Electing the ridiculous

If elections are good enough for some things, let's just impose them for everything.

We can elect America's favorite color.  If red wins, then everyone's favorite color will be red, at least until the next election.  Anyone who previously had a different favorite color has to adjust their preferences.  Red things will be given priority everywhere.  Those who stubbornly cling to some other color will have to go to the back of the line- if allowed to participate at all.  And, their unapproved "favorite" might just come with other penalties, yet to be determined.

Then we can do the same for car models.  The one that wins will determine the size of parking spaces, the height of drive throughs, turning radii, and road conditions.  And of course, all will be made in America's favorite color only.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it.

In this case there's no such thing as "America", in this sense.  There are only individuals, each of whom has different ideas of "best".

It's just as stupid to elect "leaders".  This is why politicians can't be leaders.  Leaders can't be imposed.  A leader emerges spontaneously and organically, and can't be elected to shortcut his way to "leadership".  A "majority" of those who vote can't choose a leader for everyone else. Either enough people agree that the person is a leader, by following voluntarily and without forbidding opting out, or the person is just a pretender.  That's the difference between a leader and a Ruler- well, one of the differences, anyway.

.

Too hard on cops? #2

Without enforcers there can be no tyranny.

Cops are where the boot-heel meets the face.

There is no excuse for them.  Not anymore (if there ever was).  You can either support and advocate liberty, or you can support cops.  Well, you can also do neither, but you can't do both.
If you are a "friend of cops" you are an enemy of liberty, by your own choice, not by anyone else's opinion.

It's not possible to be "too hard on cops".  They have the option each and every day of ending their abuse by walking away from the "job" and pension, or to choose to continue being a bad guy.  You see which they choose by what they continue to wear and what they continue to do.

It's impossible to focus on this fact "too much".  Never let anyone forget it.

.

Thinking is what I do best

If there's one thing I do better than anything else, I would say that thing is thinking.  I think very well.

I'm not saying my thinking has any real world benefits outside my skull.  I might be like an artist who produces a huge number of works that never sell, but instead sit in his attic until he is dead and his relatives are left to figure out what to do with all this "stuff".

But I spend an awful lot of time and energy thinking.  Even if I am doing other things, I am thinking- often deeply detailed thoughts.  I can figure out almost anything, given the time and right information.  When I experience "flow", it is usually because some thought concept has suddenly started unraveling itself in my head- pushing aside all other thoughts until it is a fully formed Thought.

My thinking life has manifested itself in various physical ways.  As a child my thoughts usually became drawings.  Sometimes thoughts became toys when I was forced to make a toy I wanted, but which wasn't offered for sale anywhere.  It wasn't that I just made the things; the thoughts formed and I was compelled to make them take form.

As I entered that hell known as school, my thoughts became daydreams and doodles that spontaneously took form on any bit of paper while a "teacher" talked.  Even when real teachers spoke I could listen and process the information better if I kept my thinking brain busy by doodling- except in very rare cases where my mind was challenged enough that it needed all its faculties engaged to process what the teacher was saying.  Stop me from doodling and my "noisy" brain wasn't constructively distracted and I couldn't concentrate.  The "teachers" didn't believe me when I told them this fact, but it was completely accurate and true.

During high school I still doodled, but I also attempted to write fictional stories.  Which I hated when I re-read them.  My thinking was better than my writing, by far.

I have thoughts in so many different areas that I can't begin to list all the different types of creative things I have been forced to try to learn to do in order to make those thoughts real.  Once I get an idea in my head I can't move on until I do my best to give it physical reality.

In "adulthood" I have used my thinking to design things which met with varying degrees of popular success.  I have let my thoughts become paintings, flags, clothing, written works (blogs and columns and stories and even erotica), coins, useful household objects, skills I needed to learn, concepts I thought would solve problems, etc. All because I can't get my brain to shut up for even a minute.

I have a very active imagination, and can construct mental worlds with great detail (and dream in great detail, sometimes "lucid dreams") and can extrapolate very well.

That's not to say I believe I am above having flaws in my thought processes or that I'm never wrong.  I would be foolish to imagine that.   I am just saying I am very good at thinking, whatever that is worth.

.

Liberty Lines, January 16, 2014

(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM State Line Tribune)

The front page article about the Farwell man arrested on "drug, weapon charges" should bother anyone who cares about doing right.

