

There are no "elites".

There are some rich people who use the political method to get richer and to order you around.  But that "political power" only exists if you pretend it does.  Even their wealth depends on your cooperation.  Stop pretending that FRNs have value and those "rich people" will not be so rich anymore.

Sure, they may have some actual money (gold, silver, property) in their possession, but without the FRNs they accumulated having value, they would have to start spending their real money.  They might not be starting from the same place as you or me, but they would not be quite as advantaged.  They wouldn't be able to be "elite" unless you gave them that status.

Come to think of it, that's where they stand now.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Nit-picking ‘fairness’ only leaves you bitter 

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

A "free rider" is someone who uses a service that someone else paid for. In a free society, where everything is financed voluntarily, a person who uses the road, firefighters, or a tornado warning siren without paying towards funding those services could be described as a free rider.

Just how important a stumbling block do you consider this to be?

When a local shopkeeper helps fund the road, he does so in order to make it easier for people to get to his store. Everyone wins.

If a local shopkeeper who refused to help fund the road gets the business of a customer who also refused to contribute toward the road, then do those who paid for the road lose? Who does the "selfish" shopkeeper trade with locally and with whom does he spend the money he got from the "selfish" customer? Does he exist in a vacuum? If you still don't like the fact that he didn't contribute, you would be free to refuse to do business with him in any way.

Don't you think a road that's "worth it" would be built and maintained?

Firefighting is a similar situation. If your house is on fire your neighbor benefits when the fire department you contract with puts out the blaze. And if his house is on fire, but your fire department puts out the flames in order to save your house, he also gets a free ride. In that case he might get a bill for "services rendered", and if he doesn't pay, everyone in town will know who to refuse service to. But aren't you still getting all you paid for? Might nit-picking over whether someone else benefits unfairly just make you bitter?

Is it even possible for everyone to pay equally for every service they use? Not even under communism. However, that's only a problem if you insist on keeping a running tab to make sure everything is "fair". Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame says fairness is just a concept invented so dumb people could participate in discussions. When I observe the world, I think he's on to something.

Why not accept that you will be someone else's "free rider" in some circumstances, and the roles will constantly change?

Besides, in a free society you'd have enough money that you would never have to live with the guilt of not paying what you feel you owe, nor would anyone force you to associate with anyone else for any reason.

Is the free rider really important enough for you to give up your liberty to foil him?

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Taxes", welfare, theft, and the rest

First off, let me emphasize I am not advocating anything here, and my numbers are totally made up and meaningless, other than to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Larry makes $100 at his job.  He is "taxed" $30 even before he gets his money.  (If he manages to get a "refund" from the IRS of all or part of this money, then that amount drops out of the figuring.)  Everything he buys is "taxed" so that he actually only gets $50 worth of buying power in exchange for the life he has traded to his employer.

Now, if he gets food stamps and "free" medical services that amount to anything under $50, I can understand how he could be considered to not be stealing from other people.  If, on the other hand, he is getting "free stuff" in the amount of $55 I think it's pretty reasonable to say he is stealing (or at least "receiving stolen property") at least $5.

Of course, you also have to consider that the price of everything he buys is grossly inflated due to "taxation" at every step of the way.  No one EVER pays "taxes", fees, or any other governmentally-added expense except for the final purchaser.  (That's the "consumer"; you and me.)  This could give him some extra wiggle room.

So, I no longer really fault those who get some of their own money back- or believe they are doing so.  Plus, I suspect that it's all just an accounting trick and every dime of welfare is actually paid with Fed-counterfeited "money" rather than coming from "tax" money stolen from other productive humans.

Now, if you get your paycheck by working directly for "government", then all this goes right out the window.  You pay no "taxes"; it is just a game of smoke and mirrors (and more accounting tricks) to give the illusion of you paying.  If you do a "tax"-supported "job" that shouldn't be done by "government"*, such as a "public" school teacher, a cop, a DMV drone, military, a licensing bureaucrat, etc. then you are doubly wrong if you get additional "free stuff" from your employer in the form of "welfare".

