I have said it before, but it's important enough to say again. Cops are cowards.
This isn't just my opinion- there is plenty of evidence.
"Officer safety" being a giant neon sign, flashing in our faces every time one of those anointed cowards must face one of us, declaring in plain language just exactly how cowardly they all truly are.
But there are other clear signs, even if they all have "officer safety", physical or financial, at their root:
Hiding behind their gang anytime their twitchy trigger fingers get one of them in a bit of hot water. Or when they cause a car accident.
Holding lots of innocent people at gun point, and viciously assaulting them under the pretext of finding a bad guy.
Demanding that everyone around them be unarmed.
The armored vehicles, face-hiding SWAT gear, use of weapons prohibited to you and me, protection of personal information and privacy of cops whose violations make the news... it all adds up to one thing. Cowardice.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost every action a cop takes, when interacting with non-cops, is motivated by cowardice.
This will be a self-fulfilling fear.
The more cowardly cops become (as hard as it is to believe, they probably can become more cowardly) the more real reason they will have to fear you and me.
The more innocent people who are murdered in the course of enforcing counterfeit "laws", the more people who are raped or beaten during a "routine traffic stop", the more people who are held at gun point because someone else in the area shot one of those LEOs- the more people will begin to hate cops.
There is only so much abuse peaceable people will tolerate. You and I are not the problem here. Unless you, too, are a coward and support the cowardly badge thugs. The realists who see cops for what they really are will probably never be a majority- too many copsuckers out there. But it won't take a majority. And then the cops can point to the incidents as justification- claim their cowardice isn't cowardice, but prudence.
Added: And don't forget the reasons I don't like cops, and roll my eyes at those who do.
Also: Mor on cops
.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Obama's personal corpse collection
Someone else in the house was just watching a program about a kid with a terrible condition (primordial dwarfism) which usually results in death. One of the related problems is brain aneurysms which needs an MRI to diagnose, but she lives in Great Britain, with their socialized medical "care" that we are all supposed to be so envious of... and the government employees tasked with rationing medical services say she isn't eligible for an MRI because of her age.
So she'll probably die early because some bureaucrat - or a whole flock of them- is doing to health care in the UK what ObamaCare is plotting to do to health care in America.
And socialized medicine is SO wonderful.... "Free health care!" "Shouldn't America provide health care like all the other First World countries do?" "Why do you hate sick people who can't afford health care?"
The corpses will begin to pile up as soon as this "system" goes into effect. Just as they have everywhere else that socialized heath "care" has been imposed. Regardless of the lies told by the advocates of socialism.
Those deaths will be blood on the hands of every government employee who advocates this disaster, and on every congresscritter who just "went along" to appear to be "reasonable". And on every opinionator who parrots the socialist, collectivist lies that make socialized "medicine" seem anything other than barbaric.
Maybe we should start referring to corpses as "ObamaSpawn".
Separation of science, especially medicine, and state!
.
So she'll probably die early because some bureaucrat - or a whole flock of them- is doing to health care in the UK what ObamaCare is plotting to do to health care in America.
And socialized medicine is SO wonderful.... "Free health care!" "Shouldn't America provide health care like all the other First World countries do?" "Why do you hate sick people who can't afford health care?"
The corpses will begin to pile up as soon as this "system" goes into effect. Just as they have everywhere else that socialized heath "care" has been imposed. Regardless of the lies told by the advocates of socialism.
Those deaths will be blood on the hands of every government employee who advocates this disaster, and on every congresscritter who just "went along" to appear to be "reasonable". And on every opinionator who parrots the socialist, collectivist lies that make socialized "medicine" seem anything other than barbaric.
Maybe we should start referring to corpses as "ObamaSpawn".
Separation of science, especially medicine, and state!
.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Appearance of non-compliance
Have you ever noticed all the ridiculous "laws" that are passed when people find ways around the previous "laws"? Or, when the previous "laws" fail to do as advertised? Or, when it's more profitable to fine people than to reward the change in behavior that was the excuse for passing the "law" to begin with?
What am I talking about? "Laws" such as ...
Banning electronic "cigarettes".
Ticketing people for "rolling through" a stop sign.
Just for a couple of examples.
It's not about health or safety- it's about compliance. Rather, it's about stopping the appearance of non-compliance. And, it's about using that appearance of non-compliance as a way to steal even more money from even more people. It's the work of disgustingly evil people. From those who clamor for the "laws", to those who agree with them. And those who write the "laws", pass the "laws", and- ultimately- to the worthless maggot fodder who enforces those "laws".
.
What am I talking about? "Laws" such as ...
Banning electronic "cigarettes".
Ticketing people for "rolling through" a stop sign.
Just for a couple of examples.
It's not about health or safety- it's about compliance. Rather, it's about stopping the appearance of non-compliance. And, it's about using that appearance of non-compliance as a way to steal even more money from even more people. It's the work of disgustingly evil people. From those who clamor for the "laws", to those who agree with them. And those who write the "laws", pass the "laws", and- ultimately- to the worthless maggot fodder who enforces those "laws".
.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Signing up with ObamaCare
Do you plan on signing up for ObamaCare?
To me it seems another example of "easier to avoid than to get out of".
Just think what would have happened if people had simply refused, in droves, to sign up for "driver's licenses" back when that was the new government demand.
Or, if most people had simply refused to file "tax" forms with the IRS, and most employers had ignored the demands to withhold "taxes" from their employees.
Now that both of those abominations are old news, long established "traditions", refusing to go along is "radical", and scary to most people. ObamaCare- if it survives- will be the same way. I'm thinking it will be easier to "neglect" to be pulled into the system than it would be to get out once you submit.
I'm not suggesting you announce your intentions publicly, but that you just think about what your choice will be.
.
To me it seems another example of "easier to avoid than to get out of".
Just think what would have happened if people had simply refused, in droves, to sign up for "driver's licenses" back when that was the new government demand.
Or, if most people had simply refused to file "tax" forms with the IRS, and most employers had ignored the demands to withhold "taxes" from their employees.
Now that both of those abominations are old news, long established "traditions", refusing to go along is "radical", and scary to most people. ObamaCare- if it survives- will be the same way. I'm thinking it will be easier to "neglect" to be pulled into the system than it would be to get out once you submit.
I'm not suggesting you announce your intentions publicly, but that you just think about what your choice will be.
.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Rose Wilder Lane in 2013
I've mentioned that I have been reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I just finished it. It's a great book, and I highly recommend it.
It is a very optimistic book. More so than history has shown was justified.
If I could travel freely through time I would love to go back and get Rose (she was quite a hottie!) and bring her back with me to 2013 and show her around, then get her take on what has happened.