I don't know the man or anything about him.  However, if you don't stand up for everyone, equally, when you see them violated, your complaints will be seen as hypocritical if you ever fall victim to the same.

Of all the charges he faces, only one has even the possibility of being an actual wrong.  I'll address that in a bit.

First let me examine the other charges: possession of marijuana.  Prohibition is always wrong and enforcing it always does more harm than the prohibited substances ever could.  To then criminalize "drug paraphernalia" is just heaping stupidity upon insanity.

"Possession of prohibited weapons" is another non-crime.  To admit you have, or enforce, a list of "prohibited weapons" is an admission that you are the one operating outside the law.  "Shall not be infringed" is not a suggestion, but a warning that any government employee who does infringe upon the right to keep and bear (that means to own and to carry, in case you didn't know) arms (which means any weapon of any sort, not just firearms) is committing a serious crime.

Then you have the twin charges of "evading arrest" and "resisting arrest".  If you have done nothing wrong, you have a right to try to prevent your arrest.  Laws used to reflect and support this basic right, but the growing police state finds this inconvenient and has recently added these fake "crimes" to it's enforcement tool kit in order to pad the charges filed.

Finally we come to the only possible wrong in that list of charges: assault.  The problem is, it isn't "assault" if you are fighting back against being kidnapped ("arrested") by those enforcing fake "laws"- in such a case you are defending yourself.  Assault is what you are defending against.

I also notice that the excuse given for trespassing on this man's liberty was a suspicion that he had stolen property, and that he wasn't charged with theft.  This makes me suspect the original excuse was known to be false from the start; a "fishing expedition" to find something to justify an arrest.

Sure, you can say enforcers have no say in the laws they enforce, but that's a cop-out.  Everyone always has the choice to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing.  Tyranny is always first made legal.  As a human being, you make the choice to either enforce tyranny, or to support liberty.  Make the right choice.

.

Murderers get a freebie

So, the enforcers who murdered Kelly Thomas were found "not guilty".  Meh.  Jury nullification (since this was an obvious, overt, and very public murder) goes both ways.

I have zero faith in the "justice system", and as I've said before, I don't think it's the proper place for justice anyway.

Nope.  The justice should come now.

I'm not saying these murderers should be given the same treatment that left Kelly Thomas comatose, and then dead, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop anyone who did.  Karma, and all that.

What I am saying is that if these murderers were in my local area I would shun them, totally and completely.  They would be invisible to me as former humans.  I wouldn't employ them, nor do business with anyone who did.  I wouldn't sell to them for any price, and would complain to (and publicize) any business which did.  I would do everything I could to ensure these murderers died- cold, hungry, and utterly alone.  Sooner rather than later.  And I would never stop pointing out that they ARE murderers, and had they not been enforcers, they would be sitting in a cage by now.

This quote from the article linked above tells you the new rules of the game:

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, told reporters: "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

So "peace" means beating you or me to death, and murder is what enforcers are trained to do to you and me. It's their "job".  Use that information as you will.

.

Liberty is not Utopia, but reality

Liberty is not Utopia, but reality

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 13, 2013)

Is libertarianism, and its notion of "everything voluntary", Utopian?

Libertarians would point out the belief that government can be restrained and kept to a safe minimum is highly idealistic, and goes against the evidence of history.

Believers in the possibility of good government blame everyone and everything other than the institution itself for its consistent failures. Or they simply deny the failures.

They'll claim if Americans would just restore the Constitution- by which they mean get government to agree to strictly obey its charter again- everything would be fine.

It's not a matter of restoring the Constitution. Constitutions can't stop bad people with political power from eventually doing whatever they want to do. Expecting the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as a barrier to government power is a refusal to see where the justices' loyalties lie. Governments will never restrain themselves, and voters will always seek to vote themselves handouts, favors, and privileges, regardless of what a constitution allows.

Additionally, the government faithful will insist if we would only elect "the right people" the country would stop going in the wrong direction.

The fact is the "right people" are never even allowed to get nominated, much less elected, and even when half-way decent people are elected they immediately become corrupted by the system they were elected to change.

No person can represent a huge group of individuals with opposing opinions and conflicting morals. It is impossible. Instead he will represent only himself and tell you why you are wrong to disagree with him. Then, if he's in the majority in his particular government, he'll impose his will on you, under threat of violence.

