Freedom isn't free. You have to earn it by giving up your addiction to "government".
Not just the parts of "government" you will admit kill freedom, but also the parts you like, which you pretend somehow "protect" freedom. You know, the parts that only impact someone else's freedom- as far as you know.
Freedom and government are mutually exclusive. Every bit of governing kills a bit of freedom. Not only that, but every bit of government that is allowed to persist always grows. If you do nothing freedom will automatically be replaced piece by piece by "government". You must continually chop away at government to keep from losing ground, unless you manage to just get rid of the entire tumor of "government" once and for all.
I read something the other day:
"Conservatives want to keep the federal government open—we just want to shut down Obamacare."
That's precisely why I am not a "conservative". I think it's extremely dishonest to claim "Hey, we don't want to cut out the whole cancerous tumor, just this one little microscopic bit of it."
That is the excuse of someone not willing to pay the price of freedom.
.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Forced sharing isn’t sharing
Forced sharing isn’t sharing
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 23, 2013)
Recently, in this column, I have been trying to illustrate concrete ways libertarianism works in real life, each and every day, sometimes for people who don't even realize they are behaving as libertarians.
The common thread should be obvious: it's not difficult to act in a libertarian manner. It's how almost all of us were taught to behave from our very earliest experiences with other people.
"Don't start fights." "Don't take what isn't yours." Those are good lessons and are the foundation of being a decent person- of being libertarian.
One lesson almost universally imposed on small children, though, is less helpful. That is "You have to share."
If you are given no choice in how your property is used by another person, it isn't "sharing".
It can be a considerate thing to decide to let someone else use your property. Usually. It can't be done under coercion or it isn't "sharing", no matter what the parents may call it. It needs to be a choice freely made, or it is worthless.
I suspect that parents often make this demand to keep the "have-not" kid quiet, not thinking of the long-term consequences.
If you know the other person will refuse to give your property back, or will damage it while using it, then refusing to share is the wiser choice. To teach children that they have no say in how their property is used is not a good lesson. Your teachings will cause more trouble later on, particularly if the child takes the idea to its logical conclusion. If they do, and decide that what applies to them also applies to everyone else, then you have a likely vandal or thief on your hands who will believe if they want it, someone owes it to them.
There is a lesson in the value of things, and it doesn't come by undermining ownership. Teaching kids to respect other people's property begins with respecting theirs. The forced "sharing" does teach a lesson, however, but that lesson is perverted.
We see the danger of this lesson all around us today. People grow up to believe they can be "generous" with other people's money. In their attempt to "share" they implement taxes and distribute welfare. If you really want to share, do it. If you must take other people's money to put toward your goal, you are not sharing.
It's not complicated; it's life. Just like every other aspect of libertarianism.
Recently, in this column, I have been trying to illustrate concrete ways libertarianism works in real life, each and every day, sometimes for people who don't even realize they are behaving as libertarians.
The common thread should be obvious: it's not difficult to act in a libertarian manner. It's how almost all of us were taught to behave from our very earliest experiences with other people.
"Don't start fights." "Don't take what isn't yours." Those are good lessons and are the foundation of being a decent person- of being libertarian.
One lesson almost universally imposed on small children, though, is less helpful. That is "You have to share."
If you are given no choice in how your property is used by another person, it isn't "sharing".
It can be a considerate thing to decide to let someone else use your property. Usually. It can't be done under coercion or it isn't "sharing", no matter what the parents may call it. It needs to be a choice freely made, or it is worthless.
I suspect that parents often make this demand to keep the "have-not" kid quiet, not thinking of the long-term consequences.
If you know the other person will refuse to give your property back, or will damage it while using it, then refusing to share is the wiser choice. To teach children that they have no say in how their property is used is not a good lesson. Your teachings will cause more trouble later on, particularly if the child takes the idea to its logical conclusion. If they do, and decide that what applies to them also applies to everyone else, then you have a likely vandal or thief on your hands who will believe if they want it, someone owes it to them.
There is a lesson in the value of things, and it doesn't come by undermining ownership. Teaching kids to respect other people's property begins with respecting theirs. The forced "sharing" does teach a lesson, however, but that lesson is perverted.
We see the danger of this lesson all around us today. People grow up to believe they can be "generous" with other people's money. In their attempt to "share" they implement taxes and distribute welfare. If you really want to share, do it. If you must take other people's money to put toward your goal, you are not sharing.
It's not complicated; it's life. Just like every other aspect of libertarianism.
Choosing libertarianism
I didn't choose libertarianism; it chose me.
For someone who came to libertarianism along some other path, this might seem a strange statement. It's true, though. I didn't set out to "become libertarian". I am what I am, and what I am turns out to be libertarian.
Sure, after I discovered that libertarianism exists (as more than just the "drugs, guns, and sex" that I had heard mentioned as "what libertarianism is") I was able to refine my views- it's funny how reading what those who came before you wrote will help that happen. But even before I read "Lever Action" by L. Neil Smith, I was already more libertarian than most of the nationally famous "libertarians" you'll encounter. I just didn't have a name for it, yet.
As I mentioned above, I had heard the term "libertarian" a few times over the years, but it was always in a dismissive way. "Those crazy 'sex, drugs, and rock & roll' libertarians". It was a caricature that bore no resemblance to the reality, and one that didn't interest me, but I never thought about it long enough to take a look for myself. Before the internet I'm not sure how I ever would have found out the truth, without making more of an effort than my level of interest would have fueled.
But, however it happened, I'm glad it did.
.
For someone who came to libertarianism along some other path, this might seem a strange statement. It's true, though. I didn't set out to "become libertarian". I am what I am, and what I am turns out to be libertarian.
Sure, after I discovered that libertarianism exists (as more than just the "drugs, guns, and sex" that I had heard mentioned as "what libertarianism is") I was able to refine my views- it's funny how reading what those who came before you wrote will help that happen. But even before I read "Lever Action" by L. Neil Smith, I was already more libertarian than most of the nationally famous "libertarians" you'll encounter. I just didn't have a name for it, yet.
As I mentioned above, I had heard the term "libertarian" a few times over the years, but it was always in a dismissive way. "Those crazy 'sex, drugs, and rock & roll' libertarians". It was a caricature that bore no resemblance to the reality, and one that didn't interest me, but I never thought about it long enough to take a look for myself. Before the internet I'm not sure how I ever would have found out the truth, without making more of an effort than my level of interest would have fueled.
But, however it happened, I'm glad it did.
.
Monday, September 23, 2013
I am a pleasant guy. Honest.
By a strange coincidence, after my post yesterday morning, I found myself talking to the new (government) school superintendent yesterday afternoon.
He just recently (first of the "school year") moved to town, and bought the house next door to my parents', and while I was over there doing some work yesterday, he came over to ask some local lawn care advice.
Yes, I do take care of my parents' lawn, but if you knew me you would know how much of a "lawn person" I am not. Hate the things. I'd rather grow sand dunes and cactus, and edible "weeds". But this year, for the first time in ages, my parents' lawn does look good (according to majority tastes).
The new superintendent moved here from a wetter region, and boy will he be surprised if this recent wet spell doesn't repeat next summer. He was asking how much water my parents' lawn gets to look as good as it does, so I told him how I water it.
And, even knowing who the guy is, not ONCE did I mention that I think all government schools need to be burned to the ground, the ruins bulldozed, and salt spread on the ashes. See how nice I am?
.
He just recently (first of the "school year") moved to town, and bought the house next door to my parents', and while I was over there doing some work yesterday, he came over to ask some local lawn care advice.
Yes, I do take care of my parents' lawn, but if you knew me you would know how much of a "lawn person" I am not. Hate the things. I'd rather grow sand dunes and cactus, and edible "weeds". But this year, for the first time in ages, my parents' lawn does look good (according to majority tastes).
The new superintendent moved here from a wetter region, and boy will he be surprised if this recent wet spell doesn't repeat next summer. He was asking how much water my parents' lawn gets to look as good as it does, so I told him how I water it.
And, even knowing who the guy is, not ONCE did I mention that I think all government schools need to be burned to the ground, the ruins bulldozed, and salt spread on the ashes. See how nice I am?
.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Don't "activist" yourself to death
I don't pick up bags full of trash every time I go to the park. Of course, I don't ever throw any trash down either. Well, I almost always will pick up at least one piece of trash sometime during my stay- while my daughter plays. But it's incidental, not "What I'm Doing".