But, assuming you are doing something that actually needs to be done, and would still need to be done even if no one were coerced to finance it, I don't think your are ethically wrong to take some of your money back from the thief- however much you can get.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea or won't hurt you, though.

Remember that there is a grave danger of becoming dependent upon handouts.  Think about how you'd react if the handouts suddenly stopped.  Or, worse, if you were told they would stop unless you did something you know to be wrong, to appease those who control the handouts.  Don't get yourself into that compromised position.

You'd be better off to only use any handouts to undercut The State and its agents in some way.  Use the "welfare" to buy silver, bullets, extra food, and things like that rather than the latest computer game or fancy "athletic" shoes.  But, it's your life and your choice.  Do with this information as you see fit.

*(Notice I am not saying that there would be no similar positions in a free society, but in that case, those who didn't want your "services" wouldn't be forced to pay for them.  But obviously, some of those "jobs" couldn't exist in a free society.)

-

And please don't forget.

The "government-owned word"

A group of psychopathic control freaks decided they "own" a particular word, and people try to accommodate them by tip-toeing around the truth.  The word is "coin".

I like the idea of these "Commodity discs".  And, I fully understand why they try to protect themselves from those aforementioned psychopaths by saying "Misrepresenting Commodity Discs as coins or legal tender is prohibited."  (And, why anyone would want to call real money "legal tender" is beyond me.  Let the counterfeit crap distributed by those who call themselves "government" suffer under that debility.)  But let's face it; they are coins, as the word is used commonly: a metal disc used as a store of trade value.

And trying to accommodate the psychopaths didn't protect Bernard von NotHaus from their vindictive attacks.

That the psychopaths have managed to steal the word "coin" to mean only those metal discs stamped out by people who have their permission and work for the same gang is irrelevant.  It's like saying "a gun isn't a gun unless it is one belonging to some individual who calls himself a government employee.  Otherwise it's a 'propulsion tube'!"  It's ridiculous.

I know a coin when I see one, and so do you.  It's just another one of those "laws" that is designed to make everyone an outlaw.  Well, fine.

They may not be "coin", but they are coins.

And so is every other "silver round" or "disc" out there.  Whether the control freaks like it or not.

-

I'd still love to be able to have my Silver Dubloons minted.  So if you have the desire and resources, talk to me.  Maybe we can work out a deal.  And I'll try to refrain from using the "government's word" when speaking of them.  Just so we both don't end up kidnapped by the psychopaths.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Don't be embarrassed to be different in a good way

To those who are uncomfortable with a "Security State" or a "Nanny State":  Go ahead and speak up.

It's OK to not want to be "safe"- to not want to be a controlled pet. To be different. Don't be shamed into silence.

If you feel that tingling in the back of your head when you hear some human drone yammering about the latest "terror threat", or worshiping cops, or praising some congressvermin, or agreeing with some anti-liberty "law"- gather your thoughts and respond.  YOU are the reasonable one.  THEY are the one who ought to be ashamed.

So speak up.

Don't cut them off or interrupt.  Let them trap themselves more completely by finishing their thought and letting you know just how deeply their denial runs.  Let them give you more ammo.  Let your silence unnerve them.

Then speak up.

You don't have to say a lot- you certainly don't have to go into a Randian monologue.  Just a well-placed snort can sometimes be enough to let the speaker know that they are pathetic in their love of their enslavement.  That they are a reprehensible coward.  And that you find their enthusiasm for such things disgusting.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Failure to communicate

It's easy to speak about liberty to those who understand the words- those who are, or are almost, in agreement.

It's harder to talk about liberty to statists who use similar words to mean opposite concepts.

I don't really like using words like "government", "laws", "patriot", or "America" when I write.  But those who need to hear about liberty the most have to read those words to even begin to understand where to begin- to have a starting point.  Or, at least I have come to believe that's the case.

That's why I try to link to what I mean when I use the words I use.  It doesn't help when someone is one of those who suffer from (or, perhaps enjoy) obstinate ignorance, but it's not my responsibility to fix them.