She called the belief in authority a pagan superstition, but then she believed that the US Constitution would prevent - well, America in 2013- from ever happening, because of "the people". She thought they would never permit it. I think this is clearly another superstition, pagan or otherwise.
Near the end of the book she spoke of the tragedy of compulsory schooling (I refuse to call the indoctrination "education"). She knew it was anti-liberty and dangerous. Did she know how bad it would turn out to be? I wonder if she'd be surprised at how thoroughly its application has eliminated the expectation of freedom from most of its victims' minds. I also wonder if she'd be shocked that freedom wasn't the only casualty, but that literacy (in all areas) has been severely compromised as well.
The Constitution failed to do as she was confident it would. Few Americans know what freedom and liberty are anymore, and fewer still wish to be "burdened" with them. The pagan belief in "authority" seems to be back with a vengeance, and America's Rulers are pursuing a global empire, not of freedom, but of socialism and aggression.
It would be truly interesting to see if she'd still have the optimism she displayed in the book, or if she'd be looking beyond the next phase of the Revolution for hope.
.
It is a very optimistic book. More so than history has shown was justified.
If I could travel freely through time I would love to go back and get Rose (she was quite a hottie!) and bring her back with me to 2013 and show her around, then get her take on what has happened.
She called the belief in authority a pagan superstition, but then she believed that the US Constitution would prevent - well, America in 2013- from ever happening, because of "the people". She thought they would never permit it. I think this is clearly another superstition, pagan or otherwise.
Near the end of the book she spoke of the tragedy of compulsory schooling (I refuse to call the indoctrination "education"). She knew it was anti-liberty and dangerous. Did she know how bad it would turn out to be? I wonder if she'd be surprised at how thoroughly its application has eliminated the expectation of freedom from most of its victims' minds. I also wonder if she'd be shocked that freedom wasn't the only casualty, but that literacy (in all areas) has been severely compromised as well.
The Constitution failed to do as she was confident it would. Few Americans know what freedom and liberty are anymore, and fewer still wish to be "burdened" with them. The pagan belief in "authority" seems to be back with a vengeance, and America's Rulers are pursuing a global empire, not of freedom, but of socialism and aggression.
It would be truly interesting to see if she'd still have the optimism she displayed in the book, or if she'd be looking beyond the next phase of the Revolution for hope.
.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Property rights in their dog days
Property rights in their dog days
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 20, 2013)
The recent anti-property rights ordinance- disguised as a "pest control measure"- should hammer the point home that there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" (many of those advocating for this ordinance call themselves "conservatives") - there are only those who hunger to control others and take their property, and those who have no such compulsion.
You might be shocked to learn I would oppose any "law" that forbade property owners from eliminating prairie dogs on their own land just as passionately as I oppose this ordinance which criminalizes prairie dogs on private property. "Private property"? I suppose we can dispense with that illusion now.
Either "law" is wrong in the same way. Either you are forced to allow animals on your property or forced to kill them if they set foot on it. By advocating one position, you automatically legitimize the other side's position. You can't have it both ways, and trying to do so just furthers the growth of socialism.
It also brings to attention another inconvenient fact: you can't legitimately criminalize indigenous nature- although it has been attempted since the first control freak gained the power to enforce his whims on others, especially in the past century under the guise of "fighting drug abuse". Wild animals are wild. They are not under the control of property owners. No one can tell them to not trespass, and since trespass is a human concept, it would be ridiculous to try. Leave it to government to impose ridiculousness by edict.
Since private property owners are being burdened with the responsibility for the wildlife on their property, lets take a look at "poaching laws". If you are responsible for the wildlife on your land, then that wildlife is yours to do with as you see fit. No need to ask permission from anyone, or to get any sort of "license" or permit. Once again, you can't have it both ways.
Recently, in Colorado, some petty tyrants were thrown out of office for just this kind of legislative abuse. Will you continue to throw your support behind those who would violate your rights, or will you hold them accountable?
In my fondest dreams I imagine that silly overreach of this sort will be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" and get people to see the game for what it is. In reality, I know most people who oppose this violation of property rights will continue to justify the exact same type of acts against other people's property, as long as the stated goal is one with which they agree.
Where will you stand?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 20, 2013)
The recent anti-property rights ordinance- disguised as a "pest control measure"- should hammer the point home that there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" (many of those advocating for this ordinance call themselves "conservatives") - there are only those who hunger to control others and take their property, and those who have no such compulsion.
You might be shocked to learn I would oppose any "law" that forbade property owners from eliminating prairie dogs on their own land just as passionately as I oppose this ordinance which criminalizes prairie dogs on private property. "Private property"? I suppose we can dispense with that illusion now.
Either "law" is wrong in the same way. Either you are forced to allow animals on your property or forced to kill them if they set foot on it. By advocating one position, you automatically legitimize the other side's position. You can't have it both ways, and trying to do so just furthers the growth of socialism.
It also brings to attention another inconvenient fact: you can't legitimately criminalize indigenous nature- although it has been attempted since the first control freak gained the power to enforce his whims on others, especially in the past century under the guise of "fighting drug abuse". Wild animals are wild. They are not under the control of property owners. No one can tell them to not trespass, and since trespass is a human concept, it would be ridiculous to try. Leave it to government to impose ridiculousness by edict.
Since private property owners are being burdened with the responsibility for the wildlife on their property, lets take a look at "poaching laws". If you are responsible for the wildlife on your land, then that wildlife is yours to do with as you see fit. No need to ask permission from anyone, or to get any sort of "license" or permit. Once again, you can't have it both ways.
Recently, in Colorado, some petty tyrants were thrown out of office for just this kind of legislative abuse. Will you continue to throw your support behind those who would violate your rights, or will you hold them accountable?
In my fondest dreams I imagine that silly overreach of this sort will be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" and get people to see the game for what it is. In reality, I know most people who oppose this violation of property rights will continue to justify the exact same type of acts against other people's property, as long as the stated goal is one with which they agree.
Where will you stand?
.
You've lost the luxury of time
If you were a Jew (or any other "undesirable") in late 1930s Germany, would you have had the luxury to take the time to decide on an individual basis whether each person wearing a Nazi uniform, or displaying the swastika was your enemy? Not all were. But, as I say, would you have had the luxury of time to not make that assumption?
Would you have had time to sit down and talk to each one, individually, to see if perhaps they were really on your side before judging them? Or, would the uniform have been a pretty clear sign where their loyalty lay? Would you have been right to use that in-your-face display as justification for slitting uniformed throats in a back alley?
The time is past where you and I have the luxury of waiting around to see where the loyalty of each person in a cop uniform may lie. They have already chosen sides by continuing to wear the badge.