Similarly, I don't say something libertarian every single time someone around me says some ridiculous thing in advocacy of The State or some other form of theft or coercion. While not every moment is a mandatory time to consciously spread libertarianism, I still don't violate ZAP and I don't violate property rights.
I think of it as not littering the world with more statism- there's plenty clogging up the works already.
And, if asked, I don't hesitate to give my opinion (after a disclaimer/warning).
.
Similarly, I don't say something libertarian every single time someone around me says some ridiculous thing in advocacy of The State or some other form of theft or coercion. While not every moment is a mandatory time to consciously spread libertarianism, I still don't violate ZAP and I don't violate property rights.
I think of it as not littering the world with more statism- there's plenty clogging up the works already.
And, if asked, I don't hesitate to give my opinion (after a disclaimer/warning).
.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Stop making it illegal
"Legalize"? "Decriminalize"?
Those words make me think of something that is wrong or shady being made sorta OK in the eyes of "the law". Like the thugs of State are saying: "it's really still wrong, but we'll allow you to do it to a limited degree, with the proper oversight".
I don't care what "the law says", or rather what those silly beings who enforce it think.
Unillegalize it! Whatever "it" may be.
(Of course, I realize the best thing is to just ignore the stupid "laws" and do what you want- as long as you harm no one else- but some people don't like the specter of "arrest" and a "criminal record" hanging over their heads.)
.
Those words make me think of something that is wrong or shady being made sorta OK in the eyes of "the law". Like the thugs of State are saying: "it's really still wrong, but we'll allow you to do it to a limited degree, with the proper oversight".
I don't care what "the law says", or rather what those silly beings who enforce it think.
Unillegalize it! Whatever "it" may be.
(Of course, I realize the best thing is to just ignore the stupid "laws" and do what you want- as long as you harm no one else- but some people don't like the specter of "arrest" and a "criminal record" hanging over their heads.)
.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Feeeelings....
Dang it! I must be human, and not some emotionless libertarian robot, after all!
From time to time someone will say something to me, or about me, that makes it all worthwhile. Recently I have received a few of these. The one below was posted publicly on Facebook by a "local", so I feel safe about sharing it with you.
I also have gotten a few more like that in private correspondence, so I won't share them. I just got a really nice one in the mail. They touch me deeply and always make me smile. It brightens my day. And it gives me a sign that I don't write in vain. Thank you!
.
From time to time someone will say something to me, or about me, that makes it all worthwhile. Recently I have received a few of these. The one below was posted publicly on Facebook by a "local", so I feel safe about sharing it with you.
"I didn't understand you for the longest time. I do now. Keep writing. Others will come to understand also."
I also have gotten a few more like that in private correspondence, so I won't share them. I just got a really nice one in the mail. They touch me deeply and always make me smile. It brightens my day. And it gives me a sign that I don't write in vain. Thank you!
.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Non-libertarian conspiracy theorists
Libertarians get a bad rap where conspiracy theories are concerned. But that's not very honest. The entire political and philosophical landscape is filled with conspiracy theories.
People from the "left" and the "right" love to dismiss the views of libertarians by calling us "conspiracy theorists"- and some libertarians are- but I've noticed that libertarians aren't the only ones with their own brand of conspiracy theories.
"Conservatives" and "liberals" each have their own particular types of conspiracy theories they spread endlessly.
I'm sure that is you have a variety of people in your circles you have been exposed to some conservative conspiracy theories and some liberal conspiracy theories.
"Conservatives" love their theories about different religions taking over "Our Country", about "other races" being given special status that allows them to get away with crimes, and other things that threaten "traditional values".
"Liberals" love their theories about "The NRA", rich guys ("The Koch Brothers") influencing political policies, and "conservatives" rewinding science and the rights of "others" back to the Dark Ages.
And, yes, both fears have some basis in truth. Which makes it stupid to "run" the world by the political method.
Yes, there ARE conspiracies in the world. Anytime two or more people plot to gain power, "authority", or property by fooling or scaring people into giving them what they want (or when they simply steal it for themselves) you have a conspiracy.
.
People from the "left" and the "right" love to dismiss the views of libertarians by calling us "conspiracy theorists"- and some libertarians are- but I've noticed that libertarians aren't the only ones with their own brand of conspiracy theories.
"Conservatives" and "liberals" each have their own particular types of conspiracy theories they spread endlessly.
I'm sure that is you have a variety of people in your circles you have been exposed to some conservative conspiracy theories and some liberal conspiracy theories.
"Conservatives" love their theories about different religions taking over "Our Country", about "other races" being given special status that allows them to get away with crimes, and other things that threaten "traditional values".
"Liberals" love their theories about "The NRA", rich guys ("The Koch Brothers") influencing political policies, and "conservatives" rewinding science and the rights of "others" back to the Dark Ages.
And, yes, both fears have some basis in truth. Which makes it stupid to "run" the world by the political method.
Yes, there ARE conspiracies in the world. Anytime two or more people plot to gain power, "authority", or property by fooling or scaring people into giving them what they want (or when they simply steal it for themselves) you have a conspiracy.
.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
How to facilitate education debate continues to grow
How to facilitate education debate continues to grow
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 16, 2013)
Sometimes the free market takes a bite out of the government's pie even though it means people are forced to pay for something twice: once for the government service they don't want and won't use, and once for the free market alternative they prefer.
Education is a prime example.
Almost everyone agrees education is critically important. Where people differ is in what they believe to be the best way to facilitate education.
Private schools are big business and provide the most mainstream educational alternative. However, most still use the same template and abide by the same standards set for government schools, and for a growing number of people that isn't good enough.
Therefore various methods of "home schooling" have arisen. Associating the word "schooling" with education is unfortunate, since they are unrelated, but it is an appropriate description for the majority of home education. Education can happen in a "school" environment, but it isn't the only way, and for many kids it is not a good way.
One of the fastest growing types of home education is called "unschooling". It recognizes that young humans are learning machines, until others manage to destroy that drive. Unschooling unhitches education from the "school" wagon.
You can't teach if no one is learning. It is up to the student whether to learn or not. If you stop to think about it you should realize teachers are cheerleaders at best, and roadblocks at worst. The best "teachers" simply let people learn.
It has been shown, for example, that kids will learn to read on their own when they decide to do so. All it takes is some incentive- such as being able to read instructions for video games or to be able to navigate the Internet. They learn when it is necessary for their life.
The same goes for anything else a person needs to know- the best time to learn something is when you need (or want) to know it, not when someone else decides you should. Things you learn on your own schedule, in your own way, will stay with you for the rest of your life, not just until your next test.
This isn't to say one way is wrong and another way is right- it's about allowing people to choose the path which makes the most sense for them, and not forcing them to subsidize anyone else's choice.
Competition is good. For now, alternative methods for education will keep having to compete with each other and with the government service. And free market alternatives will keep being chosen and keep outperforming.
Sometimes the free market takes a bite out of the government's pie even though it means people are forced to pay for something twice: once for the government service they don't want and won't use, and once for the free market alternative they prefer.
Education is a prime example.
Almost everyone agrees education is critically important. Where people differ is in what they believe to be the best way to facilitate education.
Private schools are big business and provide the most mainstream educational alternative. However, most still use the same template and abide by the same standards set for government schools, and for a growing number of people that isn't good enough.
Therefore various methods of "home schooling" have arisen. Associating the word "schooling" with education is unfortunate, since they are unrelated, but it is an appropriate description for the majority of home education. Education can happen in a "school" environment, but it isn't the only way, and for many kids it is not a good way.
One of the fastest growing types of home education is called "unschooling". It recognizes that young humans are learning machines, until others manage to destroy that drive. Unschooling unhitches education from the "school" wagon.
You can't teach if no one is learning. It is up to the student whether to learn or not. If you stop to think about it you should realize teachers are cheerleaders at best, and roadblocks at worst. The best "teachers" simply let people learn.
It has been shown, for example, that kids will learn to read on their own when they decide to do so. All it takes is some incentive- such as being able to read instructions for video games or to be able to navigate the Internet. They learn when it is necessary for their life.
The same goes for anything else a person needs to know- the best time to learn something is when you need (or want) to know it, not when someone else decides you should. Things you learn on your own schedule, in your own way, will stay with you for the rest of your life, not just until your next test.
This isn't to say one way is wrong and another way is right- it's about allowing people to choose the path which makes the most sense for them, and not forcing them to subsidize anyone else's choice.
Competition is good. For now, alternative methods for education will keep having to compete with each other and with the government service. And free market alternatives will keep being chosen and keep outperforming.
