"Hit and Run"- wrong but understandable

A strange question entered my mind after hearing about a friend who was hit in a "hit and run" accident recently.

Were there as many hit and runs before cops started making every accident into a criminal case?

I would bet there were not.  I might be wrong, but I can see why people might now flee after an accident.  Maybe there are some residual substances which the authoriturds criminalize in their bloodstream.  Perhaps some mandated papers are missing or expired.  Perhaps the driver or a passenger is "in the system" for some other infraction and an encounter with enforcers would be too costly.

And, that's besides the fact that now, in every accident, the enforcers will find a way to turn it into a "crime" and extort money from someone.  Not money for the injured party as in restitution, but for their leash-holders of The State.  It's what they show up for.

Sometimes accidents are just accidents.  Tragedies don't need to be used to prop up the flailing police state.  If I have an accident, I feel awful enough (just like when I dropped my mom's whole chocolate pie on the floor the other day).  I don't need anyone to inflict extra pain on me in order to "teach me a lesson", or to finance the cowardly enforcers' retirement fund.  Nor do I want enforcers doing that to other people on my behalf.  Get a clue- people who don't feel bad for causing an accident don't magically change for the better because you turn them into criminals and steal some of their property for the State.

Go away, enforcer.  Society can't afford to support you any more.

.

Dreaming of riches

The weird dreams I sometimes have... the ones I can mention in nice company (or even among outlaws like myself), I mean.

A few days ago I dreamed Bitcoin was at $2077 and someone donated 20 of them to me.  Of course, in my dream, my mathematical abilities were on par with my waking mathematical ability, and I figured it totaled million$.

Yes, in the past I have also dreamed of cash, precious metals, and other treasures falling into my lap, so this is just a new version of the same old dream.

But, speaking of Bitcoin... I really am amused at the people having conniptions over other people choosing to use Bitcoin.  Personally, I will use FRNs, silver, gold, Bitcoin, or trade goods to get what I want or need.  And I have used each and every one of those forms of "money" at various times.  I won't accept payment I don't want, and I would never expect anyone else to, either.

I don't totally understand how Bitcoins are mined or created, because that involves math and programming- 2 things I am not great at and don't have the ambition (or time) to really practice.  But, I am not an expert on gold mining and refining and minting, either.  That doesn't make me scared of gold.  Yes, I wish I had bought a bunch of gold when it was really cheap, but I'm not going to insult people who own gold simply because they have more than I do.

I was highly amused when the story broke where the expert was calling Bitcoin a "Ponzi scheme".  By making that association he is lending a lot of undeserved legitimacy to actual Ponzi schemes (even the "participate at gunpoint" Ponzi scheme called "Social Security").

I never started accepting Bitcoin in order to get rich.  Or even to profit from having them.  I did it to have another monetary option available to myself.  It has worked and I am satisfied with that option.

If you don't like Bitcoin, I have a link on the side that will allow you to get rid of the ones you might have.

.

Never confuse theft with charity

Never confuse theft with charity

 (My Clovis News Journal column for November 1, 2013 -in the Portales News-Tribune this time)

I'm as far from being a Republican as I am from being a Democrat: as far as east is from west. But when I see misguided criticisms and flawed comparisons aimed at the wrong target, I feel the need to address it.

Recently I witnessed someone scolding Republicans for their "opposition to socialism", as demonstrated by their use of the ObamaCare boondoggle for political theatrics. "Opposed to socialism"? Republicans are enthusiastic socialists in most everything they advocate- but their favorite programs differ from those of the Democrats, therein dwells the friction.

This particular Democrat was claiming that Jesus was a socialist, as evidenced by his handing out free medical care, food, and other such necessities, therefore Republicans shouldn't be so hostile to socialism. But there's a gaping hole in this comparison, overlooked by the commenter.

Socialists' "generosity" comes through giving away things that didn't belong to them to begin with, and were not voluntarily given to be handed out. In other words, socialists steal from others and then feel superior when they distribute the stolen property. Never confuse theft with charity. You can't be generous with other people's money, time, or labor, but only with your own. When you try to do so, you are just a common thief.

