Honor the Stormtroopers- Serving The Empire

I'm sure they believe they are fighting for the right side- the "good guys".  After all, they are fighting "rebel terrorists" who destroyed a military base.  They are probably held in high regard among their peers and praised by those who use them as tools.  Their sacrifice and selflessness is apparent.  

I suppose we should "honor" them... right?  Without regard to the actual effects of what they did and are doing.

You go right ahead.  I'll sit this one out.

.

The Undiscovered Planet

What if you lived on a newly discovered planet somewhere and, unbeknownst to you, someone decided to make agreements among themselves claiming all the land, and then started selling the land back and forth under your feet.  In that case, would you really be a trespasser?

Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.

I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.

It's just something I was thinking about.  I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.

.

Knocking CEOs

My CNJ column explained why raising the minimum wage won't solve anything.  But, what then is the solution?

What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?

Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs.  In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true.  But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes.  Don't like how much he is paid?  Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.

Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees.  One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**.  I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway.  This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.

I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.

I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him.  Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite.  I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.

_

*Corporations are a government-created fiction.  They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion.  I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.

**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million.  Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores).  So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.

Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.

Just a vector

Should I be disturbed that the most blog visits I have gotten in ages- even more than my post about the death of Chris Kyle, or the recent one pointing out that cops are cowards, or even my consistent "top post" of the past 3 months about Edward Snowden- was just a link to someone else's work?

Whether I should be bothered or not, I am.  Just a little.

I suppose any page views are good.  Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes.  Eventually.

So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.

.

Supporters are awesome!

Just a quick note to say "Thank you!!" to all those who have made donations to help keep me blogging and eating.  And to help me keep KentForLiberty online.

It's because of your support that I can afford to speak my mind without fear of losing a job for extreme "political incorrectness".

If you haven't pitched in, but you'd like to, the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons are there on the left.

Thanks again!

.

If it makes you feel good, it's probably illegal

Often, after I read some really inspiring anarchist or libertarian writing, I feel so good it's amazing.  I feel taller, stronger, better than I was before.  The day seems sunnier, other people seem nicer.  Everything just looks and feels clearer.  More focused and sharper.  I feel happy.

So, I wonder if statists get the same rush after reading Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, or after visiting the Daily Kos or FOX News.

.

Healthcare best off in free market

Healthcare best off in free market

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 4, 2013)

If someone has a broken ankle you can't solve their problem by shooting them in the kneecap. If the problem is the cost of medical care you can't solve it by socializing medicine and giving government even more control. Government interference is what drove the price up to begin with.

The way to bring the price back down is to ensure a separation of medicine and state.

This would mean an end to ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, to the FDA and the DEA (and the DEA's war on politically incorrect drugs), and the end of state licensing (and therefore rationing) of medical professionals.

There are people who can't afford health care. The proper way to solve the problem is two-fold: reduce the cost of medical care and then help those who still can't afford it. Charities have always been an excellent solution to the latter problem- except when driven out of the market by coercive welfare.

The way to reduce the cost of health care is incredibly simple, but requires letting go of some carefully crafted misconceptions. The biggest of those is that only government can adequately oversee safety and protect the patients.

The FDA wouldn't necessarily have to be abolished, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, nor should it have the final say. Let independent labs determine the safety and effectiveness of new medications, putting their reputations behind the release of the new treatments they approve. Let doctors and patients decide what treatments they want to try.

On the other hand, the DEA needs to die a quick death and be forced out of the business of driving up the price of drugs through prohibition and the prescription scam. Drug abuse is bad; drug prohibition is worse by every measure.

No one needs multiple years of medical school to set a broken arm or to diagnose and treat a flu. Allow those interested in practicing the healing arts to be certified by competing agencies. If you've heard good things about the doctors trained or certified by "Docs R Us", and have less confidence in the doctors turned out by "Bob's Skool of Medasin", make your decisions accordingly. Let people hang up a shingle and compete for patients. If a medical condition is beyond the healer's ability, make it easy for them to admit this and refer the patient to a more skilled provider.