.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Anti-liberty bigots and their growing body count
Perhaps insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, but pure evil is trying to force others to accept your insanity as "common sense".
Never forget and never let the anti-liberty bigots distract you from the truth: "gun free zone" = slaughterhouse.
.
Never forget and never let the anti-liberty bigots distract you from the truth: "gun free zone" = slaughterhouse.
.
Pull together, don't shove
Everyone has their own magic theory they believe will lead to a freer future.
And most of those theories have some merit. Science, psychology, natural law, whatever. Maybe even "working within the system".
Not every idea is a good fit for every individual.
I think it's best to try all the theories out simultaneously- each person working from their own favorite angle. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Don't obsess over trashing the ideas of others.
If your idea is better, PROVE it! Not with words, but with results.
.
Not every idea is a good fit for every individual.
I think it's best to try all the theories out simultaneously- each person working from their own favorite angle. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Don't obsess over trashing the ideas of others.
If your idea is better, PROVE it! Not with words, but with results.
.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Watching inside your house with infrared and reading your emails
A while back, on Claire Wolfe's blog, the discussion was about privacy. I agreed with those who said that, while irritating, I (and my property) had no right to not be looked at or photographed while outdoors, or in public.
I added: "Now, if they use infrared (or anything else) to see inside my house, that’s another issue. It’s the difference between what I have in the open and clearly visible, and what I have concealed on my property." (link to full comment)
Then, Thomas Knapp said: "I have to disagree with Kent on infra-red. My ability to generate heat does not in any way create an obligation on the part of others not to look at the heat I generate."
I realized where he was coming from and decided I had been wrong initially.
But... I keep thinking about something else connected to this and it keeps nagging me... and I hope Thomas Knapp weighs in on this again.
What's the difference between being watched inside your home with an infrared camera, and having your emails, phone calls, and internet usage watched and analyzed? It seems to me to be different manifestations of the same kind of behavior. If it's OK to watch people inside their homes with infrared, then wouldn't it be OK to read their emails and other "private" communications? And if it is wrong to read your neighbors' private emails, wouldn't it also be wrong to watch them inside their homes?
There seems to be a connection there. If I am wrong about that, I would like to know why.
.
I added: "Now, if they use infrared (or anything else) to see inside my house, that’s another issue. It’s the difference between what I have in the open and clearly visible, and what I have concealed on my property." (link to full comment)
Then, Thomas Knapp said: "I have to disagree with Kent on infra-red. My ability to generate heat does not in any way create an obligation on the part of others not to look at the heat I generate."
I realized where he was coming from and decided I had been wrong initially.
But... I keep thinking about something else connected to this and it keeps nagging me... and I hope Thomas Knapp weighs in on this again.
What's the difference between being watched inside your home with an infrared camera, and having your emails, phone calls, and internet usage watched and analyzed? It seems to me to be different manifestations of the same kind of behavior. If it's OK to watch people inside their homes with infrared, then wouldn't it be OK to read their emails and other "private" communications? And if it is wrong to read your neighbors' private emails, wouldn't it also be wrong to watch them inside their homes?
There seems to be a connection there. If I am wrong about that, I would like to know why.
.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Malcolm Reynolds, whistle-blower
Captain Malcolm Reynolds, in the movie "Serenity", is Edward Snowden. He is Chelsea/Bradley Manning.
Consider this quote from Mal, which sets the stage for the epic battle the movie centers around:
That's the same thing all the Edward Snowdens and Chelsea/Bradley Mannings have said about the incriminating evidence they uncovered. And, just like Mal, they are on the right side.
.
Consider this quote from Mal, which sets the stage for the epic battle the movie centers around:
"I know the secret. The truth that burned up River Tam's brain. The rest of the 'verse is gonna know it too. Cuz they need to."
That's the same thing all the Edward Snowdens and Chelsea/Bradley Mannings have said about the incriminating evidence they uncovered. And, just like Mal, they are on the right side.
.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Liberty Lines 9-12-2013
(Published in The State Line Tribune, Farwell TX/Texico NM)
Until people stop looking for answers in all the wrong places, they will continue to be led astray. Or worse.
I saw a news story out of Albuquerque that mentioned that "several organizations are asking how the (mayoral) candidates plan to keep people safe".
Sorry, but no mayor can "keep people safe". Nor can their employees or co-workers. That is YOUR job.
In a similar vein, some people beg politicians to show "leadership" on one issue or another.
Looking to politicians for leadership is like fishing for bluefin tuna in your kid's wading pool. You're going to either come up empty, or someone is pulling a fast one on you. Leadership from politicians? You might as well beg a newborn to rebuild your transmission.
Any leadership you imagine you see from politicians will lead to the wrong place. And why would you want to follow them anywhere? This group of people is notoriously incapable of running their own personal lives. Why would you want them "helping" you with yours?
Don't look for politicians to "help" the middle class, or families, or taxpayers, or anyone else. They are not capable of doing anything to help anyone but themselves. Even if they give the appearance of helping you, it is an illusion that will end up doing more harm in the long run.
The only positive effect any politician or bureaucrat can have is by getting out of the way. But that isn't rewarded with votes; it looks too much like "doing nothing". In truth, "nothing" is the best thing they can do.
Don't waste your precious life waiting for help to come from someone else. Life is built from the bottom up, not handed down to you from Washington DC or Austin.
That doesn't mean it's completely pointless to pay attention to what the Keystone Kongress or the current president are doing. If you like Three Stooges movies you may get a laugh from watching the elected buffoons, too. Everyone needs a hobby. Just don't take them too seriously, and never look to them to provide leadership of any sort. That's a futile, and counterproductive, wish.
.
Until people stop looking for answers in all the wrong places, they will continue to be led astray. Or worse.
I saw a news story out of Albuquerque that mentioned that "several organizations are asking how the (mayoral) candidates plan to keep people safe".
Sorry, but no mayor can "keep people safe". Nor can their employees or co-workers. That is YOUR job.
In a similar vein, some people beg politicians to show "leadership" on one issue or another.
Looking to politicians for leadership is like fishing for bluefin tuna in your kid's wading pool. You're going to either come up empty, or someone is pulling a fast one on you. Leadership from politicians? You might as well beg a newborn to rebuild your transmission.
Any leadership you imagine you see from politicians will lead to the wrong place. And why would you want to follow them anywhere? This group of people is notoriously incapable of running their own personal lives. Why would you want them "helping" you with yours?
Don't look for politicians to "help" the middle class, or families, or taxpayers, or anyone else. They are not capable of doing anything to help anyone but themselves. Even if they give the appearance of helping you, it is an illusion that will end up doing more harm in the long run.
The only positive effect any politician or bureaucrat can have is by getting out of the way. But that isn't rewarded with votes; it looks too much like "doing nothing". In truth, "nothing" is the best thing they can do.
Don't waste your precious life waiting for help to come from someone else. Life is built from the bottom up, not handed down to you from Washington DC or Austin.
That doesn't mean it's completely pointless to pay attention to what the Keystone Kongress or the current president are doing. If you like Three Stooges movies you may get a laugh from watching the elected buffoons, too. Everyone needs a hobby. Just don't take them too seriously, and never look to them to provide leadership of any sort. That's a futile, and counterproductive, wish.
.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
9/11: "Liberty's Memorial"
On this date in 2001, liberty died. Killed not by "terrorists" or a false flag event, but by the reactions of normal people like you and me. People who allowed a gang of thugs, calling themselves "government", to destroy the concept of liberty and replace it with some sort of carefully rationed privilege- all because of a very public tragedy.
A privilege that exists only at the whim of those thugs, and is subservient to their wishes.
I came across an older newspaper the other day, from Memorial Day, and one of the ads in it spoke of "Freedom's Memorial". They were talking about a memorial to dead soldiers, but they spoke more truth than they know. You only memorialize something dead. And, government-employed soldiers, whatever their intentions might be, have always helped kill freedom.
So, if a carved monument to dead soldiers is "Freedom's Memorial", September 11, 2001 is Liberty's Memorial.
I remain saddened by the events of that morning, but not for the reasons most people seem to be. I am saddened because the "event" is ongoing, and accelerating. It stacks up more victims every day, and will continue to do so until each and every one of us says "Enough!" and means it and backs it up with decisive action. Unfortunately, I am not sure what that action should be. But I know it would be "illegal". The bad guys can't have liberty defeat their schemes.
.
A privilege that exists only at the whim of those thugs, and is subservient to their wishes.