Any way you look at it, that's not nice.

If theft was one of the virtues advocated by Jesus, I must have missed that part.

Anytime you take something that doesn't belong to you, against the wishes of its rightful owner, you are stealing. Even if you promise to use that property for good. Even if you say the victim of your theft is getting some necessity in return. Even if you make the claim that the person has implicitly consented through some non-voluntary "social contract". It doesn't matter if your uses for that property are "progressive" or "conservative". Once again, it comes down to the difference between sharing and being robbed.

Go ahead and advocate whatever policies or programs you like, but don't pretend those you look up to would have supported whichever Big Government welfare program you happen to love, in an attempt to make your position seem moral.

That applies to those who would claim he would have supported the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, the War on Terror, torture, immigration control, government schools, police checkpoints, NSA spying, or anti-gun laws. In this case you are clearly misrepresenting everything he stood for. What was that about "bearing false witness"?

.

Nice cops

Everytime I speak the truth about cops, someone will object and tell me "there are good cops!"

No.  There are not.

As I saw someone say a while back- and I wish I could remember where I saw it and who said it- there are "nice cops", but no "good cops".

A "nice cop" is one who treats you in a non-cop manner.  Who holds the door for women, stops to help a stranded traveler, gives a thirsty dog a drink.  Things any of us would do if we are decent people.  He is nice because of who he is, and what he is doing at the moment, not because of what his job might be.

But, that same "nice cop", as soon as he enforces ONE counterfeit "law" is no longer a good person.  He is being a cop.  He might still do "nice" things while on the job, but the overwhelming majority of that "job" is inflicting evil upon people.

Most bad guys can't spend all their time being evil.  It's too much work and would cripple their ability to live among friends and family- if they could even keep friends and family.  They have to be nice to those around them most of the time, no matter what they do when they target those they consider to be "other" or "less-human".  Because of this fact, you can have nice mobsters, nice muggers, and nice rapists, but none of them can be "good".

And neither can any cop.  The "job" eliminates that possibility completely.

.

Don't add what you don't need

A week or so ago an online friend (you know who you are) was relating a conversation he had with someone else- trying to explain that refrigeration systems don't "make cold", they remove heat, and then he mentioned that this is similar to what liberty is.

It isn't so much "something" as a lack of something: liberty is the lack of tyranny, or coercion, or whatever you want to call it.

Why on earth would anyone want "Life, now with added tyranny!"?

.

Can't blame a thug for trying

You can have opposing sides in an encounter both be right- even if one is otherwise wrong.

An extreme example: imagine you lived during or just before WWII in Germany, and you happened to be present as Hitler was issuing orders to kill some innocent person.  You would have been right to shoot Hitler, if you'd gotten the chance at that moment, and he would have been right to violently defend himself from your attempt.  I would hope you came out victorious, but I wouldn't blame Hitler for shooting you in self defense.  It would be silly to fault a person for that.

No one is obligated to just sit there and be killed.  No one can "lose" a right, such as the right to defend yourself.  Not even by violating the same right in others.

It seems odd to me when that's what I think people are advocating.  It's why "resisting arrest" is such a stupid concept for a "crime".  It's why I would like to see the next death row inmate who is being lead to his execution lash out and kill a few of the prison employees before being shot to death in the hallway.  If you're going to die, die like a man.

Sure, I always prefer the bad guy to be the one who loses, and if I'm involved in a violent attack I'd probably rather my attacker let me shoot him without fighting back, but I could never blame him for trying.

.

Protect the dead- eat the living?

Watching Firefly, as I often do, I am constantly coming across wise things I hadn't caught before.  Or, stupid statist things that I hadn't gotten the significance of on earlier viewings.

One jumped out at me recently, when the Alliance goon said, in reference to the crew of Serenity: "Lowlife vultures, picking the flesh off the dead." As opposed to what?  Lowlife thieves who eat the living with taxes and regulations, that's what.