Many of those in military uniform may feel trapped and be afraid to quit, due to threats of violence that are the only way the military can keep many of its slaves enslaved, but a cop can quit his job this minute just by walking away, like from any other job- so each and every day he is on the "job" is another declaration of where he stands. Each day he shows up for work he is spitting in your face and holding a gun to your kids' heads.
They are only human, so don't let them get in the way of living your life, but keep track of where they are and don't let them sneak up behind you- so that if/when it becomes necessary, you will know where the threat lies and will be able to take care of it in a proper manner.
.
Would you have had time to sit down and talk to each one, individually, to see if perhaps they were really on your side before judging them? Or, would the uniform have been a pretty clear sign where their loyalty lay? Would you have been right to use that in-your-face display as justification for slitting uniformed throats in a back alley?
The time is past where you and I have the luxury of waiting around to see where the loyalty of each person in a cop uniform may lie. They have already chosen sides by continuing to wear the badge.
Many of those in military uniform may feel trapped and be afraid to quit, due to threats of violence that are the only way the military can keep many of its slaves enslaved, but a cop can quit his job this minute just by walking away, like from any other job- so each and every day he is on the "job" is another declaration of where he stands. Each day he shows up for work he is spitting in your face and holding a gun to your kids' heads.
They are only human, so don't let them get in the way of living your life, but keep track of where they are and don't let them sneak up behind you- so that if/when it becomes necessary, you will know where the threat lies and will be able to take care of it in a proper manner.
.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Keeping information safe
What are the bits of knowledge that you feel should be kept safe, written on actual paper in your home, just in case Google or other search engines decide (or are ordered to) suppress them?
I mean stuff like the "formula" for gun powder:
I mean stuff like the "formula" for gun powder:
75% potassium nitrate (KNO3), 15% charcoal, 10% sulfur.
Are there any things of that nature that you have written down just in case?
.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
A "care", I do not give
I find myself caring less each and every day about what the bad guys who call themselves "government" are doing.
It's odd, in a way, because I still enjoy writing about their stupid and evil ways, but for my own personal life, I'm really not caring too much what their silly demands are.
I try to avoid them, and if I can't I just view them as I would any other thief, thug, or bully. A fact of life, but one that I don't have to like or cooperate with.
I still notice the parasites when I see them out preying on their supposed bosses, of course.
But, I find myself less inclined to even consider their wishes.
Just a couple of days ago I shook my head in disgust at one of the local cops as he sat by my house, lying in wait for travelers who make the mistake of driving near the school in the mornings. After I did so (I was crossing the street near him) I thought "he might have seen that", but then I realized I just didn't care.
And, I had glared at this same cop- only a week or so on the "job" [sic] in this town- after he almost pulled right out in front of me as he was leaving the "cop shop" a week or so earlier. He had a dazed "deer in the headlights" look as he sat there about half way in the road and I had to drive around his Mobile Oppression Unit.
But, as far as what "laws" the vermin choose to try to impose- or occasionally relinquish- I can scarcely muster a "meh".
Part of that may be due to reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I really recommend the book- even if I do find it absurd that she starts out by speaking of how necessary government is, and then spends the rest of the book very effectively demolishing her own claim. And her descriptions of the "outlaw" heritage of humanity, doing what is right and necessary in spite of "laws" and Rulers, really speaks to me.
Part of it may be that life is more important than those who try to stand in its way. I have other things to worry about.
I'll keep exposing their failure, laughing at their absurdity, ignoring them when it pleases me, going along with their demands "just enough" when necessary, and defying them when I need to.
I think they are doomed. I really do.
.
It's odd, in a way, because I still enjoy writing about their stupid and evil ways, but for my own personal life, I'm really not caring too much what their silly demands are.
I try to avoid them, and if I can't I just view them as I would any other thief, thug, or bully. A fact of life, but one that I don't have to like or cooperate with.
I still notice the parasites when I see them out preying on their supposed bosses, of course.
But, I find myself less inclined to even consider their wishes.
Just a couple of days ago I shook my head in disgust at one of the local cops as he sat by my house, lying in wait for travelers who make the mistake of driving near the school in the mornings. After I did so (I was crossing the street near him) I thought "he might have seen that", but then I realized I just didn't care.
And, I had glared at this same cop- only a week or so on the "job" [sic] in this town- after he almost pulled right out in front of me as he was leaving the "cop shop" a week or so earlier. He had a dazed "deer in the headlights" look as he sat there about half way in the road and I had to drive around his Mobile Oppression Unit.
But, as far as what "laws" the vermin choose to try to impose- or occasionally relinquish- I can scarcely muster a "meh".
Part of that may be due to reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I really recommend the book- even if I do find it absurd that she starts out by speaking of how necessary government is, and then spends the rest of the book very effectively demolishing her own claim. And her descriptions of the "outlaw" heritage of humanity, doing what is right and necessary in spite of "laws" and Rulers, really speaks to me.
Part of it may be that life is more important than those who try to stand in its way. I have other things to worry about.
I'll keep exposing their failure, laughing at their absurdity, ignoring them when it pleases me, going along with their demands "just enough" when necessary, and defying them when I need to.
I think they are doomed. I really do.
.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
SHTF advice from Dirttime
Dirttime has had some excellent SHTF-type posts recently- and I suspect they may have more coming. Check these out, and watch for more.
Has The SHTF? You Betcha!
Hidden Inflation plus Greed equals Screw you
Subsistence Survival Re: The Stealth Poacher.
Added: another good one! In a Grid Down World
And another: Bartering
.
Has The SHTF? You Betcha!
Hidden Inflation plus Greed equals Screw you
Subsistence Survival Re: The Stealth Poacher.
Added: another good one! In a Grid Down World
And another: Bartering
.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Excuses, excuses.
I'm angry at myself right now.
I have come to realize I am the King of Excuses.
Do I make excuses for things I don't really want to do, or do I make excuses to keep from doing things I want to do but I'm afraid of trying because I am scared to succeed or fail?
Either way it makes me mad.
.
I have come to realize I am the King of Excuses.
Do I make excuses for things I don't really want to do, or do I make excuses to keep from doing things I want to do but I'm afraid of trying because I am scared to succeed or fail?
Either way it makes me mad.
.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Rejecting people’s negative vortex
Rejecting people’s negative vortex
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 13, 2013)
Negativity is a real problem in a lot of people's lives. If it's a sunny day they'll complain about sunburn or drought. If it rains, that's no better because it ruins their plans.
But sometimes a person will be blamed for being negative when all they really did was reject someone else's negative outlook. Don't mistake a person's rejection of your doom and gloom for negativity on their part. They may be seeing a better way.