I came across an older newspaper the other day, from Memorial Day, and one of the ads in it spoke of "Freedom's Memorial". They were talking about a memorial to dead soldiers, but they spoke more truth than they know. You only memorialize something dead. And, government-employed soldiers, whatever their intentions might be, have always helped kill freedom.
So, if a carved monument to dead soldiers is "Freedom's Memorial", September 11, 2001 is Liberty's Memorial.
I remain saddened by the events of that morning, but not for the reasons most people seem to be. I am saddened because the "event" is ongoing, and accelerating. It stacks up more victims every day, and will continue to do so until each and every one of us says "Enough!" and means it and backs it up with decisive action. Unfortunately, I am not sure what that action should be. But I know it would be "illegal". The bad guys can't have liberty defeat their schemes.
.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Read beyond your comfort zone
Read beyond your comfort zone
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 9, 2013.)
Just about anytime you bring up the subject of libertarian books and authors, someone will mention Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". That's OK, and I do enjoy the book- even the infamous monologue- while pointing out that it is not specifically libertarian. I will admit it has inspired a lot of people to shift their world-view in a more libertarian direction, though.
Most people seem to think "Atlas Shrugged" is too preachy, and many like to focus on Rand's personal shortcomings rather than stay focused on the book. For those people, and the rest of us, it's a good thing there are so many other libertarian books that are a lot more fun to read.
If fiction is your preference, you might like "Hope" by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, which looks at what might happen if a real libertarian ever found himself elected president. It's a fun story!
If you are a younger reader you might enjoy "Out of the Gray Zone" by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman which follows the adventures of a young escapee from a totalitarian society.
Many books by science fiction authors H. Beam Piper and Robert A. Heinlein have a strong libertarian streak. In fact, most science fiction either tends to be either highly collectivist in nature or very libertarian. Perhaps because science fiction explores the extremes.
Lying between fiction and non-fiction is "A Vision of Liberty" by Jim Davies. Mr. Davies lays out his vision of a free society looking back at the end of government.
For non-fiction readers there are also plenty of options.
In "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne, this liberty activist and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate describes his personal experiences living a free life while surrounded by people who don't appreciate freedom.
If Browne's ideas inspire you, you might like "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook" by Claire Wolfe. In it you'll find 179 things you can do to protect and increase your individual liberty now, and have fun, while confounding those who would prefer to see you enslaved to one degree or another.
Of course you shouldn't limit your reading to only things that you agree with. See what the other side has to say. It is fun to read random fiction and, for example, see where the characters went wrong and how they could have avoided problems by not initiating force. Or think of ways you could have solved their Big Problem without violating the rights of any of the other characters. As always, worthwhile reading exercises the mind.
Just about anytime you bring up the subject of libertarian books and authors, someone will mention Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". That's OK, and I do enjoy the book- even the infamous monologue- while pointing out that it is not specifically libertarian. I will admit it has inspired a lot of people to shift their world-view in a more libertarian direction, though.
Most people seem to think "Atlas Shrugged" is too preachy, and many like to focus on Rand's personal shortcomings rather than stay focused on the book. For those people, and the rest of us, it's a good thing there are so many other libertarian books that are a lot more fun to read.
If fiction is your preference, you might like "Hope" by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, which looks at what might happen if a real libertarian ever found himself elected president. It's a fun story!
If you are a younger reader you might enjoy "Out of the Gray Zone" by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman which follows the adventures of a young escapee from a totalitarian society.
Many books by science fiction authors H. Beam Piper and Robert A. Heinlein have a strong libertarian streak. In fact, most science fiction either tends to be either highly collectivist in nature or very libertarian. Perhaps because science fiction explores the extremes.
Lying between fiction and non-fiction is "A Vision of Liberty" by Jim Davies. Mr. Davies lays out his vision of a free society looking back at the end of government.
For non-fiction readers there are also plenty of options.
In "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne, this liberty activist and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate describes his personal experiences living a free life while surrounded by people who don't appreciate freedom.
If Browne's ideas inspire you, you might like "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook" by Claire Wolfe. In it you'll find 179 things you can do to protect and increase your individual liberty now, and have fun, while confounding those who would prefer to see you enslaved to one degree or another.
Of course you shouldn't limit your reading to only things that you agree with. See what the other side has to say. It is fun to read random fiction and, for example, see where the characters went wrong and how they could have avoided problems by not initiating force. Or think of ways you could have solved their Big Problem without violating the rights of any of the other characters. As always, worthwhile reading exercises the mind.
.
Toss away the training wheels!
A couple of nights ago I was trying to help my daughter learn how to ride a bike without training wheels. It's a difficult thing to explain to another person- it's mostly instinctive when you've been doing it for decades.
I tried to tell her how to turn the wheel, and to keep her speed up, but in the end it's just a matter of doing it.
As a way to help her gain confidence, I first took off the training wheels (at her request) and then told her to just have fun coasting back and forth on the sidewalk. My thought was that in coasting she might get the feel for balancing. And, I think that helped. I saw her coast better and better. So, as I mentioned yesterday, we went to a parking lot a block from the house for a bigger practice arena. On our way down the street, she was sitting and coasting and I got a little tired of the slow walk, so I asked if I could push her to go faster. She said "OK, but don't let go!"
I told her I wouldn't let go until she asked me to.
So, as we turned into the parking lot she said I could let go. I did, and she actually rode for about 20 feet. She was very thrilled and wanted to do that again. So I did, and that time she rode about twice as far. And the next time she almost went into a fence... but the very next time she took off and rode completely across the whole parking lot. In minutes she was riding around all over the lot and smiling from ear to ear.
She has the riding down, and is now working on starting without me pushing, and on braking.
It reminds me of trying to help people enjoy liberty. To those of us who
just do it" it's instinctive- but until a person just does it, how do you explain it to them?
It seems scary. They are sure they will fall and get hurt. They are used to the training wheels- which actually make them less safe, but give false confidence. You can give them a little push, but if you break their trust they'll blame liberty for your betrayal. In the end, they just have to do it for themselves to see how easy and exhilarating it is. You can't do it for anyone else- the best you can do is to show them by example that it is possible (and fun!).
Cheer them on and we can all ride together into a better tomorrow.
.
I tried to tell her how to turn the wheel, and to keep her speed up, but in the end it's just a matter of doing it.
As a way to help her gain confidence, I first took off the training wheels (at her request) and then told her to just have fun coasting back and forth on the sidewalk. My thought was that in coasting she might get the feel for balancing. And, I think that helped. I saw her coast better and better. So, as I mentioned yesterday, we went to a parking lot a block from the house for a bigger practice arena. On our way down the street, she was sitting and coasting and I got a little tired of the slow walk, so I asked if I could push her to go faster. She said "OK, but don't let go!"
I told her I wouldn't let go until she asked me to.
So, as we turned into the parking lot she said I could let go. I did, and she actually rode for about 20 feet. She was very thrilled and wanted to do that again. So I did, and that time she rode about twice as far. And the next time she almost went into a fence... but the very next time she took off and rode completely across the whole parking lot. In minutes she was riding around all over the lot and smiling from ear to ear.
She has the riding down, and is now working on starting without me pushing, and on braking.
It reminds me of trying to help people enjoy liberty. To those of us who
just do it" it's instinctive- but until a person just does it, how do you explain it to them?
It seems scary. They are sure they will fall and get hurt. They are used to the training wheels- which actually make them less safe, but give false confidence. You can give them a little push, but if you break their trust they'll blame liberty for your betrayal. In the end, they just have to do it for themselves to see how easy and exhilarating it is. You can't do it for anyone else- the best you can do is to show them by example that it is possible (and fun!).
Cheer them on and we can all ride together into a better tomorrow.
.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Excitement in the neighborhood
Ah, the "joys" of living in town.
We have some fairly new neighbors. When they moved in I went over and introduced myself, and immediately sensed "something wrong" with the husband. I was neighborly and loaned him a shovel, and asked if their kids could play with my daughter, and things went OK. Mostly. But there was still something wrong with the guy.
The weeks have gone by and my opinions of him have continued to plummet. He is frequently sitting on his porch drinking beer and screaming and cussing at his kids. He seems to be the typical "Low IQ- no impulse control" sort of person who causes so many problems. For weeks now I have not allowed my daughter to go play in their yard if the dad is home, and she is to leave immediately if he comes home. And I stay outside to keep an eye on things while she is there.
Unfortunately, his young son is on track to be a clone of the dad, and frequently hits and tackles my daughter, even though he is a lot younger than she is. His older sister seems fairly normal, considering, and my daughter likes to play with her, but they really aren't allowed to play without the aggressive boy.