You are smart enough to decide where to buy a car, or who to marry, and you are mature enough to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Medical care is no different.

.

The Caprock people

Libertarians are really radical compared to "the majority" today.

It wasn't always that way; not to the degree it is now.

The libertarian is like a stone that stays in place as the landscape around it erodes.  A caprock.  Over time, people on the eroded land look up and say "That stone is getting higher all the time!"  They don't realize that the stone hasn't moved; the ground they are standing on has kept getting lower.

This is why libertarians are now considered so "radical" when observed by the degraded people around us.  Of course, they are also standing on their heads so they see us as the degraded ones, but I suppose that's a topic for another day.

.

Compromise means you lose

Excellent!  And, the same thing I've been saying for years.  (H/T to Robert's Gun Shop)

And, thanks for your support!

 .

Fun with spammers

Here's one of the best spam comments I have gotten in a long time:

"What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious experience concerning unpredicted emotions."

Yeah... not really sure what was being "communicated" there, other than the spammer's link.  But it was sure hilarious to read.  You have to watch out for those unpredicted emotions.

.

Do I hope ObamaCare doesn't work?

I read a silly rant by someone claiming that ObamaCare's critics are just scared it will work. What tripe.

I hope ObamaCare does work. Just like I hope hyperinflation never hits America and like I hope the US government's "leaders" never get genocidally tyrannical. Just like I hope no one I know and love ever gets sick, injured, or dies.

But I know that's an impossible wish.  And every nation with socialized medicine is already a failure by my definition.

America has already dodged too many bullets that "no nation in history has ever __ and not had __ happen to it".  That "luck" can't hold out forever, and some day, when we least expect it, the bill will come due.  The piper will be paid.

But how can ObamaCare "work"?  Well, it depends on how you define "work", and whether you ignore larger issues.

Wanna improve "health care"? Just kill everyone who gets sick. Magically- no more sickness!  That would be just as ethical as theft-funded ObamaCare. You can't accomplish good by doing evil.

.

A new investment opportunity!

No, not sending me all your money- although if you want to, I won't stop you.

This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.

It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."

That's a pretty good return!

If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps".  There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity.  I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps.  And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps!  The possibilities are endless.  You can't lose.

Unless what the person claims* isn't true.

Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?

Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?

*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make.  Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)

.

Anonymity?

Someone just sent me this message:

I just learned something interesting that you probably don't know, Kent.
You cannot post to your blog using an anonymous proxy.
More piggery from the government!
Perhaps you should inform your readers that posting "anonymous" will still show their IP address to the pigs.

I always assumed there was no such thing as real anonymity on the internet anyway, but you might want to be aware of this tidbit of information.

.

Stay leaderless, my friends

Unlike "liberals" or "conservatives", libertarians don't have real leaders.

Oh, sure, there are those who "everybody knows", and are followed with interest, but they aren't like a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow, or even like Obama or Ron Paul.

I always see others posting the latest talking point from their leaders. But not so much with libertarians.

The "prominent" libertarians tell you what they are thinking, and expect you to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and reject it if it's crap (even if they don't like your conclusions).  They may still try to convince you they are right, but it isn't easy for their opinions to become widely accepted among liberty lovers without being picked apart and found to be correct.

The "mainstream" folks don't do that when their leaders tell them what they should think.  They suck it right up and repeat it everywhere.

Even of those libertarian thinkers I admire, if they say something full of crap I'll say so. And they do the same for me.

It's because libertarians don't just yap to be saying something.  We think first.  And we never stop thinking about what we are saying and what we'll say next.  We can back up what we say with reality and evidence, even if statists reject the reality for the comfort of their delusions. Makes it very hard for statists to actually disprove what we say, so they resort to other tactics.  At that point, the best thing to do is to ignore them- it's not going to end nicely.