Libertarians face this phenomenon all the time.
Which is more negative: to wallow in imagined victimhood, or to tell people they have the power to run their own lives? The apparent answer, judging by the response you'll get for pointing out the obvious, might surprise you.
For pointing out the negativity of the culture of helplessness and victimhood, and offering an uplifting alternative; for reminding people they don't have to wait for "laws" to change, or for politicians to lead them, but can start being more free right now; for insisting that voluntary choice is better than coercion, libertarians are condemned for being too "negative".
It would be funny if it didn't expose such a serious problem.
Is it "negative" to point out that if you don't eat, you'll eventually starve to death? Not at all. It's reality, and accepting reality can save lives.
Too many people seem to have an emotional attachment to their perceived problems. They don't want a solution; they want sympathy, or company in their misery. Their problems are familiar and comfortable.
If it makes you feel better to wallow in hopelessness and despair, I won't try to stop you. If you want to continue chasing your tail in an endless cycle of doing the same thing and expecting a different result, who am I to try to convince you to do something more constructive, or to even sit down and relax? But I don't want to join you, either.
If you see the futility of propping up the status quo, and would prefer to try something that can actually make life better today and into tomorrow, take a chance and reject coercion, reject theft, and embrace voluntary association and self-responsibility.
On the other hand, if you do make a positive change and refuse to get sucked into other people's negative vortex, you'll be called "Utopian". The truth is somewhere between Utopia and Washington DC, but that isn't dramatic enough, I suppose.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 13, 2013)
Negativity is a real problem in a lot of people's lives. If it's a sunny day they'll complain about sunburn or drought. If it rains, that's no better because it ruins their plans.
But sometimes a person will be blamed for being negative when all they really did was reject someone else's negative outlook. Don't mistake a person's rejection of your doom and gloom for negativity on their part. They may be seeing a better way.
Libertarians face this phenomenon all the time.
Which is more negative: to wallow in imagined victimhood, or to tell people they have the power to run their own lives? The apparent answer, judging by the response you'll get for pointing out the obvious, might surprise you.
For pointing out the negativity of the culture of helplessness and victimhood, and offering an uplifting alternative; for reminding people they don't have to wait for "laws" to change, or for politicians to lead them, but can start being more free right now; for insisting that voluntary choice is better than coercion, libertarians are condemned for being too "negative".
It would be funny if it didn't expose such a serious problem.
Is it "negative" to point out that if you don't eat, you'll eventually starve to death? Not at all. It's reality, and accepting reality can save lives.
Too many people seem to have an emotional attachment to their perceived problems. They don't want a solution; they want sympathy, or company in their misery. Their problems are familiar and comfortable.
If it makes you feel better to wallow in hopelessness and despair, I won't try to stop you. If you want to continue chasing your tail in an endless cycle of doing the same thing and expecting a different result, who am I to try to convince you to do something more constructive, or to even sit down and relax? But I don't want to join you, either.
If you see the futility of propping up the status quo, and would prefer to try something that can actually make life better today and into tomorrow, take a chance and reject coercion, reject theft, and embrace voluntary association and self-responsibility.
On the other hand, if you do make a positive change and refuse to get sucked into other people's negative vortex, you'll be called "Utopian". The truth is somewhere between Utopia and Washington DC, but that isn't dramatic enough, I suppose.
.
"The Discovery of Freedom"
I've been reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom" and made a discovery of my own.
The entire book can be distilled down to one Malcolm Reynolds quote: "That's what governments are for- get in a man's way".
You're welcome.
.
The entire book can be distilled down to one Malcolm Reynolds quote: "That's what governments are for- get in a man's way".
You're welcome.
.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Libertarian badassery
I believe it's already "badass" to be libertarian, but others may not quite see it that way. So what would libertarian badassery look like?
First, there would be adherence to the Zero Aggression Principle- that part is non-negotiable- but beyond that would be a determination to not stand for any violations of non-aggression in your presence. An effective knight in shining armor for anyone around who is being violated by an aggressor or thief.
Next would be a determination to not violate property rights of others in any way. The ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.
However, both the above should always be tempered with the wisdom to know that while you don't have a right to initiate force nor to trespass, you must do what you think you need to do in the present situation and accept the consequences that come when you step beyond your bounds. This means that if you see a kid about to be hit by a falling tree on someone else's property, you go ahead and boldly trespass and grab the kid and then accept the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. Let others second-guess and criticize.
There would also be the confidence to do what you know you have a right to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary, but combined with the wisdom to pick your battles. Don't martyr yourself unnecessarily or in a wasteful manner. If you get caught up in the State's "system" due to doing right and good things they forbid- or failing to do stupid and wrong things they mandate- have a decision already made concerning how you will respond to that possibility. Submit or fight as you see fit, not as others would tell you to do. Either strategy can be the right course, and whichever you choose will be criticized by those not in your shoes.
Then, and I hate to say it, would be the incorporation of an inner strength to not preach at statists. A quiet confidence that "thugs will be thugs", and yapping about it to them isn't likely to change their nature.
Yeah, that's not me, either.
.
First, there would be adherence to the Zero Aggression Principle- that part is non-negotiable- but beyond that would be a determination to not stand for any violations of non-aggression in your presence. An effective knight in shining armor for anyone around who is being violated by an aggressor or thief.
Next would be a determination to not violate property rights of others in any way. The ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.
However, both the above should always be tempered with the wisdom to know that while you don't have a right to initiate force nor to trespass, you must do what you think you need to do in the present situation and accept the consequences that come when you step beyond your bounds. This means that if you see a kid about to be hit by a falling tree on someone else's property, you go ahead and boldly trespass and grab the kid and then accept the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. Let others second-guess and criticize.
There would also be the confidence to do what you know you have a right to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary, but combined with the wisdom to pick your battles. Don't martyr yourself unnecessarily or in a wasteful manner. If you get caught up in the State's "system" due to doing right and good things they forbid- or failing to do stupid and wrong things they mandate- have a decision already made concerning how you will respond to that possibility. Submit or fight as you see fit, not as others would tell you to do. Either strategy can be the right course, and whichever you choose will be criticized by those not in your shoes.
Then, and I hate to say it, would be the incorporation of an inner strength to not preach at statists. A quiet confidence that "thugs will be thugs", and yapping about it to them isn't likely to change their nature.
Yeah, that's not me, either.
.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
If not "Stand your ground"- what?
The opposite of stand your ground? Crawl away like a bitty little bug.
That's what your enemies- the anti-liberty, anti-LIFE bigots want you to do. And if you die... well, too bad. At least you didn't use a gun.