Tonight (September 8, 2013), my daughter and I were down the block on a parking lot and she was learning (successfully!) to ride her bike. The "problem neighbor's" house was between us and home. I heard some metal banging and tried to see the source, but could see nothing. Then I heard a woman yelling the guy's name. I hear a lot of yelling coming from that house every day, so I took it in stride.
Soon my daughter's mom came to the parking lot and told us avoid going past that house when returning home. She told me of the domestic fight- the husband was yelling, punching the house, the grill, the street sign pole, kicking stuff around the yard, and making animalistic grunts of anger- and that the woman was yelling for someone to call the cops (Hubby Dearest had apparently thrown her phone across the street), and was afraid I would get involved if I saw the guy hit his wife (which didn't happen as far as I know).
Now, when I am out with my daughter, SHE is my first priority. I am not going to do anything to endanger her- even if it means not stopping a murder. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. But, if I could have dropped her off at home first...
Anyway, we started home, going the long way around the block. When we were still a block away, the cop cars showed up.
I don't approve of the existence of cops, and really think the violent dumb guy should be allowed to face undiluted consequences for his behavior- some people just need to be shot in the act if they initiate force. As it turned out, no one was hauled off, the cops eventually left, and everyone went back inside. I'm betting that's not the end of it. I just hope when he tries to kill the family, they manage to put him down first. And I'll be watching just as closely as I have been- maybe a bit closer.
And my daughter isn't going to be playing in their yard anymore.
Added: at 11:45PM, after lots more screaming, the cops showed up again and were there for 20 minutes or so.
.
We have some fairly new neighbors. When they moved in I went over and introduced myself, and immediately sensed "something wrong" with the husband. I was neighborly and loaned him a shovel, and asked if their kids could play with my daughter, and things went OK. Mostly. But there was still something wrong with the guy.
The weeks have gone by and my opinions of him have continued to plummet. He is frequently sitting on his porch drinking beer and screaming and cussing at his kids. He seems to be the typical "Low IQ- no impulse control" sort of person who causes so many problems. For weeks now I have not allowed my daughter to go play in their yard if the dad is home, and she is to leave immediately if he comes home. And I stay outside to keep an eye on things while she is there.
Unfortunately, his young son is on track to be a clone of the dad, and frequently hits and tackles my daughter, even though he is a lot younger than she is. His older sister seems fairly normal, considering, and my daughter likes to play with her, but they really aren't allowed to play without the aggressive boy.
Tonight (September 8, 2013), my daughter and I were down the block on a parking lot and she was learning (successfully!) to ride her bike. The "problem neighbor's" house was between us and home. I heard some metal banging and tried to see the source, but could see nothing. Then I heard a woman yelling the guy's name. I hear a lot of yelling coming from that house every day, so I took it in stride.
Soon my daughter's mom came to the parking lot and told us avoid going past that house when returning home. She told me of the domestic fight- the husband was yelling, punching the house, the grill, the street sign pole, kicking stuff around the yard, and making animalistic grunts of anger- and that the woman was yelling for someone to call the cops (Hubby Dearest had apparently thrown her phone across the street), and was afraid I would get involved if I saw the guy hit his wife (which didn't happen as far as I know).
Now, when I am out with my daughter, SHE is my first priority. I am not going to do anything to endanger her- even if it means not stopping a murder. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. But, if I could have dropped her off at home first...
Anyway, we started home, going the long way around the block. When we were still a block away, the cop cars showed up.
I don't approve of the existence of cops, and really think the violent dumb guy should be allowed to face undiluted consequences for his behavior- some people just need to be shot in the act if they initiate force. As it turned out, no one was hauled off, the cops eventually left, and everyone went back inside. I'm betting that's not the end of it. I just hope when he tries to kill the family, they manage to put him down first. And I'll be watching just as closely as I have been- maybe a bit closer.
And my daughter isn't going to be playing in their yard anymore.
Added: at 11:45PM, after lots more screaming, the cops showed up again and were there for 20 minutes or so.
.
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Chocolate, the kitten
A while back I mentioned that I had taken in a new orphan. Well, she has now made her Facebook debut.
Meet Chocolate- the (Formerly) Orphaned Kitten. You can get her story by going to her Facebook page. Or by asking questions in the comments below if you (understandably) avoid self-incrimination sites like Facebook.
This is one of the few times I will publicly talk about one of my orphans. The goons of The State have a bad habit of killing the "wild orphans" and punishing their rescuers, so I won't endanger them by exposing them (or me) to the notice of the "authorities". Fortunately I haven't yet heard of rescuers of domesticated animals getting brutalized for the crime of saving kittens or puppies. Give 'em time...
I have discovered that even before I made this kitten public, she had damaged my reputation locally, with the few people who knew about the situation. I wasn't aware I had a reputation, or that it could be damaged by showing my soft side, but life is what it is.
.
Meet Chocolate- the (Formerly) Orphaned Kitten. You can get her story by going to her Facebook page. Or by asking questions in the comments below if you (understandably) avoid self-incrimination sites like Facebook.
This is one of the few times I will publicly talk about one of my orphans. The goons of The State have a bad habit of killing the "wild orphans" and punishing their rescuers, so I won't endanger them by exposing them (or me) to the notice of the "authorities". Fortunately I haven't yet heard of rescuers of domesticated animals getting brutalized for the crime of saving kittens or puppies. Give 'em time...
I have discovered that even before I made this kitten public, she had damaged my reputation locally, with the few people who knew about the situation. I wasn't aware I had a reputation, or that it could be damaged by showing my soft side, but life is what it is.
.
Saturday, September 07, 2013
It's about choice and liberty
If "government" took over all food distribution and decided we all would be supplied (at "taxpayer expense") with a monthly ration of a perfectly adequate food pellet, would you hate me if I wanted to opt out? Would you throw a fit, asking if I want "the liberty to starve to death"?
You could rant and rave that by rejecting my rations I obviously don't want to eat.
Just like statists do when I say I don't want government's schools, police, fire departments, roads, libraries, or whatever.
And, you'd be wrong.
The government food pellets may have all the vitamins, minerals, supplements, and fiber I need, and they may even be delicious, but that's not good enough for me. I prefer to use my money, in my own way, to purchase what I would prefer to eat. Even if it isn't as good for me.
Well, the same goes for all the things your government now "provides" with stolen money. I would rather keep my money (and leave your money in your pockets, as well) and make my own food decisions and mistakes. And I don't wish to pay twice- once for the government "service" I don't want, and once for the food I do want.
But for statists, such an assertion is like a declaration of war against all they hold dear.
.
You could rant and rave that by rejecting my rations I obviously don't want to eat.
Just like statists do when I say I don't want government's schools, police, fire departments, roads, libraries, or whatever.
And, you'd be wrong.
The government food pellets may have all the vitamins, minerals, supplements, and fiber I need, and they may even be delicious, but that's not good enough for me. I prefer to use my money, in my own way, to purchase what I would prefer to eat. Even if it isn't as good for me.
Well, the same goes for all the things your government now "provides" with stolen money. I would rather keep my money (and leave your money in your pockets, as well) and make my own food decisions and mistakes. And I don't wish to pay twice- once for the government "service" I don't want, and once for the food I do want.
But for statists, such an assertion is like a declaration of war against all they hold dear.
.
Thursday, September 05, 2013
2800
This is blog post #2800. And about seven years worth of writing.
My very first post to this blog was made on September 3, 2006, and my first "real" post was written on September 5, 2006 (the previous posts were mostly attempts to figure out how to use the blog set-up). Wow! Never did I think I'd keep blogging this long.
The origins of this blog probably seem silly to most of you. After all, it was in connection with my presidential campaign. I've grown beyond such things since then. Although, some people might have considered my admonition "Don't vote- but if you still feel the need to vote for someone, vote for me rather than throwing it away on someone else" to be a "not serious" campaign strategy from the first.
I almost ended the blog when I stopped actively campaigning (mostly due to conflicts and lack of familial support, and the potential for someone "at home" being a source of embarrassment- I've never really explained the reasons, and I'm not going to now beyond that). I actually passed several "finish lines" over the years. At one point I thought I'd probably stop after 100 posts. (What more could I say after that?) Then I thought I'd stop after one year. Or two. Or when I hit 1000 posts. Now I realize I will keep on writing this blog until I have nothing more to say, or until no one reads it anymore. Or until economic reality requires me to shut up about things that might make me unemployable.