-

And please don't forget.

The "child porn" attacks

If you follow the news in the world of liberty activism you are probably aware that "someone" is trying to infect the computers of liberty activists with "child pornography".

I am hopeful that spreading the news of this will make the tactic ineffective and "they" will stop bothering.

From Oath Keepers (and from Claire) comes a lawyer's advice on what to do if you are targeted.

However, I think this lawyer is ignoring the reality that the culprit is probably someone associated with the FBI or other feds to begin with.  No one else really has any motive.

I have always been highly suspicious of any attempt to pin "child pornography" charges on those who are against the "government", or have made enemies in some local hive of enforcers, bureaucrats, or puppeticians.  It's just too convenient and silences just about any support for the person.  It makes their (former) friends turn their backs and join the witchhunt.

Use the information as you wish.  Being informed should help protect you from such an attack.

-

And please don't forget.

.

We are not all Mannings

Bradley Manning is a hero.

However, what he did is so incredibly costly to a person that there is no way I expect every employee of the military or other government branch to do the same thing.  It takes a bravery that is rare.

However, I DO expect every person who has principles worth anything to support Mr. Manning's brave and heroic actions.  Anything less is cowardly and just plain wrong.
-

And please don't forget.

.

Plan could save us from socialism pit

Plan could save us from socialism pit

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 5, 2013.  Also here: link)

There are a lot of libertarian books and authors out there. Most of the older examples can be rather dry and difficult for modern readers to wade through. As enlightening a book as Albert Jay Nock's 1935 work "Our Enemy, the State" is, it can't be considered light or leisurely reading. And it will upset a rosy view of government just as surely as any modern writing.

On the other hand, some of the more modern writers can be very entertaining while getting the uncompromising message across.

One such writer is L. Neil Smith, with his book "Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis".

Smith is best known as a science fiction writer, but there's no fiction in "Down With Power". The book is a series of no-holds-barred essays dealing with different, mostly State-created, problems and issues, and with his liberty-respecting solutions.

Smith is more hopeful of using the processes and mechanisms of "government" to affect the changes and correct the problems than am I, but it wouldn't bother me one bit to be wrong on this account. He could also be said to lean a bit more to the "conservative" side of the aisle, although that could just be an illusion due to his strong support of gun rights and his opposition to the modern religion of "Environmentalism".

He spans issues from "animal rights", to government-sanctioned marriage, to the indispensable Zero Aggression Principle, and just about everything in between. If you have a gripe, and it somehow involves people running and ruining the lives of others, he probably has something to say about it. You may not automatically agree with what he has to say, but it will do you good to be exposed to- and consider- his ideas, which are expressed in his own lively and passionate style.

His book wraps up with a chapter called "The Plan", where he lays out what could be done to rescue America from this current (and long in the making) cesspool of Democrat and Republican socialism. If put into action, he claims his plan would turn the country around and put it back on course in six months.

I have to agree that his plan would work spectacularly well, and I would love to see more people have the courage to implement it.

"Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis" runs about 300 pages and is available from Amazon.com for $14.99 or $9.99 for the Kindle version.

.

A bad trade

To all those who object to totally getting rid of "taxes" I have this to say:

If you can't have roads/military/schools/cops/whatever without theft/coercion then "perhaps" you are better off without them. It's not a good trade. Count me out.

-

And please don't forget..

"Don't trust 'em" isn't new

Back about 13 years ago I had just been dropped off in a strange city in a distant state because I had foolishly followed my new (and now long-since ex) wife to her hometownish region.  (Happy birthday to her, by the way.)

I was staying in a motel for a while, without any transportation (yes, to get there I flew on a commercial plane- with knives and a straggler bullet that I found later) and having nothing much to do, I walked around the area.

Most of the time I spent exploring the woods in the area, following bear sign, hiding from ATVs, and finding strange relics and ruins, but I also discovered a gun store down the street.

I had looked around inside for a while and then left and started walking back to the motel.  Suddenly a cloudburst occurred.