The dead don't care if you take their stuff- they can't own anything.  Funny that The State would supposedly find this more horrific than stealing from living owners- but you know they do.

.

Ah-sheh'heh

That means "Thank you" in Navaho.

Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing my posts and CNJ columns.  Thank you for your support- financial, emotional, and intellectual.

Just Thank you.

.

Leaving a mark

Humans want to know (or at least feel) they have left some mark on the world that will outlive them.

I am happy to know I've made my mark.

I know my Time's Up flag will outlive me.  Most people who use the design don't even know I designed it- and that's IF they have ever heard of me.  It has taken on a life of its own.  That's strangely satisfying.

Government meddling not helping

Government meddling not helping

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 25, 2013.)

When judging whether you should do more of something, or even continue to do it at all, a necessary step is to look at the results your actions have produced so far.

After over a century of government schooling, usually erroneously called "public education", illiteracy is at crisis levels in America. Another century of letting government control education and today's texting generation may be literacy's "good old days" by comparison.

After a century or so of ever-escalating anti-gun "laws", the least dangerous places are still those areas which have avoided the most restrictive, or what the anti-gun activists would call "common sense", regulations. The most restrictive locations keep getting less safe.

Because of strife between the "races", government imposed "laws" which violated the right of association, particularly that policy which was called "Affirmative Action", and caused the strife between the races to begin heating up again. For decades now, about the only racial problems that have existed are those directly created by government intervention.

President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty", and imposed policies that made poverty practically hereditary and almost impossible for those being "helped" to ever escape. Poverty is winning that war.

After several decades of drug prohibition, approximately the same percentage of people are addicted to the forbidden substances as were addicted before the prohibition began, and the laws are driving the drugs to grow ever more dangerous and cheaper.

Here in the midst of the post-9/11 security mania, Americans are less free at home and less safe when venturing out into the rest of the world. And there have never been more people around the world willing to kill or die to strike a blow at the US government, which they mistake for Americans.

After handing control of the money supply over to the Federal Reserve a hundred years ago the US dollar has lost 95% or more of it's value. "Inflation" isn't normal; it is the consequence of the Federal Reserve's accelerating counterfeiting operation which floods the economy with more and more dollars every year- each of which makes the dollar in your hand worth just a little bit less.

How is all that "help" working for you?

Of course, when proposing to interfere, you also need to examine whether your plans will violate the rightful liberty of any person, or violate their property rights in any way, no matter how seemingly minor. If it will you shouldn't ever do it.

It leaves me wondering, how can anyone imagine that socializing medical care will have an effect opposite to that of state intervention in every other area?
.

Who is less trustworthy?

In a conversation with my newspaper editor last week, concerning my column, he mentioned that he also doesn't trust cops, but that doesn't mean he trusts the people who sue the cops- particularly when they wait a year or more to file the suit.

Well, I don't necessarily automatically trust anyone, but I know cops lie as a matter of course.  It's a required part of holding the "job".

Sure, a guy who sues the cops and wants to be paid millions of "tax" dollars also has an incentive to lie.

No one gets my trust automatically.  And who is it more important for me, personally, to be wary of?  Who can do me the most damage, with the least chance of me being able to fight back effectively?  It's not the guy suing the cops, even if the cops are- in this case- "innocent".

.

Knock out the aggressors

That new excuse for aggression, the "knockout game", does seem to show a need for more people being armed at all times, but I wonder how much a gun would really help.

If the attack comes with "no warning", as is claimed, how will you have time to pull your gun?

By all means carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but that's not enough.  You also need to be aware of your surroundings every moment of every day.  Make it a habit.

If the predators can't get within striking range, they can't punch you.  But if they do manage to catch you off guard, and if they fail to knock you unconscious with the first punch, maybe you can end their consciousness forever before they succeed.

.