.
That's what your enemies- the anti-liberty, anti-LIFE bigots want you to do. And if you die... well, too bad. At least you didn't use a gun.
.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Parental failing
I have spoken about my youngest daughter's unfortunate desire to attend the government school across the street. Well, those chickens are coming home to roost.
I fought, was outnumbered, and defeated.
She went to kindergarten last year, even though she was technically too young to start. Her mom (and all my relatives) encouraged her to go, and her mom actually sort of pushed her into going last year. "Here, take my child!" She loved kindergarten, so she expected our daughter to have the exact same experience.
She did well, but because of her age, and the fact that the teacher said she thought my daughter would benefit emotionally and socially from repeating kindergarten (and because her mom thought it sounded like a wonderful idea), she is back in kindergarten again this year.
My daughter liked her teacher enough that she wanted to be in her class again this year. I don't have anything in particular against her teacher, although it does bother me that in this government school it is official policy to show the kids religious programming and have them pray for absent classmates. Yes, that bothers me.
But this isn't about that.
Before my daughter started kindergarten she was rapidly learning to read and write. She would try to write words and ask me how to spell things all the time. She liked to try to read and would participate in bedtime story reading with me. She was to the point where she could actually read (nearly) entire kids' books to me.
But, no more.
Since she started school, her desire to learn has taken a nose-dive.
Now she never tries to write anything. She never reads except by accident.
And yet, her mom and my government school-worshiping family members don't notice this change- probably because I am the one around her the most. And it bothers me. I feel like I am failing her- but I know this is a fight I will not win. Because, even though my daughter often says she'd rather not go to school anymore (admittedly, mostly when it's time to go to bed or wake up), the resolve of the other "people of influence" is only stronger.
I see school doing the same damage to her that I see in so many others, and that I don't even know how I avoided. School was a living nightmare for me, and I still hate it with a red-hot passion- I wish I had never been forced to attend, since I learned nothing positive from "class" after I learned to read, but only by skipping class and reading in the library.
.
I fought, was outnumbered, and defeated.
She went to kindergarten last year, even though she was technically too young to start. Her mom (and all my relatives) encouraged her to go, and her mom actually sort of pushed her into going last year. "Here, take my child!" She loved kindergarten, so she expected our daughter to have the exact same experience.
She did well, but because of her age, and the fact that the teacher said she thought my daughter would benefit emotionally and socially from repeating kindergarten (and because her mom thought it sounded like a wonderful idea), she is back in kindergarten again this year.
My daughter liked her teacher enough that she wanted to be in her class again this year. I don't have anything in particular against her teacher, although it does bother me that in this government school it is official policy to show the kids religious programming and have them pray for absent classmates. Yes, that bothers me.
But this isn't about that.
Before my daughter started kindergarten she was rapidly learning to read and write. She would try to write words and ask me how to spell things all the time. She liked to try to read and would participate in bedtime story reading with me. She was to the point where she could actually read (nearly) entire kids' books to me.
But, no more.
Since she started school, her desire to learn has taken a nose-dive.
Now she never tries to write anything. She never reads except by accident.
And yet, her mom and my government school-worshiping family members don't notice this change- probably because I am the one around her the most. And it bothers me. I feel like I am failing her- but I know this is a fight I will not win. Because, even though my daughter often says she'd rather not go to school anymore (admittedly, mostly when it's time to go to bed or wake up), the resolve of the other "people of influence" is only stronger.
I see school doing the same damage to her that I see in so many others, and that I don't even know how I avoided. School was a living nightmare for me, and I still hate it with a red-hot passion- I wish I had never been forced to attend, since I learned nothing positive from "class" after I learned to read, but only by skipping class and reading in the library.
.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
"Time's Up" flag Wikipedia page
OK, so there is no such thing. But I think there should be. The design has gotten enough attention beyond what I do to promote it that I think it deserves a page. (Of course I would think that, right?)
However, I don't feel like making one. I'm still bitterly disappointed that Wikipedia deleted the page about me (which I had nothing to do with and simply discovered by accident one day- and it already had a "take down notice" attached).
Well, maybe "bitterly disappointed" is going overboard. I was shocked anyone thought I needed a page- and apparently Wikipedia agreed with me.
"Time's Up" is a different story.
Anyway, if anyone feels like making a Wikipedia page on the "Time's Up" flag and/or design, I'll link to it on the blog.
.
However, I don't feel like making one. I'm still bitterly disappointed that Wikipedia deleted the page about me (which I had nothing to do with and simply discovered by accident one day- and it already had a "take down notice" attached).
Well, maybe "bitterly disappointed" is going overboard. I was shocked anyone thought I needed a page- and apparently Wikipedia agreed with me.
"Time's Up" is a different story.
Anyway, if anyone feels like making a Wikipedia page on the "Time's Up" flag and/or design, I'll link to it on the blog.
.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
War by any name is still as painful
War by any name is still as painful
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 6, 2013.)
Let's imagine a world where you are the ruler of a town. All the people in your town are encouraged to get all their news and information from people connected to you. There are plenty of other sources of information, but the people have been convinced the news they get from "official sources" is more reliable, even when it should be obvious that's not always the case.
You also have the help of highly visible people who comment on the information you release, to the exclusion of everything else, to make it seem as if yours is the only perspective out there. Anything else would be "aiding the enemy" or a "fringe opinion".
Far away from your town is a small, insignificant village run by another guy very much like you. "Sir Ya", has done some nasty things to the people in his town; it seems to go with the job. But, since you have decided you need to go to war with this particular thug right now, he is the thug of the moment to anyone who will listen. Everyone listens.
You eagerly, and with grave expression, report on, and the commentators pass along, any and all evil acts this other guy is suspected of committing.
Of course, the information you release is slanted against Sir Ya and is carefully calculated to make you look better than you are.
The other guy has used "chemical weapons" on the people of his town, so you propose to go to war and kill many of the survivors- using chemicals like gun powder- to "save" them. The irony will be completely lost on the people of your town, and on the popular commentators you depend upon to spread your narrative.
People don't remember the rumored, and ultimately imaginary, "weapons of mass destruction" or baby-eating from every past lead-up to war, and this makes your scheme easier to pull off. You will succeed in getting your war, one way or another.
Sure it's crazy, but the people in your town won't see it because of how you have slanted the information they are exposed to. The same old story could be told of every time you and your predecessors decided to sacrifice the children of your townspeople for some political capital and to ensure a "legacy".
You'll call your war something like "humanitarian aid" or "rescuing his people". It makes the coming death and destruction more popular with the townsfolk. It makes the returning broken bodies and minds of the town's kids something to revere and honor rather than regret.