An older man who had also just left the gun store stopped and asked if I would like a ride, and I accepted.  And then he gave me a warning.  He told me that the gun store's owner was a former cop and that a lot of the customers who frequented the store were cops or former cops, so I should be very careful what I said in the store.  A warning?  And I hadn't spoken a word to anyone while in there, other than a "no thanks... I'm just looking"

This was back when I still believed there were probably some "good cops" out there.  Back before I was "online" and before I ever really spoke up about anything.

I thanked him for the warning, and never went in that store again.  Even back then I knew the type I didn't need to risk being around.

-

And please don't forget.

Libertarians protecting people from themselves?

"In a libertarian society, prisons would likely be privatized, but the system would bear little resemblance to today’s prisons; the only people in prison would be violent criminals likely to strike again and people who refused to compensate their victims." ~ Dr. Mary Ruwart (From this newsletter)

In a free society there would likely be no "laws" prohibiting people from being adequately armed, nor from defending themselves (and others) and their property.  

The "repeat offender" would not be expected to have a long career.  Or life.  You can only beat the odds for so long, and when the odds are stacked against you so massively, "for so long" turns out to be very short, indeed.

The only real excuse for a prison in a free society would be to protect unrepentant thieves and thugs from their next victim.  That translates into actually protecting them from themselves.

But wait.  Most of us accept that it is wrong to protect people from themselves, in just about every instance.  So that would mean a free society has no place for prisons.

-

And please don't forget.

Kent's Top Ten List of Cat Names

#10 Fluffy der Litterslinger

#9 Rip Climbcurtain

#8 Whiskers Handbiter

#7 Sleepy Dotchaser

#6 Pukey McHackenbarf

#5 Thing Tut

#4 Fuzzy Lickbottom

#3 Claws McShredder

#2 Hissy Nosetickle

And the #1 cat name that I will never be permitted to give to one of my cats:

                  Spastic O'Speedbump

(Dogs, too)

-

And please don't forget.

Ariel Castro promises Amanda Berry a "fair trial"

The next time some flag-waving "patriot" gets red in the face over Edward Snowden or his Russian asylum, ask them this question:  Why isn't Amanda Berry being pursued by US authorities and being forced to seek temporary asylum in Russia?

After all, Berry did the exact same thing that Snowden did: she reported the crimes of a criminal.  But in her case, only one criminal (or is it two?).  Snowden reported the crimes of thousands of criminals.  Shouldn't the "White House" have offered to give Berry a "fair trial" like it offered Snowden?  Or, would it have been more similar to have Ariel Castro be the one offering Berry the deal?  Why did Castro end up the one sentenced to prison instead of the whistleblower who reported him?

Supporting the prosecution and persecution of Snowden is the moral equivalent of seeking the same treatment for every other crime victim.  Because yes, Edward Snowden is also a victim of the crimes he reported, just as Amanda Berry was a victim with the other 2 women who were enslaved alongside her.

So why isn't Ariel Castro- the criminal- offering Amanda Berry- his whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial", just like the various and sundry spokesvermin of the US Fedgov- the criminals- are offering Edward Snowden- the whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial"?

Oops. I forgot.  The difference is just who the criminal happens to be.

Double standards disgust me, and this is a big one.  Victims should never be the ones put through the ringer of the so-called "justice system".

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Thinking is too hard!"

It is so much easier to be an emotionally-driven "patriot" waving that federal flag, squealing about "The USA!", and hating everyone who seems to show a hint of the "Man behind the Curtain" than it is to actually think things through.

Yes, I've known this for a very long time, and was guilty of it myself years ago.  But the recent events of the Bradley Manning injustice and the Edward Snowden fiasco really brought it home.  Well, it was the reactions of so many "patriots" that really brought it home.

It reminds me of a bunch of angry baboons- ruled by their aggressive emotions, and loyal to the troop "leaders" no matter what they are doing.  It's really sad.  Humans should be smarter than this.  We have brains.  Use them.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Free-market roads concept possible

Free-market roads concept possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 28, 2013.  First of the neutered columns.)