Be careful what you ask for

It cracks me up when statists complain about the ideas of liberty being spread on the internet, because, in their minds, the State "gave us the internet", so we should be grateful and never put a disparaging word about "government" online.

Except that they're wrong about this, too.

Government didn't create the internet.  Some government goons told some techies what they wanted in a robust communications tool, and those people created the internet.  Much to the consternation of every government thug since the day they realized what had sprung into being was something they didn't control.

And, the internet wasn't even useful until it escaped into the wild.  If government employees were still keeping it only for themselves, it would be nothing more than a filing cabinet full of dead roaches.

.

The blind leading the blind?

Politics is not a case of "the blind leading the blind" (as I have heard claimed).  It's much worse than that.  It's an example of the blind "leading" the one with absolutely perfect vision.

You can see your own path- you don't need to be dragged where you don't want to go, right off a cliff, by someone who is clueless and stupid.

.

A good start

.

Liberty Lines, Nov. 21, 2013

Published in the Farwell TX/ Texico NM State Line Tribune

(This was in response to a column by the newspaper's owner- click on the picture to read it- which suggested that the presence of a Libertarian candidate ensured the victory of the Democrat in the VA governor's race.  I was asked to weigh in on the matter from a libertarian perspective.)

First of all, I am what you would call a "small 'l' libertarian" as opposed to a "Big 'L' Libertarian". It's the difference between being a philosophical libertarian and being a political libertarian (a member of the Libertarian Party). They can be the same, but often aren't.

The Libertarian Party is a political party supposedly based upon the principles of libertarianism- but they often fall short due to their desire to win elections- or to at least play the game. They soft peddle and avoid topics they think would hurt them, and because of that can't even get the support of many libertarians. I used to be a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but dropped out because of the LP's refusal to stick to the principles.

When they lose an election, both Republicans and Democrats think Libertarians took votes from them. Both are probably correct to a degree, depending on the particular election, but I think in most cases the people who end up voting for the Libertarian candidate simply wouldn't have voted at all if there hadn't been a Libertarian on the ballot. There is a simple solution- become more libertarian rather than constantly whining that libertarians should vote for candidates they find repugnant.

Most Libertarians, and practically all libertarians, see no reason to prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat, or vice versa. Most see them both as simply different branches of the same political party, rather than seeing the superficial differences they emphasize having any actual value at all. If you are being chased by a hungry tiger, why would you care what color the stripes on his tail are? Both Democrats and Republicans believe it's their "right" to control what you do with your own life and property, and will use deadly force to enforce compliance. The only difference is in which parts of your life and property they choose to interfere with. That's no choice.

One big part of libertarian (and principled Libertarian) thinking is that a vote for the lesser of two evils just keeps resulting in more evil. If the choice is between two people who shouldn't be holding office, then to vote for either one is endorsing someone you don't want under the belief that "you have to vote for someone". No, you don't. It's better to not participate than to throw your support behind someone you know is dangerous to individual liberty. If you vote you are implicitly agreeing to go along with the result even if "your side" loses. In other words, if you vote you have no right to complain about the results. Yes, I know the voters usually turn that upside down, but think about it: If you play chess by the rules, how can you complain if you lose? Especially if you keep agreeing to play chess with a known cheat, or with someone who keeps changing the rules mid-game to favor himself. In that case the only winning move is to refuse to be drawn in. Go play something else instead.

.

Filthy Little Liars- and Their Slimy Lawyer

You may have seen this story.  Some school girls spread the rumor their teacher was a molesting pervert.  He sued and won.

But to me, that's far from the most important part of the story.  The most horrifying thing I got from this story was that the girls' families and at least one slimy lawyer didn't care whether or not the teacher was guilty, they wanted him to lose the case anyway so that real molesters wouldn't get away with it in the future.  

The lawyer, Lee J. Danforth, was actually quoted as saying:

"If this trial prevents one little girl or one mother or father from reporting suspected abuse, then this is profoundly sad for our society."