Let's imagine a world where you are the ruler of a town. All the people in your town are encouraged to get all their news and information from people connected to you. There are plenty of other sources of information, but the people have been convinced the news they get from "official sources" is more reliable, even when it should be obvious that's not always the case.
You also have the help of highly visible people who comment on the information you release, to the exclusion of everything else, to make it seem as if yours is the only perspective out there. Anything else would be "aiding the enemy" or a "fringe opinion".
Far away from your town is a small, insignificant village run by another guy very much like you. "Sir Ya", has done some nasty things to the people in his town; it seems to go with the job. But, since you have decided you need to go to war with this particular thug right now, he is the thug of the moment to anyone who will listen. Everyone listens.
You eagerly, and with grave expression, report on, and the commentators pass along, any and all evil acts this other guy is suspected of committing.
Of course, the information you release is slanted against Sir Ya and is carefully calculated to make you look better than you are.
The other guy has used "chemical weapons" on the people of his town, so you propose to go to war and kill many of the survivors- using chemicals like gun powder- to "save" them. The irony will be completely lost on the people of your town, and on the popular commentators you depend upon to spread your narrative.
People don't remember the rumored, and ultimately imaginary, "weapons of mass destruction" or baby-eating from every past lead-up to war, and this makes your scheme easier to pull off. You will succeed in getting your war, one way or another.
Sure it's crazy, but the people in your town won't see it because of how you have slanted the information they are exposed to. The same old story could be told of every time you and your predecessors decided to sacrifice the children of your townspeople for some political capital and to ensure a "legacy".
You'll call your war something like "humanitarian aid" or "rescuing his people". It makes the coming death and destruction more popular with the townsfolk. It makes the returning broken bodies and minds of the town's kids something to revere and honor rather than regret.
.
Breaking what they've got - Demanding more
If you learn nothing else from the phony-baloney "government shut-down" melodrama, learn this:
If the current amounts of control over the country wielded by these insane bureaucrats has inconvenienced you (it hasn't touched me), or worse, shouldn't you see that giving them even more control over your life (ObamaCare, "gun control", etc.) is the most stupid thing you could possibly do? This just proves they can NOT be trusted with even the smallest control over anything of importance. And they keep demanding more? Ha!
Take your life back.
If the current amounts of control over the country wielded by these insane bureaucrats has inconvenienced you (it hasn't touched me), or worse, shouldn't you see that giving them even more control over your life (ObamaCare, "gun control", etc.) is the most stupid thing you could possibly do? This just proves they can NOT be trusted with even the smallest control over anything of importance. And they keep demanding more? Ha!
Take your life back.
Live life in spite of bad guys
Attacks on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and property are coming- just as they always have. Make no mistake about that.
On one hand it is silly to waste too much time worrying about what this or that puppetician is doing, or what "laws" may surround you. They are all attacks aimed at you- be warned and be ready.
On the other hand, it is good to know from which direction you are likely to be attacked next. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't really help you much.
Just don't get so wrapped up in worrying about the professional thugs that you miss out on life. That would hand the bad guys a victory you can't afford.
.
On one hand it is silly to waste too much time worrying about what this or that puppetician is doing, or what "laws" may surround you. They are all attacks aimed at you- be warned and be ready.
On the other hand, it is good to know from which direction you are likely to be attacked next. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't really help you much.
Just don't get so wrapped up in worrying about the professional thugs that you miss out on life. That would hand the bad guys a victory you can't afford.
.
Monday, October 07, 2013
Sour grapes?
People have suggested that my opposition to aggression and theft, particularly when committed by people calling themselves "government" or "The State", is just a case of "sour grapes"; that if I had chosen a different career path- one that resulted in me having a "government job" of some sort- I wouldn't be libertarian. Because of the trajectory of my life I would refuse to see "taxation" as theft and "laws" as either unnecessary or counterfeit.
Possibly.
My opinion doesn't alter reality, though.
I would hope I am not so shallow that I would let that stop me from seeing reality. And, there are several things I was once in favor of that I rejected due to thinking the matter through rather than sticking with what I liked.
It's not as if lots of other people who have (or once had) "tax addict jobs" don't see what's really going on- it just makes acting on that knowledge more painful. Yet many do it anyway. Perhaps they are better than I am.
As it stands, I don't consider getting a government job, even though it could be justified on the basis of being a mole or a monkeywrencher. And, I really would prefer if everyone who works for any "government" anywhere would quit and find an honest job.
If that is "sour grapes", so be it.
.
Possibly.
My opinion doesn't alter reality, though.
I would hope I am not so shallow that I would let that stop me from seeing reality. And, there are several things I was once in favor of that I rejected due to thinking the matter through rather than sticking with what I liked.
It's not as if lots of other people who have (or once had) "tax addict jobs" don't see what's really going on- it just makes acting on that knowledge more painful. Yet many do it anyway. Perhaps they are better than I am.
As it stands, I don't consider getting a government job, even though it could be justified on the basis of being a mole or a monkeywrencher. And, I really would prefer if everyone who works for any "government" anywhere would quit and find an honest job.
If that is "sour grapes", so be it.
.
Sunday, October 06, 2013
"Time's Up" - new version
I re-worked my "famous" Time's Up design just a bit- more detail, larger design, more anatomically correct snake (the old snake always reminded me more of a boa), larger words.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Saturday, October 05, 2013
"I'm packing my bags and leaving you to starve without me!"
Let's pretend I am an abusive spouse and parent. I steal other family members' stuff and break their things and make huge messes. And I insist that they would die on their own without me.
Sure, I sometimes settle squabbles between family members, but I always do so to my benefit- my interests come first.
And, I do some chores around the house- but I make a big fuss about it when I do. "Look how essential I am!" I crow. "Only I can do this the right way!"
But, I keep making a mess of the family budget, driving everyone deeper and deeper in debt, and I throw a hissy fit when I don't get all the money I want. So one day I declare I am going to leave the family.
But instead of leaving, by any rational definition, all I do is lock a few rooms in the house and say no one can enter until I get my way, and I stop doing anything helpful- except the things that would actually get me kicked to the curb by a family who realizes how utterly useless I really am.
But I don't stop being abusive, nor do I stop stealing, breaking stuff, or making big messes. I even still insist on settling family squabbles so I can continue to guide things to my favor.
Welcome to the "government shutdown".
.
Sure, I sometimes settle squabbles between family members, but I always do so to my benefit- my interests come first.
And, I do some chores around the house- but I make a big fuss about it when I do. "Look how essential I am!" I crow. "Only I can do this the right way!"
But, I keep making a mess of the family budget, driving everyone deeper and deeper in debt, and I throw a hissy fit when I don't get all the money I want. So one day I declare I am going to leave the family.