Looking back over the years I see a lot of changes in my personal attitudes. I hope that all the changes have been for the better, and toward a more complete understanding and acceptance of liberty. I hope I am a better person because of this journey.
I am also reminded of some good times and some terrible times in my personal life. When I read the things I wrote during those times, even when I never publicly spoke about them, the memories are triggered. I remember what I was thinking and feeling. I remember some times of despair and some times of great hope.
And, through it all, I understand that liberty is the right course. Not only for myself, but for whoever might consider me their worst enemy. I only get the liberty I am willing to respect in others- if even that. But it's a path that is worth it. It has proved that to me in so many ways, time after time.
I hope you experience that as well.
I also wish to send out a big "Thank you so much!" to all of you who have sent donations to help me continue this blog for this long! I seriously wouldn't have been able to do this if not for your help and support. Your donations are not only a huge financial help, but a powerful psychological boost as well. Thanks again!
.
My very first post to this blog was made on September 3, 2006, and my first "real" post was written on September 5, 2006 (the previous posts were mostly attempts to figure out how to use the blog set-up). Wow! Never did I think I'd keep blogging this long.
The origins of this blog probably seem silly to most of you. After all, it was in connection with my presidential campaign. I've grown beyond such things since then. Although, some people might have considered my admonition "Don't vote- but if you still feel the need to vote for someone, vote for me rather than throwing it away on someone else" to be a "not serious" campaign strategy from the first.
I almost ended the blog when I stopped actively campaigning (mostly due to conflicts and lack of familial support, and the potential for someone "at home" being a source of embarrassment- I've never really explained the reasons, and I'm not going to now beyond that). I actually passed several "finish lines" over the years. At one point I thought I'd probably stop after 100 posts. (What more could I say after that?) Then I thought I'd stop after one year. Or two. Or when I hit 1000 posts. Now I realize I will keep on writing this blog until I have nothing more to say, or until no one reads it anymore. Or until economic reality requires me to shut up about things that might make me unemployable.
Looking back over the years I see a lot of changes in my personal attitudes. I hope that all the changes have been for the better, and toward a more complete understanding and acceptance of liberty. I hope I am a better person because of this journey.
I am also reminded of some good times and some terrible times in my personal life. When I read the things I wrote during those times, even when I never publicly spoke about them, the memories are triggered. I remember what I was thinking and feeling. I remember some times of despair and some times of great hope.
And, through it all, I understand that liberty is the right course. Not only for myself, but for whoever might consider me their worst enemy. I only get the liberty I am willing to respect in others- if even that. But it's a path that is worth it. It has proved that to me in so many ways, time after time.
I hope you experience that as well.
-
I also wish to send out a big "Thank you so much!" to all of you who have sent donations to help me continue this blog for this long! I seriously wouldn't have been able to do this if not for your help and support. Your donations are not only a huge financial help, but a powerful psychological boost as well. Thanks again!
.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
A libertarian I just met...
In case you missed the news, I just got back from a weekend camping trip. (Isn't it nice to be able to have blog posts automatically show up during an absence?)
As I was taking down the tent, this little scorpion was disturbed from his hiding place. Apparently he had been taking shelter under the floor of the tent. I didn't mind- and was glad he didn't choose a boot or shoe to hide in, as they like to do.
It made me wish more people were like that scorpion. As long as I didn't attack him, he didn't attack me. We each went on about our lives unharmed by the other.
Kind of sad to think a scorpion is better company than some people.
.
As I was taking down the tent, this little scorpion was disturbed from his hiding place. Apparently he had been taking shelter under the floor of the tent. I didn't mind- and was glad he didn't choose a boot or shoe to hide in, as they like to do.
It made me wish more people were like that scorpion. As long as I didn't attack him, he didn't attack me. We each went on about our lives unharmed by the other.
Kind of sad to think a scorpion is better company than some people.
.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
An armed society is a polite society
An armed society is a polite society
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 2, 2013.)
Those who want to do more to violate the right of every human to carry whatever kind of weapon they choose, openly or concealed as they see fit, everywhere they go, without ever asking permission of anyone, have all manner of emotional pleas at their disposal. And their scenarios always fail when exposed to reality.
Just before Christmas last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) reacted to the suggestion of having armed guards in government schools by whining “Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?”
I admit it- I laughed. Obviously she has never spent time in an armed camp- other than being surrounded by her automatic-weapons-bearing security detail, I mean.
But I have. Many times. And it was wonderful and peaceful. If you have never been to a mountain man rendezvous or some similar event, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Everyone is armed with multiple "historical" (and still lethal) firearms, and it's probable everyone also has weapons of modern design either hidden on their person or in camp.
People there are friendly. Strangers are openly welcomed, without fear. Disputes are cordial, or at least resolved before they get out of control. No one stole from anyone at any of the events I attended, even though valuables were left unattended in plain sight. No one attacked anyone.
All rules are by unanimous consent, as are all fees, and agreed to beforehand and not changed. While there are those whose "job" it is to arbitrate disputes, prevent fights, and make sure the rules are followed, I almost never saw them doing anything "official". If someone does break a rule, they are asked to either stop or leave. No one uses force on them nor cages them. The knowledge that if they caused a real problem they would not be able to recruit a helpless victim takes the bluster away.
Author Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying "An armed society is a polite society", and he is right.
I only wish every American could experience living for a while in a universally armed camp. All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than anti-liberty, ideology driven politicians and citizen disarmament advocates like Feinstein and her gang- would ever again want to give up such a life.
No one would ever be able to propose or enforce another anti-gun "law" without being sent packing to North Korea where their ideas are politically correct (while still wrong).
Those who want to do more to violate the right of every human to carry whatever kind of weapon they choose, openly or concealed as they see fit, everywhere they go, without ever asking permission of anyone, have all manner of emotional pleas at their disposal. And their scenarios always fail when exposed to reality.
Just before Christmas last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) reacted to the suggestion of having armed guards in government schools by whining “Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?”
I admit it- I laughed. Obviously she has never spent time in an armed camp- other than being surrounded by her automatic-weapons-bearing security detail, I mean.
But I have. Many times. And it was wonderful and peaceful. If you have never been to a mountain man rendezvous or some similar event, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Everyone is armed with multiple "historical" (and still lethal) firearms, and it's probable everyone also has weapons of modern design either hidden on their person or in camp.
People there are friendly. Strangers are openly welcomed, without fear. Disputes are cordial, or at least resolved before they get out of control. No one stole from anyone at any of the events I attended, even though valuables were left unattended in plain sight. No one attacked anyone.
All rules are by unanimous consent, as are all fees, and agreed to beforehand and not changed. While there are those whose "job" it is to arbitrate disputes, prevent fights, and make sure the rules are followed, I almost never saw them doing anything "official". If someone does break a rule, they are asked to either stop or leave. No one uses force on them nor cages them. The knowledge that if they caused a real problem they would not be able to recruit a helpless victim takes the bluster away.
Author Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying "An armed society is a polite society", and he is right.
I only wish every American could experience living for a while in a universally armed camp. All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than anti-liberty, ideology driven politicians and citizen disarmament advocates like Feinstein and her gang- would ever again want to give up such a life.
No one would ever be able to propose or enforce another anti-gun "law" without being sent packing to North Korea where their ideas are politically correct (while still wrong).
.
Intra-gang violence- The Hasan death penalty
So, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was given the "death penalty" for the Ft. Hood murders. As I have said before, I am against such a punishment, for several reasons. But, unlike most cases, this one doesn't pluck at my heartstrings too much. I see this case strictly as an internal affair. A gang member turned on others in his gang, and the gang "leadership" is dealing with it in a violent manner. Gang members kill each other all the time, and my main concern is that they don't start killing people outside their gangs. Why should I be surprised or outraged? I am not involved with that gang, nor do I support it in any real way.
And, no, I am not just referring to the "military" as the gang- the entire idea of "government" is the gang; the "military" is simply one part of it.
One thing I find ironic is that those gang leaders aren't accepting their share of guilt in the murders. Whoever the evil idiot was who decided that members of the military, on a military base, "needed" to be unarmed is at least 50% responsible for every murder after the first one. Sure, a psycho could kill one person before a universally armed populace could react and stop him, but he could not likely kill 13. Nope, he had lots of help.
I would hope that such overwhelming stupidity is limited to government militaries, and would find no support among militias.
.
Monday, September 02, 2013
Too hard on cops?