My response is; Yep, and the fault for that doesn't lie with the jury or the teacher, but with the filthy little liars.

How can he be so devoid of ethics that he thinks it's OK for an innocent person to be harmed?  

Once again, this is why I don't think I could convict anyone if I were a juror.  Not anymore.  I don't want The State's goons to win even when they are after a bad guy.  It empowers them and gives them the illusion of legitimacy.

.

Shutdown shows little is “essential”

Shutdown shows little is “essential”

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 18, 2013)

What have you learned from the "government shut down"?

I've learned that I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I didn't see people commenting about it. Personally, I probably wouldn't notice or care if the federal government really shut down for good and took the state and local governments with it into the dustbin of history. I expect that if I did notice, it would be like noticing a cool, refreshing breeze bringing a spring shower, or the way you can suddenly realize a nagging headache has gone away.

This is because I know what government purports to provide, and I know the market can provide those things better, when they are needed at all. I am also prepared to do without those things that are unlikely to ever be replaced. I welcome liberty.

However, I realize I am not typical.

I also learned that those who control the federal government are very vindictive, and organized the "shut down" to precisely target those who actually still support them.

I learned that "essential" doesn't mean what politicians think it means. Isn't it funny that it seems to be only the non-essential government functions which hurt "the people" when taken away? If the IRS (apparently considered essential, judging by the fact they weren't included in the "shut down") went away no one but those employees and their families would even notice, much less be hurt.

Park rangers are "non-essential" according to those who orchestrated the "shut down", at least in their normal capacity. It seems odd to me that armed guards to keep people out of parks, and terrorize those evil vacationers who dare visit or take photos of their own National Park property without an official welcome, are apparently essential- even though that job didn't exist until the government "shut down". Isn't making up numerous new jobs the opposite of "shutting down"?

It seems the only people out of a job because of the "shut down" are those who will be missed by the most people. It's almost as if the administration intentionally decided to use Americans as pawns, and cause them the most possible pain, to coerce them into putting pressure on congress to negotiate with a terrorist... I mean, to give the president everything he wants.

To prevent this ever happening again I would suggest the best course of action is for everyone to choose a private sector job, but even that doesn't guarantee job security, as demonstrated by the recent closure of Portales' Sunland Peanuts. And government had nothing to do with that. Oh, wait...

.

Bill Buppert's latest

Read this: The President as Police Commissioner: Cops and Collectivism by Bill Buppert

Best quote... "There is no such thing as a good cop..."

Absolutely right.  As I recently saw someone say, there are no good cops- nice cops, but no good ones.

I sure do wish more people would see that fact.

.

What's worse than flying monkeys?

Cops.  Not only are they cowards and a lot of other pathetic things, but they are also "compliance monkeys".

If you don't comply with their often unreasonable (to the point of absurdity) demands- faster than is humanly possible- they will act with potentially lethal force.  This is not the behavior of reasonable people, but of sociopaths.

Most traffic "laws" have nothing to do with safety- but with compliance.  And with stealing money for The State, of course.  But that's just one example in a galaxy of "laws" and other bureaucratic nonsense.

.

Teasing the dragon at the door (Updated)

I am writing a newspaper column that may not get past the publisher this week.  I can't really afford to have one rejected, but this is something that really needs to be said.  And I've got to at least try to get it beyond "the choir" who visits here.

It concerns the rapist cops of Deming, New Mexico.

I have edited out all the references to disembowelment* and such, but it is probably still too strongly worded to be published.  I keep trying, but how gently can one say what needs to be said?

And considering how badly the last column stirred up the citizens, they may not be willing to have another controversial column from the likes of me for a few weeks.

Either way, you'll be able to read it (I just may whine for donations to cover my lost pay if it's rejected).  I guess you'll find out Friday.

Update: It passed, but some things are getting edited out, and an awful lot of "allegedly" is being added, to protect the newspaper's hiney from the same kind of violation the cops are accused of committing.  You can read it this friday.  In a month (December 24, 2013 to be exact) you can read my original version right on this blog.  Stay tuned.