Are you under the impression that free market roads would be impossible, or at least impossibly complicated?

Then I have good news for you.

There are many possible ways for roads to be provided in a free society, even assuming unfettered technology wouldn't make roads obsolete.

Business owners could voluntarily join forces to provide roads and bridges that service their area so that customers could reach them comfortably. Neighbors could band together voluntarily to service the roads they use to get where they need to go. Companies could spring up to provide roads for a fee on your car insurance, or in some similar way. There could be toll road companies that bill you monthly for your use of their roads. You don't think road use is currently free, do you?

You'll still pay to use the road, but there will be accountability. The advantages of that should be obvious.

Privately owned roads had better be good, since the owner could be liable for any damage to your person or property due to poor maintenance or other road hazards like snow, ice, or tumbleweeds. Restitution would be a powerful incentive. Still, potholes happen.

Cars in a free society would probably be better at avoiding or dealing with problems than those we now drive. Perhaps they will automatically avoid that pothole to prevent the impact completely. If this fails and your car is damaged anyway, the road's owner may be able to recover some portion of the restitution he pays you from the car's manufacturer because of this malfunction.

Perhaps cars would immediately contact a database to report a road hazard, and its exact coordinates, so that other drivers (or their cars) could be alerted to avoid it, and repair crews could be dispatched.

If someone refuses to pay, either for use of the road or for damages from flawed maintenance, arbitration could be sought.

There could still be patrols to make sure no one is driving dangerously, but they would never have authority above any other individual, and would be held accountable if they violate your rights; they and their employer would be personally liable for any abuse or harm you suffered at their hands.

I can't go into every possibility even I can think of in a column this short, and the solutions might be completely different, anyway. In a free society there wouldn't be a "one-size-fits-all" way to provide roads. Anyone would be free to experiment and compete with roads he found inadequate in some way. How might you do it, if you had the opportunity, without coercion?

.

The Bradley Manning verdict- irony in action

Let's engage in some far-out fantasy for a moment and pretend that there is such a thing as "treason" or such a person as a "traitor" in relation to a "country".

Yeah, I did warn you that this is fantasy.

In such an imaginary scenario, the only reason the government of the US existed was because of the Constitution.  The Constitution created it from nothing.

The Constitution was the government that those so inclined were loyal to.  Not the president, congress, Supreme Court, generals, "superior" officers, bureaucrats, or "laws".  Not even "the country".  Any orders or "laws" that violated the Constitution were "treason" and the person issuing those orders, a "traitor".

So, when a person took an oath to uphold, support, or defend the Constitution of The United States (as opposed to America), that person was swearing loyalty to the US.  Whether or not that is a good thing is a subject for another day.

So Bradley Manning took that oath, and is now being punished under the pretext that he violated it, for upholding it.  For being honorable enough to knowingly risk his life, liberty, and property by doing the right thing.  Because, by his actions he exposed the evil deeds of those who violated their identical oaths, but who were doing so in a way that others (their "superiors" and "patriotic Americans") wanted them to.  And for this he is being called the "traitor", when he is the only one, between him and his accusers and persecutors, to whom that word can't apply in any way.  The same goes for Edward Snowden.

Those calling for Manning's head on a platter are seriously confused.  They mistake the criminals who violated their oaths for the good guys "serving their country", and the guy who actually honored his unwise oath for the "traitor" deserving of harsh punishment.  The actual bad guys are being confused for the good guys by a purposely confused population of illiterates who can't think past their emotionalism.

Well, confused or just plain evil.  Just which it is will be exposed by their words or actions in the next few days.

-

And please don't forget.

Writing about the room while pretending the elephant isn't stinking up the place

There are some facts that it is almost impossible to ignore when speaking honestly about the religion of Statism.  For example: that their imaginary god is supported by theft and coercion- and is, in fact, nothing but theft and coercion when you dig right to the root of the matter.

Well, and that it is imaginary.  There is nothing behind the priests and worshipers.

And those are the facts I am not allowed to mention in my CNJ columns, at least for the time being.  Which makes for a much more difficult task.