You probably think I am too hard on cops. I assure you, I'm not nearly hard enough. They are where the rubber meets the road, where tyranny is concerned. No one else on the side of The State matters- there is no other meaningful enemy of liberty.
You can live in an area "Ruled" by Hitler's crueler brother, filled with counterfeit "laws" until the law pollution is so bad that everything you want to do is forbidden, and everything you'd rather not do is mandatory, but unless there are thugs willing to enforce those "laws" against you, it doesn't matter. You still could be free and never even care what any of those "laws" say.
Tyranny and oppression begins and ends with enforcers.
.
You can live in an area "Ruled" by Hitler's crueler brother, filled with counterfeit "laws" until the law pollution is so bad that everything you want to do is forbidden, and everything you'd rather not do is mandatory, but unless there are thugs willing to enforce those "laws" against you, it doesn't matter. You still could be free and never even care what any of those "laws" say.
Tyranny and oppression begins and ends with enforcers.
.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Magic words and enforcers
I am not one of those who believes you can memorize some magical script to use against cops; an incantation which will banish them back into the shadows of Hell faster than a vampire faced with a cross made of garlic raised on holy water. But it can be educational to think about things you could say to a cop to show the true nature of "law enforcement".
Imagine being stopped for going faster than the arbitrary "speed limit", or not "stopping sufficiently" at a stop sign, with no harm done to anyone. Imagine saying to the enforcer:
No, I don't imagine that would have the effect it should. Still, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. No victim- no foul. Where is your accuser? Is it the cop? If so, does this mean he is the one you are accused of victimizing? Is it "The State"? Then I want to face The State and have him (her?) accuse me in person. Not through a representative, but one to one.
Magic words don't normally "work", unless by "work" you mean to get you to consider the truth.
.
Imagine being stopped for going faster than the arbitrary "speed limit", or not "stopping sufficiently" at a stop sign, with no harm done to anyone. Imagine saying to the enforcer:
"Who is the individual you are alleging I have harmed? And where is this individual, and how has he been harmed? (wait for ridiculous response) If you have no answer, yet you insist on continuing this encounter, you are the bad guy. You have become nothing more than an armed robber."
No, I don't imagine that would have the effect it should. Still, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. No victim- no foul. Where is your accuser? Is it the cop? If so, does this mean he is the one you are accused of victimizing? Is it "The State"? Then I want to face The State and have him (her?) accuse me in person. Not through a representative, but one to one.
Magic words don't normally "work", unless by "work" you mean to get you to consider the truth.
.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
"Tax"-addict trolls?
A few days ago I got into a discussion with someone online. Shocking! I know. Anyway, the subject was originally "border control" and "immigration", but when I asked a couple of test questions about that I got a bizarre response that went on about tariffs and such. I suggested the person was talking about slavery (importing people) rather than about immigration control. And then I got the response I reproduce here, along with my replies.
Seriously, don't you think this guy sounds like a paid shill for The State?
.
"You are taxed based upon the annual value of your work (just as a simple example). You, I, and everyone are nothing more than a commodity." To whom? Those who believe they are owed something for nothing- a "piece of the action" for their protection racket. When forced to do work, where someone else takes a percentage between 0% and 100% of your labor/time/money, you are a slave. It's not a matter of not being a slave to someone else until the percentage stolen from you reaches some magical percentage. And, yes, "taxation" IS theft. Nothing else.
"Human Labor is a commodity." Yes. And it belongs to the person who labors, no one else.
"You mistake that for slavery." I'm not the one making the mistake here.
"I assure you that is not the case." You can "assure" me all day. You are wrong, either unwittingly, or you are lying.
"Anytime you work for money, you are selling yourself for a set time at a certain price." Yes. And that is fine as long as it is mutually consensual.
"Looking at the movement of people between nations is just as taxable and prohibit-able as the importing of certain goods and services." Just because thieves and thugs can get away with committing an act doesn't make it right. It's like claiming that babies are just as rapable as grown women. Theft is theft; slavery is slavery; wrong is wrong- and dressing them up in fancy StateSpeak doesn't change the foundational truth of the acts you are advocating.
I have heard that "government" agencies employ trolls to try to attempt to put a positive spin on the disgusting things done by various "government" goons. Hmmm.
Seriously, don't you think this guy sounds like a paid shill for The State?
.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
72+ Types of terrorists
So, supposedly the morons who call themselves "government" have a list of 72 types of people they consider to be "terrorists". Isn't that special.
"We are surrounded by TERRORISTS!!"
Of course, being able to read and remember for more than a few seconds, unlike the fearmongering collectivists of The State, I notice there are a lot of repeats and overlaps on that list. Gotta pad the numbers and make sure no one feels left out, ya know.
The sad thing is they left off whole categories of terrorists. I feel the need to help.
73. Those who feel a "law" can make it OK to rob, kidnap, torture, murder, or otherwise harm people who have done nothing aggressive to anyone else.
74. Those who kill people over a plant or two.
75. Those who gather in groups designated with letters. Examples are BATFE, IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI, SCOTUS, CONUS, etc.
76. Anyone who is so afraid of those around them that they feel it is necessary to spy on them, and then lie about it or otherwise try to make their terroristic actions seem "legal" or "legitimate".
(H/T)
"We are surrounded by TERRORISTS!!"
Of course, being able to read and remember for more than a few seconds, unlike the fearmongering collectivists of The State, I notice there are a lot of repeats and overlaps on that list. Gotta pad the numbers and make sure no one feels left out, ya know.
The sad thing is they left off whole categories of terrorists. I feel the need to help.
73. Those who feel a "law" can make it OK to rob, kidnap, torture, murder, or otherwise harm people who have done nothing aggressive to anyone else.
74. Those who kill people over a plant or two.
75. Those who gather in groups designated with letters. Examples are BATFE, IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI, SCOTUS, CONUS, etc.
76. Anyone who is so afraid of those around them that they feel it is necessary to spy on them, and then lie about it or otherwise try to make their terroristic actions seem "legal" or "legitimate".
(H/T)
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The disease of "Compliance"
People are just too compliant. I include myself in that criticism.
The first time some pervert insisted on a urine test in exchange for a job offer, he should have been laughed at, and if he laid a hand on the person in his insistence- punched. Now that too many people comply in order to have a job, those who would refuse will end up unemployable (in many cases, in their chosen career).
The first time some coward told someone to leave the gun at home, or with the sheriff, in order to go about your business he should have been ignored. And shot if he tried to take the gun. Now, in many locations, there is almost nowhere you can go off your own property without violating someone's slaughter-enabling zone.
The first time some police department set up a "sobriety checkpoint", the offending officers should have never made it home alive. Now the slightest hesitation to submit is seen as a threat to "officer safety" and can be dealt with in a lethal manner, and your death will be "within departmental policy". Oh, and your murderers will be rewarded and promoted, and your neighbors will think of you as the bad guy.
Normal people have enabled the death of liberty by being too polite and too compliant to unreasonable demands, and now we are ALL paying for it- while still being too compliant, so that our kids will have it worse than we do.
When will enough be enough?
.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy
Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 26, 2013)
Commentator Michael Lind called it "The question libertarians just can’t answer": "If [the libertarian] approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? Why are there no libertarian countries?"
It seems Mr. Lind doesn't understand what he's asking; he certainly doesn't understand libertarianism. That's a common problem with criticisms of libertarianism.
There can't be a true "libertarian country" because libertarianism is strictly individual, just as is any philosophy or way of life. You can't have a libertarian country because a "country" has no mind, opinions, or philosophy- those things belong to the individual. A "country" is an intangible concept, not a physical entity. When you try to base a country upon any one philosophy, you are pigeonholing everyone who lives there into one cramped box, and your concept inevitably breaks down because a huge percentage of the residents are being forced to live in a way that they don't want. A way they may even find reprehensible, repugnant, and wrong.
Good or bad, there are only individuals. A country can not initiate force or commit theft. Only individuals can. Each individual makes that choice for himself, and blaming it on the abstract collective is a failed attempt to avoid responsibility.
A State, or rather those representing themselves as that State, can either leave individuals to live as libertarians, or can try to force them to behave as collectivists of one sort or another by regulating or prohibiting consensual, non-aggressive behavior, and by violating their right of association and property rights. Individuals who would prefer to live free will always find a way.
However, there have been countries where the State mostly stayed out of the way and let individuals live a libertarian life: early America and medieval Iceland are two popular examples.