But instead of leaving, by any rational definition, all I do is lock a few rooms in the house and say no one can enter until I get my way, and I stop doing anything helpful- except the things that would actually get me kicked to the curb by a family who realizes how utterly useless I really am.
But I don't stop being abusive, nor do I stop stealing, breaking stuff, or making big messes. I even still insist on settling family squabbles so I can continue to guide things to my favor.
Welcome to the "government shutdown".
.
Thursday, October 03, 2013
"Exchange"
I keep seeing comments about the "health care exchanges" (I know that's not the "real" name) that I suppose ObamaCare imposed.
To "exchange" means to trade, so I suppose a "health care exchange" is where you trade away your health care for... what? For the opposite of health care?
.
To "exchange" means to trade, so I suppose a "health care exchange" is where you trade away your health care for... what? For the opposite of health care?
.
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Teens buying guns
There was an item I saw in the news a while back that stuck in my mind due to its absurdity and the fact it's another example of "if they can get you to ask the wrong question..."
Should teens be permitted to buy guns after getting a background check?
You know my answer to that question- the imposition of a background check on anyone is unforgivable. As is any imposed restriction on buying or selling any kind of gun to anyone (stores have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason).
But it also just illustrates the ignorance- no, the stupidity of the anti-liberty bigots. Teens buy guns without background checks now. In fact, it's the only way they can, since "legitimate" stores can't sell to them.
So the sensible thing is to end the background checks so they at least have the option to buy from knowledgeable and responsible sources who'll possibly give them good information or instructions- whoever that may be.
.
Should teens be permitted to buy guns after getting a background check?
You know my answer to that question- the imposition of a background check on anyone is unforgivable. As is any imposed restriction on buying or selling any kind of gun to anyone (stores have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason).
But it also just illustrates the ignorance- no, the stupidity of the anti-liberty bigots. Teens buy guns without background checks now. In fact, it's the only way they can, since "legitimate" stores can't sell to them.
So the sensible thing is to end the background checks so they at least have the option to buy from knowledgeable and responsible sources who'll possibly give them good information or instructions- whoever that may be.
.
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Disassociation not always disrespect
Disassociation not always disrespect
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 30, 2013)
Many conflicts in society could be eliminated simply by respecting everyone's right of association- the right to not have anyone imposed upon you. It is about the most fundamental human right there is, and one of the most often violated.
Discrimination isn't automatically a bad thing. I assume you discriminate among the things you eat. A shiny, red apple might be preferred over a ripe banana, and the banana might be chosen before an orange. Everyone has their own criteria and preferences.
This is the reasoning behind the signs in some businesses, which say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That right doesn't need to be "reserved"; it is always there.
Bakery owners who don't wish to make cakes for gay weddings should never be forced to do so. Other potential customers could then decide whether or not to give their money to the business based upon this information.
Businesses could place "No Guns" signs on their door- so long as they are not incorporated, therefore not in partnership with government and required to operate within limits put in place by the Constitution- to keep away honest people with guns. (No one seriously believes such a sign will stop those who wish to rob or murder, do they?) And those who prefer to do business with companies which don't demand they be defenseless in the face of violent attack can choose to spend their money with shops which actually care more about their customers' safety than about making a dangerous political statement.
If there is a person in town whom you don't like, for any reason or no reason at all, no one should force you to be around that person. You are free to leave the park if they show up, or to cross the street to avoid them. No one should force you to buy from them or sell to them. Just don't complain when the shoe is on the other foot.
If a person refuses to associate with someone because of their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, political beliefs, religious ideology, appearance, odor, spoken language, or any reason at all, they are simply asserting their basic human right. If you disagree with their reason, you are free to speak your mind and refuse to associate with them in return.
Why a business owner would willingly choose to alienate a percentage of his potential customers bewilders me, unless he believes that by doing so he will please even more people who will then flock to spend their money with him. It is possible it could happen.
Many conflicts in society could be eliminated simply by respecting everyone's right of association- the right to not have anyone imposed upon you. It is about the most fundamental human right there is, and one of the most often violated.
Discrimination isn't automatically a bad thing. I assume you discriminate among the things you eat. A shiny, red apple might be preferred over a ripe banana, and the banana might be chosen before an orange. Everyone has their own criteria and preferences.
This is the reasoning behind the signs in some businesses, which say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That right doesn't need to be "reserved"; it is always there.
Bakery owners who don't wish to make cakes for gay weddings should never be forced to do so. Other potential customers could then decide whether or not to give their money to the business based upon this information.
Businesses could place "No Guns" signs on their door- so long as they are not incorporated, therefore not in partnership with government and required to operate within limits put in place by the Constitution- to keep away honest people with guns. (No one seriously believes such a sign will stop those who wish to rob or murder, do they?) And those who prefer to do business with companies which don't demand they be defenseless in the face of violent attack can choose to spend their money with shops which actually care more about their customers' safety than about making a dangerous political statement.
If there is a person in town whom you don't like, for any reason or no reason at all, no one should force you to be around that person. You are free to leave the park if they show up, or to cross the street to avoid them. No one should force you to buy from them or sell to them. Just don't complain when the shoe is on the other foot.
If a person refuses to associate with someone because of their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, political beliefs, religious ideology, appearance, odor, spoken language, or any reason at all, they are simply asserting their basic human right. If you disagree with their reason, you are free to speak your mind and refuse to associate with them in return.
Why a business owner would willingly choose to alienate a percentage of his potential customers bewilders me, unless he believes that by doing so he will please even more people who will then flock to spend their money with him. It is possible it could happen.
.
"It's not enough..."
If/when the forces of statism begin openly carrying out a war on lovers of liberty, there is only one way "we" can win.
It's not enough to kill the tyrant.
It's not enough to destroy the "government" that gave him power.
It's not enough to kill the Tributes sent, and sacrificed, to kill you.
You've got to destroy- kill utterly- the delusion of government in your own mind. And help others do the same. Otherwise the cancer will just come back.
.
It's not enough to kill the tyrant.
It's not enough to destroy the "government" that gave him power.
It's not enough to kill the Tributes sent, and sacrificed, to kill you.
You've got to destroy- kill utterly- the delusion of government in your own mind. And help others do the same. Otherwise the cancer will just come back.
.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Who's more angry?
Are libertarians "angry"?
Some are. Are they more angry than statists? Hardly.
Everyone has their own temperament. Some people are naturally more stressed or relaxed or angry or happy or sad than others. Everyone has their own personal level of angst (which probably contributes a lot to anger) that probably isn't going to change much with their external circumstances. It seems people have a "pre-set" for that sort of thing.