*In lieu of restitution...
.

Celebrity watching

Pretty often I see "serious minded" folk making fun of those who obsess over the latest celebrity trainwreck... while following what various puppeticians do as if it is important business.

How silly.

Paying attention to politics has as much real world value as obsessing over what Miley is smoking or who she's twerking.

Both are just cases of substandard people in far off places, with no real place of importance in your personal life, living in your head.

Your attention just feeds their ego and gives them reason to believe they really are as important as they imagine themselves to be.  Sure you can say the politicians impose laws and taxes and have the power to destroy your life, but your compliance is really up to you.  They have as much power over your life as you give them.  Their local enforcers are the real problem, and yet, they still depend upon an illusion of legitimacy from their victims.  Stop giving it.

In fact, of the two obsessions, I'd say it is less vacuous and trivial to pay attention to celebrities.  At least they probably got your attention by doing something besides telling someone else to hold a gun to your head and steal your property and your liberty.

.

"Need" to be governed?

I don't need to be governed by anyone else, but even if I did, since everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property from all violators, that is enough to govern me. 

And the same goes for everyone else in the world. 

People, exercising their rights, are the only government anyone needs, and the only kind of government that can actually work without becoming a bigger problem than that which it claims to be solving.

Obviously, some people have a pathological "need" to govern others, but even in that case they are not under the delusion that they need to be governed, themselves.  Just that everyone else does.

I think we can discount the "needs" of those people as a sickness.

.

Shoe Goo!

Not a "primitive skill", but still a useful thing to know.  This is a kinda, sorta product endorsement.  No, I'm not getting paid for it and the company doesn't even know I am writing this... but I love Shoe Goo.

Originally I bought the stuff to do some shoe repairs, just as the stuff is intended for.  Then, I realized it would stick to plastic toys better than anything else I had around, so my daughter's toys started getting repaired better, rather than just thrown away.  She was going through tiaras too fast.

Then I started branching out to fix more and more stuff around the house.  Stuff I had never been able to effectively repair before.  Even fixed the side mirror on my dad's pickup with it.

The most useful thing I have found is that I can extend the life of my pants by 2 or 3 times.  Maybe more.  Actually, I haven't yet had to give up on a pair of pants that I have repaired with Shoe Goo.

I always wear out the left knee of my pants before anything else.  Then the right knee goes, and then the seat of the pants gets holes (bike riding seems to be hard on the seat).  I am not one to feel comfortable wearing holey pants, and never have been.  But what I discovered is that I can rub some Shoe Goo on the inside where the wear is just about to break through and prevent it from happening for a few more months.  If I get really ambitious I will cut a patch from an old pair of pants and glue it to the inside where the wear is and it lasts even better.  I just keep an eye on where the next hole is going to form and nip it in the bud.

If you like saving money- and who doesn't?- try it.  One tube of Shoe Goo pays for itself many times over at my house.  The company might not approve of all my uses, but I just keep finding more.  As soon as something needs to be fixed at my house, I don't grab the duct tape, I grab the Shoe Goo.

.

Officer paranoia

"Officer safety" has nothing to do with safety- it's all about officer paranoia.

If it really was about safety, then cops should be very relaxed and calm in any interaction with "the public".  After all, they are heavily armed, and swagger around with the knowledge that their entire gang in blue will be at their back in any scuffle between them and normal folk.  They know they have manipulated the "law" so that anything they do to you is "within departmental policy" and anything you do to resist their molesting hands is "assaulting an officer" and can be met with lethal force, "legally".

But cops aren't relaxed.  They are frantic, paranoid, and trigger happy.  They understand instinctively (even if they don't allow themselves to admit it) that their own actions have made them less safe than they would have been in the past.  People in general are not worse- cops are.  And there are real-world consequences that go along with that.