So, I am trying to go at it from a different angle, which is taking a lot more thinking energy, and a lot more time, for the same amount of pay.  Funny what that does to the ol' motivation.

But I'm taking it one column at a time, and seeing where it goes from here.  I hope you are tagging along.

-

And please don't forget.

"Libertarian Money" blog

I was first made aware of "Libertarian Money" blog after its author left a comment on this blog.  And I immediately subscribed by "The Old Reader", have been reading it ever since, and am really impressed.

You would do well to also subscribe, but first read this excellent post to see what I'm talking about.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Kent's Top Ten List of Dog Names

#10 - Rabies O'Piddler
#9 - The Flea RV
#8 - Stinky de Gasblaster
#7 - Destructinator
#6 - The AntiCat
#5 - Puddles McBitebite
#4 - Sir Fartsalot
#3 - Barack
#2 - Begger Lee Drooldripper

And the #1 name for any dog I might someday have- Bitey "The Barker" McPoopenpisser

(Cats, too)

-

And please don't forget.

.

Complicating the simple

Consider this "puzzle":

Suppose we agree that everyone has a right to life, but that a person forfeits this right when he threatens the life of another — in that case it’s permissible to kill him.

Now consider three people, A, B, and C. A aims a gun at B, B aims a gun at C, and C aims a gun at A. When A takes aim, he’s threatening another person, so he loses his own right to life. Normally in that case C would be justified in killing him, since this defends B. But B is aiming at C, which means he forfeits his own right to life … which means that A can kill him, and that C can’t kill A.

There seems no way to resolve this under the rules we’ve laid out. “Each actor has a right to life if he or she lacks a right to life and lacks a right to life if he or she has a right to life,” wrote University of Tulsa law professor Russell Christopher, who offered the puzzle in 1998. He uses it to suggest that subjective factors such as motive, belief, and knowledge must be considered when making these judgments.
(Russell Christopher, “Self-Defense and Defense of Others,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Spring 1998)

But, it doesn't confuse me.  Because I don't think anyone can forfeit a right.  It's just that each of us has a right to defend himself (and his property), and that means that sometimes aggressors (and thieves/vandals) get killed.

When you consider a problem "under the rules we’ve laid out", but your rules are flawed, you will have difficulty resolving it, if you can resolve it at all.  Which is why liberty will never be found using the political method.  You are working under flawed "rules".

-

And please don't forget.

.

Liberty Lines- July 25, 2013 (Updated publication date)

(Oops!  This was originally posted here on the 18th, but it got bumped from the paper until the 25th.  That means it appears in the special Border Town Days edition of the paper.  That might be a good thing.

Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico State Line Tribune, July 25, 2013)

-

Frederick Bastiat pointed out in 1850, in his book "The Law", that each of us has the individual right to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights predate any idea of law or government.

Because these rights exist, people discover Natural Law to protect them.

Once the laws have been discovered (not "written", as is every counterfeit "law") people often join together to form government, based upon the protection of life, liberty, and property, through those laws.

Anytime laws are written that do anything other than protect these individual rights, the laws have become perverted and harmful.

Anytime a government begins to pass and enforce these upside down and backwards "laws", the government has been corrupted; it has become a State.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in his 1935 book "Our Enemy, The State", once a society has rejected the social institution of government (which exists solely to assist in the protection of individual rights) for the inherently anti-social monstrosity of a State (which is based upon "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property for its own benefit), nothing can prevent its destruction.

The only thing that can be done at that point is to give the warning so that wise people can prepare.

Sadly, America is far down this path with the whole-hearted enthusiasm of most of its residents; supporting myriad "laws" that violate the nature of legitimate law and natural rights in more ways than it is possible to count. Look around and you will see property codes, taxes, prohibition, anti-gun "laws", requirements for licenses and permits, "national security"... the list could go on and on. Each and every one of these abominable counterfeit "laws" does the opposite of what legitimate government would do, and plays right into the hands of The State.

You've been warned. Prepare to ride it out and sit back and enjoy the show.

-

And please don't forget.

.

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.

.