Even today most people live a largely libertarian life in their daily interactions with others. Not only here, but all across the world. Most individuals seek to trade for what they want rather than steal it. Most people try to reach an agreement with others rather than to beat them into submission. Most people will "live and let live" as long as they don't see a "one-size-fits-all" order being imposed on them and on everyone around them.
Perhaps this means the world is mostly libertarian already, if you ignore the professional political realm. And, it is probably better for your mental health and happiness if you do ignore that realm as much as possible.
And please don't forget.
Commentator Michael Lind called it "The question libertarians just can’t answer": "If [the libertarian] approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? Why are there no libertarian countries?"
It seems Mr. Lind doesn't understand what he's asking; he certainly doesn't understand libertarianism. That's a common problem with criticisms of libertarianism.
There can't be a true "libertarian country" because libertarianism is strictly individual, just as is any philosophy or way of life. You can't have a libertarian country because a "country" has no mind, opinions, or philosophy- those things belong to the individual. A "country" is an intangible concept, not a physical entity. When you try to base a country upon any one philosophy, you are pigeonholing everyone who lives there into one cramped box, and your concept inevitably breaks down because a huge percentage of the residents are being forced to live in a way that they don't want. A way they may even find reprehensible, repugnant, and wrong.
Good or bad, there are only individuals. A country can not initiate force or commit theft. Only individuals can. Each individual makes that choice for himself, and blaming it on the abstract collective is a failed attempt to avoid responsibility.
A State, or rather those representing themselves as that State, can either leave individuals to live as libertarians, or can try to force them to behave as collectivists of one sort or another by regulating or prohibiting consensual, non-aggressive behavior, and by violating their right of association and property rights. Individuals who would prefer to live free will always find a way.
However, there have been countries where the State mostly stayed out of the way and let individuals live a libertarian life: early America and medieval Iceland are two popular examples.
Even today most people live a largely libertarian life in their daily interactions with others. Not only here, but all across the world. Most individuals seek to trade for what they want rather than steal it. Most people try to reach an agreement with others rather than to beat them into submission. Most people will "live and let live" as long as they don't see a "one-size-fits-all" order being imposed on them and on everyone around them.
Perhaps this means the world is mostly libertarian already, if you ignore the professional political realm. And, it is probably better for your mental health and happiness if you do ignore that realm as much as possible.
-
And please don't forget.
.
The powderkeg of "troops"
Are individuals in America better off that there are US troops all over the planet? Do troops really help "the people"?
Think about it.
Was Germany better off by having and supporting the Nazi troops? Or, in the long run was the normal, average German made less safe and less prosperous because of "the troops"? (And don't bother trying to misuse Godwin's Law on me- I'm on to that game.)
The only ones helped by "the troops" are those who work for that gang of thugs called "government". Everyone else is harmed. They may think they are benefiting, but only until consequences catch up to them all. At that time the veil is ripped away.
Abuses will have consequences. It will be painful. The longer those abuses and violations are allowed to continue, and the worse they are allowed to get, the more harsh those consequences will eventually be. If you "support the troops" you are ensuring a dire and agonizing future for your kids or grandkids. Those chickens WILL come to roost, sooner or later. The future can't be held off forever. And the later it is, the worse it will be for those who were seen to be complicit by "supporting the troops". Or those who are mistakenly assumed to have done so, because of an accident of geography and birth.
If you really "support the troops", demand of the congressvermin they be brought home or ask them, individually, to quit. Anything else is just stacking more black powder next to the campfire.
.
Think about it.
Was Germany better off by having and supporting the Nazi troops? Or, in the long run was the normal, average German made less safe and less prosperous because of "the troops"? (And don't bother trying to misuse Godwin's Law on me- I'm on to that game.)
The only ones helped by "the troops" are those who work for that gang of thugs called "government". Everyone else is harmed. They may think they are benefiting, but only until consequences catch up to them all. At that time the veil is ripped away.
Abuses will have consequences. It will be painful. The longer those abuses and violations are allowed to continue, and the worse they are allowed to get, the more harsh those consequences will eventually be. If you "support the troops" you are ensuring a dire and agonizing future for your kids or grandkids. Those chickens WILL come to roost, sooner or later. The future can't be held off forever. And the later it is, the worse it will be for those who were seen to be complicit by "supporting the troops". Or those who are mistakenly assumed to have done so, because of an accident of geography and birth.
If you really "support the troops", demand of the congressvermin they be brought home or ask them, individually, to quit. Anything else is just stacking more black powder next to the campfire.
.
Monday, August 26, 2013
The heart of the matter
Here's a diamond from Kn@ppster:
Governments are nothing more or less than gigantic criminal conspiracies, overgrown street gangs with no claims whatsoever to legitimacy. They are funded by theft and the basis of all their operations is aggression. They're no more entitled to keep their activities secret than any other gaggle of murderers, rapists and thieves is.
Yep. And the blame lies with each and every individual who tries to hide behind "the job". It's not someone else's fault- if you have a government "job", don't point fingers.
.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Striving to be free-lance bully free, but enabling the rest
Seen on the animated sign at a local McDonald's: "Clovis... striving to be bully free" .
Really?
So, "Clovis" will be rewarding kids who stand up to bullies- even if they use violence in response to the bully's threats and violence?
"Clovis" will be firing every cop and the county commissioners and city council (or whatever they have)?
"Clovis" will stop fawning over the locally-stationed members of the US's aggressive, empire-building, foreign terrorism-committing military?
"Clovis" will be firing every cop and the county commissioners and city council (or whatever they have)?
"Clovis" will stop fawning over the locally-stationed members of the US's aggressive, empire-building, foreign terrorism-committing military?
No? Then "Clovis" isn't "striving" very hard at all.
In fact, I think bullies are just fine to "Clovis", as long as they aren't freelancing.
And please don't forget.
.
In fact, I think bullies are just fine to "Clovis", as long as they aren't freelancing.
-
And please don't forget.
.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Like, the dumbest idea ever!
Continuity of government is like an emergency surgery to save the tumor and let the patient die.
And please don't forget.
.
-
And please don't forget.
.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Ouch.
If anyone would like to help me out financially, this would be an excellent time. My bank account is in the red. Thanks.
Update: Crisis averted, thanks to you. Feel free to donate or subscribe anyway. :)
.
Update: Crisis averted, thanks to you. Feel free to donate or subscribe anyway. :)
.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Bradley Manning in Orwellistan
Heroism is criminal in the empire of cowardice.
Orwell would be unsurprised at this alternate version of his observation (if it was truly his to begin with). It's just the other side of the coin.
How truly bizarre that when I went to search for the original Orwell quote, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies", almost every search result was from a "conservative" site- many of them "Tea Party" related. Yet, who is most angry at Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for revealing truth? "Conservatives" and those in positions of political power*.
*(Those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "conservatives", since they wish to "conserve" that power and keep those positions available to fill. Just as those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "progressives" since they always push their new violations on the basis of it being positive "progress". Both are evil.)
And please don't forget.
.
Orwell would be unsurprised at this alternate version of his observation (if it was truly his to begin with). It's just the other side of the coin.
How truly bizarre that when I went to search for the original Orwell quote, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies", almost every search result was from a "conservative" site- many of them "Tea Party" related. Yet, who is most angry at Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for revealing truth? "Conservatives" and those in positions of political power*.
-
*(Those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "conservatives", since they wish to "conserve" that power and keep those positions available to fill. Just as those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "progressives" since they always push their new violations on the basis of it being positive "progress". Both are evil.)
-
And please don't forget.
.
It's official: heroism is a punishable offense
So, heroism is now officially punishable by 35 years in a cage. Vital information to know.
Maybe that's why complicit State vermin, such as cops, shy away from heroism as a matter of course. It takes a special coward to be a part of that "system".
I wonder how many true heroes this knowledge will stop, though. Most will just find another way. The "law-flingers" and enforcers are tightening the noose around their own necks without seeing what they are doing. Oh well. You can't teach the truly stupid.
And please, don't forget.
.
Maybe that's why complicit State vermin, such as cops, shy away from heroism as a matter of course. It takes a special coward to be a part of that "system".
I wonder how many true heroes this knowledge will stop, though. Most will just find another way. The "law-flingers" and enforcers are tightening the noose around their own necks without seeing what they are doing. Oh well. You can't teach the truly stupid.
-
And please, don't forget.
.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
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.
.
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.
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.
Monday, August 19, 2013
"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?
And please don't forget.
.
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.
.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
"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?
And please don't forget.
.
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.
.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
"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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Nit-picking ‘fairness’ only leaves you bitter
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?
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.
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.
Monday, August 12, 2013
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)