As I saw someone else say (sorry, I forget who said it) "There are no 'good cops'; there are 'nice cops'".  But by choosing (yes, they do make a choice) to show up on the job each day to enforce counterfeit "laws", they are choosing to be the bad guys- the predators.  Some can still afford to be "nice" while being the bad guys (just like the friendly neighborhood mafioso), but that number dwindles each day.  They make themselves less safe and their frantic paranoia is evidence of this fact.

Don't trust them, and never forget that no situation is so terrible that it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the middle of it.  You think it's dangerous to handle things on your own?  Just wait til you call a cop and he shows up and immediately shoots down one of your family members who happened to twitch at the wrong time.

But you do what you want- just remember I warned you.


.

Laws poor substitute for morality

Laws poor substitute for morality

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 11, 2013.  Another "Huh?" headline from CNJ)


If you've been around computers much you know they tend to get slower over time as more junk builds up inside their programming, and as more processes get fouled. Some of this is due to spyware, malware, and viruses created to do you harm, and some is simply little glitches that tend to reproduce and spread.

Any complex system does the same sort of thing as time goes by.

Sure, you can keep applying patches, but the only solution is to wipe everything clean and start from scratch with a blank slate- or as blank as possible.

Such is the state of the body of laws in America. It's time to start over with a blank slate.

Even if you wipe the legislative slate clean, it will still be wrong to use force against anyone who isn't attacking someone else or stealing or damaging private property.

Laws against things that are truly wrong don't need to be imposed or enforced. Decent people will always recognize that murder is wrong, for example. It doesn't take a law to make it wrong, nor does it take a law to make it right to prevent a murder from happening or to permit you to seek justice for a murder.

That part is built into reality- it doesn't change, whether you write laws in that regard or not. Everything else needs to be carefully evaluated before being installed again.

Once the laws have been wiped away, and before imposing one to deal with some problem, look at history to see if previous legal attempts to address that issue fixed the problem, failed to fix it, or actually made it worse.

"Laws", against anything other than aggression or property rights violations, are harmful to the fabric of society. That's because to enforce them you must first violate life, liberty, or property.

The vast majority of laws are written as a patch- an attempt to fix a problem created by earlier laws. This just makes more problems that will need to be fixed later. This isn't a solution. Stop patching the flawed and broken code; that only makes things more twisted and problematic. Scrap it instead.

Install the recovery disc and start clean, and before enacting any law- even one that has a long history of being "common sense"- evaluate that law and see if it worked as advertised, or if its effects were misguided. Leave all your emotional baggage behind for this task.

And remember: If you need a law to make you do the right thing, you're already wrong.

.

Car question

For the past two years- or getting close to that- I have been depending on other people for motorized transportation.  I had a blowout in a blizzard and messed up my alignment (and obviously lost a tire) and can't afford to get that fixed.  And now there are other problems my poor car has due to sitting unused for a couple of years.

But I am sick of depending on others when I need to get where I need to go- I use my bike in town, but this town lacks a lot of what I need to get to, and I also have other things I need a car for, even though I try to combine trips and eliminate them if possible.  The "main town" is about 13 miles away, and not realistically a bikeable situation.

So, hypothetically, if I were ever somehow able to get enough money to fix the car (I'm estimating around $2,000), would it make sense to fix the car, or should I just buy another used car even if it cost me more?  I'm tall enough, and my legs are so ridiculously long, that I can't fit in, or safely drive, a compact car of any kind.  I have owned a standard transmission car but I despise standard transmissions with a red hot passion, but if I had no choice...

I'm not a "car guy", so your "Ford vs Chevy vs foreign car" stuff is meaningless to me.  As is just about everything else of a technical nature.  So I need it in "Captain Dummy talk".

It's not likely that I'll be doing anything soon due to finances, but I guess I should be thinking which way to go.  And I suppose I should go ahead and sell my car if I'm never going to fix it.  Any advice?

.

Government terrorist ID training

My in-depth research skills have paid off. Here, for the first time anywhere, is the newest training material the US government uses, and orders the states to use, to identify terrorists:

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?