I would guess I have about the same level of angst inside me now that I have always had- however, in general I am less angry at the "political world". Back when I considered myself "conservative" I had a lot more "political anger" and frustration. Now, I am more able to go with the flow and laugh at the silly antics of "politics".
I don't expect thugs and thieves to act like anything except what they are. I get mad if I see them victimizing someone (or experience it myself) but I'm not surprised or shocked by their actions. They are what they are. That they justify their abuses through politics is irrelevant to me.
I suppose my anger has shifted to new targets. I am working on that, too.
But, whichever direction I look I see people angry over "politics". Their ideology doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the amount of anger. But statists only seem to see the anger of "the other side"- however they define that at the moment- and it just usually means whoever disagrees with them and their plan to "fix" it all through coercion and theft.
I would say the most angry people I see would classify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative", because most people I see, angry or not, label themselves that way- but they apparently see it differently. Either way, I'm not going to get angry over it.
.
Some are. Are they more angry than statists? Hardly.
Everyone has their own temperament. Some people are naturally more stressed or relaxed or angry or happy or sad than others. Everyone has their own personal level of angst (which probably contributes a lot to anger) that probably isn't going to change much with their external circumstances. It seems people have a "pre-set" for that sort of thing.
I would guess I have about the same level of angst inside me now that I have always had- however, in general I am less angry at the "political world". Back when I considered myself "conservative" I had a lot more "political anger" and frustration. Now, I am more able to go with the flow and laugh at the silly antics of "politics".
I don't expect thugs and thieves to act like anything except what they are. I get mad if I see them victimizing someone (or experience it myself) but I'm not surprised or shocked by their actions. They are what they are. That they justify their abuses through politics is irrelevant to me.
I suppose my anger has shifted to new targets. I am working on that, too.
But, whichever direction I look I see people angry over "politics". Their ideology doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the amount of anger. But statists only seem to see the anger of "the other side"- however they define that at the moment- and it just usually means whoever disagrees with them and their plan to "fix" it all through coercion and theft.
I would say the most angry people I see would classify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative", because most people I see, angry or not, label themselves that way- but they apparently see it differently. Either way, I'm not going to get angry over it.
.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Cells and "Nations"
Recently I saw someone try to defend the idea of "borders" by comparing them to a cell's membrane.
Nice try, but...
If "borders" have any legitimacy at all (which they don't) it would be to define the boundary between the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on one area, and the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on an adjacent area. That boundary should never be applied to people.
A cell is a real, physical thing. A "nation" is a glitch of the mind. It doesn't exist in reality, although people who believe in it will kill for their delusion.
The believers in "borders" try to make the case that one thing that is "right" over here, is "wrong" over here. (That's what I mean by counterfeit "laws".) Murder and rape are wrong everywhere and are pretty much recognized as wrong by the "Law"- even when people wearing the silly hat of "government" try to use euphemisms to excuse murder and rape as long as they are committed by agents of The State acting in their "official capacity". But carrying a gun is said to be "wrong" on one side of an imaginary line, and said to be "OK" on the other side. Same with smoking pot. An imaginary line can't make wrong right or right wrong. But that's all those "borders" are said to do.
"Borders" are just lines in the sand devised to establish which group of thieving thugs are "legally" allowed to rob the people on either side. The trick of brainwashing the livestock into revering that imaginary line was quite a coup for the thieves. It made their "job" so much easier when the victims began to do most of the work for them.
.
Nice try, but...
If "borders" have any legitimacy at all (which they don't) it would be to define the boundary between the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on one area, and the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on an adjacent area. That boundary should never be applied to people.
A cell is a real, physical thing. A "nation" is a glitch of the mind. It doesn't exist in reality, although people who believe in it will kill for their delusion.
The believers in "borders" try to make the case that one thing that is "right" over here, is "wrong" over here. (That's what I mean by counterfeit "laws".) Murder and rape are wrong everywhere and are pretty much recognized as wrong by the "Law"- even when people wearing the silly hat of "government" try to use euphemisms to excuse murder and rape as long as they are committed by agents of The State acting in their "official capacity". But carrying a gun is said to be "wrong" on one side of an imaginary line, and said to be "OK" on the other side. Same with smoking pot. An imaginary line can't make wrong right or right wrong. But that's all those "borders" are said to do.
"Borders" are just lines in the sand devised to establish which group of thieving thugs are "legally" allowed to rob the people on either side. The trick of brainwashing the livestock into revering that imaginary line was quite a coup for the thieves. It made their "job" so much easier when the victims began to do most of the work for them.
.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Don't ignore the warning signs
In a recent discussion with someone, I finally had an awakening about their beliefs and asked "So, you don't believe in 'right' or 'wrong'?"
And the response I got was "Correct. I believe in like and do not like(.) I believe in 'failed to produce the desired results'".
If that's the case, wouldn't that make the person a psychopath? Yeah, I think people call that "utilitarianism", but what evil couldn't be justified under that notion? Only those that "failed"?
He went on to say he believes in right and wrong only where science and math are concerned. So, I take that to mean things like: 5 is the right answer to "2 + 3 = ?", or this rope is the wrong length to reach from here to there, or it's wrong to use up all your water right now, since it means you will die of thirst later and things of that nature, but not with regards to other questions?
Where do I go from there?
If right and wrong are meaningless to you with regards to human interactions, why would you ever debate something like this with a person like me? And why would I ever voluntarily associate with you? You might decide you would like to kill me, and feel your plan wouldn't fail. That's all it would take for you to murder me.
Even if someone believes it is right to initiate force or to steal, they are easier for me to deal with, and more predictable to deal with safely, than the person who thinks such concepts are meaningless. In my opinion.
.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
"Stop & Rob"
I know someone who refers to convenience stores as the "Stop and Rob".
I think that name also applies equally well to cops on "traffic patrol". It's all they do- they "stop" and "rob" travelers.
Don't fool yourself into believing that a traffic stop is anything other than an armed robbery. You might like the results, but when you see the local "Stop & Rob" in action, you are witnessing a violation of fundamental human rights.
So, support your local individual Stop & Rob if it makes you happy, but don't pretend he's something other than what he is.
.
I think that name also applies equally well to cops on "traffic patrol". It's all they do- they "stop" and "rob" travelers.
Don't fool yourself into believing that a traffic stop is anything other than an armed robbery. You might like the results, but when you see the local "Stop & Rob" in action, you are witnessing a violation of fundamental human rights.
So, support your local individual Stop & Rob if it makes you happy, but don't pretend he's something other than what he is.
.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
"Freedom isn't free"
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.
.
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.
.
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?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)