If I were offered position of "king of the libertarians" I would turn it down.  Nor would I ever blindly follow a "king of libertarians", even if I liked the person.  There's no way that could help bring on more liberty.  Having a leader would set libertarians back and make us as vulnerable to basic foundational errors as the others are.

.

Gadsden flag still resonates today

Gadsden flag still resonates today

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 27, 2013)

You have seen the bright yellow flags sporting the coiled rattlesnake, with the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" boldly emblazoned across the bottom, but have you ever really thought about the phrase, and what it means?

It doesn't say "Don't offend me". It doesn't say "Don't refuse to give me what I feel I am owed". It says "Don't TREAD on me". It warns against an act of physical aggressive violence; an initiation of force.

The "Don't tread on me" flag is properly referred to as the Gadsden flag, and was named after Colonel Christopher Gadsden. The flag is believed to have originated in 1775 with Colonel Gadsden, who presented one of these flags to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. Hopkins then flew the flag from his ship, the Alfred.

Some people consider the Gadsden flag to be the real American flag. It's older than the USA, older than the "Stars and Stripes", and conveys the message that "live and let live" is how America was set up to operate.

It was the flag of an earlier time- a time before the official policy was to attempt to bomb people in other parts of the world into freedom, or to preserve the liberties of Americans by violating liberty here and abroad. A time before an imperial USA came into being. A time and a spirit long since violated by NSA spying, by socialized medicine, by US military bases in the majority of countries around the globe, by never-ending wars, and by an occupied America where "freedom" is an empty word uttered under the watchful eyes of those tasked with enforcing an unknowable number of petty "laws".

A time before being trod upon was official policy.

Perhaps that is why it resonates with so many today.

Of course, some people- who don't seem to really understand the message behind the flag- use it to show disdain for the current federal administration, not realizing the message applies just as surely to every US administration since at least Lincoln's.

"Don't tread on me" is the quintessential libertarian message. It is not a statement of aggressive intent, nor is it a passive surrender. It says "I will not come after you to cause you harm, but if you step on me I will take measures to defend myself".

I love seeing the Gadsden flag flying high, but even more than that, I love it when those flying it truly understand what the flag stands for. "Don't tread on me": it's more than just a flag.
.

Mor on cops

How did the police become so bad?  How did they become the occupying army that America's founders warned about?

Cops were never intended to have any more liberty than anyone else. No special "rights" above and beyond what you or I have.

It's just not possible for one person (or "class" of people) to have rights not possessed by every other person.

They were first hired to do the low-class, messy work that lazy and irresponsible people didn't want to do for themselves.  Things like stop aggressive attacks and theft.  And track down those who did such things.

At first, in order to make their job easier, they were allowed to be outlaws- ignoring counterfeit "laws".  I have no problem with that- I think everyone should always ignore counterfeit "laws" at every opportunity.  But, cops were still told to enforce those "laws" against everyone else.  That's not nice, and it's hypocrisy.

This dubious "plan" has gotten out of control.  The "license" to be special enough to not be constrained by counterfeit "laws" wasn't enough for them.  So, it didn't stop there.  Now cops have been allowed to become outright criminals- violating laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.

Combined with the cowardice that defines how cops view you, it's a really dangerous situation.  One that can't last.

Interesting times are in store.

.

Cops are cowards

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

.

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!

.

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".

.

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.

.

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.

.

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?
.

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.

.

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: 

75% potassium nitrate (KNO3), 15% charcoal, 10% sulfur.

Are there any things of that nature that you have written down just in case?

.

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.

.

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
.

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.

.

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.

.

"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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

Why wages don't rise as fast as prices do

(Sorry for the quality of the picture.)

"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.

.

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.

.

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.

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.

.

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.

.

"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?

"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".

.

"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?

.

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.

.

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.

.

"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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

"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.

.

"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.

.

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.

-

And please don't forget.

.

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.

.

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?

.

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).

.

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.)

.

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 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!

.

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.

.

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.

-

And please don't forget.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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:

"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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

-

And please don't forget.

.

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.

.