Woe to you if your conscience tells you what he demands is wrong.

Even under the "best" government, the inevitable is merely delayed. History shows that republics always turn into democracies, and democracies always become tyrannies. The only variable is how quickly it happens. The idea that there's an optimal amount of government is like imagining there's a perfect amount of cancer. Above none, I mean.

The biggest complaint most non-libertarians have with our philosophy is that it allows no double standards to enable their favorite use of coercion. What is it you wish to do to others, using government, that you know would be wrong to do as an individual?

Libertarianism accepts flawed human nature. It accepts that power corrupts. That's not Utopian, it's reality.

.

Any chair in a bar fight?

Confession time:

For my CNJ column this week I am using two things I don't "believe in" to try to speak to those who believe in both.  Those things would be the Bible and the US Constitution.

Last week a friend pointed out to me that in my CNJ column I had written "Aggressive violence and theft are the proper purview of laws" and commented "it sounds to me like you are backing off a notch from a pure anarchist/voluntaryist position."

Which I'm not.  I explained that to me, the only real law is Natural Law, and all others are counterfeit "law", and to denote them I put quotation marks around the word "law".  Which the newspaper sometimes edits away.  Natural Law addresses aggressive violence and theft- all written "laws" are unnecessary or harmful.  Or both.

Which brings me back to the upcoming column.  I do try to tailor my newspaper columns to the local audience, which is overwhelmingly "Christian" (at least in self identification) and "conservative".  So, I try to remember that and use it, without watering down my core message.  I may not always succeed.

Still, I feel an explanation is in order when I give too much weight to things I don't believe in an attempt to get a message across to those who do.  Yeah, it sometimes leaves a foul taste in my mouth.  I hope it doesn't come across as dishonest.  I hope the truth still shines through.

.

I was wrong: Cops aren't "rabid"

I have often referred to enforcers and other aggressors are "rabid", but I was wrong.

Rabies is always* fatal and incurable.

That doesn't describe the affliction cops and other thugs have.  Nope, they have staties.  

These "statid" individuals are very dangerous, but they are less infectious than it might first appear.  In fact, unless an individual is infected while an infant or a young child, they are probably immune to the disease.  It is very difficult to transmit staties to someone able to think for themselves in a rational and logical manner.

I have also found that staties is curable.  There's not yet a large rate of success, but it does seem to be increasing over time.  I, and a lot of other people, keep searching for the cure.

Thank you for your contributions which help fund the research.  Together, we can find the cure.

_

*With, I think, two individual exceptions so far.

Ex-cop, still a pig, murders man for texting

Because texting is a capital offense- especially if you upset a cop by doing it.  Anti-"texting and driving" rules just reinforce this behavior in enforcers- and apparently in ex-enforcers, too.  After all, if texting is sometimes justification for escalation of violence, all the way up to and including murder, why not always?

I have seen a few comments along the lines of "once a pig, always a pig"... and in this case it seems to be an accurate observation.  Although, as I have said before, some of the ex-cops I have known make me look like a cop-lover by comparison.

"I can't believe people would bring a gun to a movie," said a witness... yet had the murderous ex-cop still been in uniform, no one would have uttered such stupid words- even had the exact same scenario played out.  It's not about the gun or the location, it's about a lowlife enforcer scum who believed his "right" to not be annoyed was worth more than someone else's life- it's about a cultivated sense of entitlement.  Because such people are out there, you should "bring a gun" everywhere.

Yes, I would be annoyed if someone were loudly texting during a movie (which wasn't even the case here, since the movie was yet to begin), but I have the sense not to murder someone for doing so.

The murdered man's family is lucky the murderer is an ex-cop; if he were a current enforcer the murder would be ruled "officer safety" and "within departmental guidelines", and knowing he would be let off with a short paid vacation, the murderer might just have finished off the wife, too, instead of "only" injuring her and murdering her husband.

I wonder how many more people will choose to blame the tool rather than the murderer or the enforcer culture that created him?

.

A voice in the wilderness. (Is that an NSA bug?)

It sounds silly, I know, but sometimes I am amazed at how insignificant I am and how little my views matter.  And that no matter how loudly I think I am shouting to the world, how few people actually hear me.  Unless you count that the NSA "listens" to us all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining.  Because of my insignificance I may not be able to single-handedly save "the world", but it also means I can't do too much damage when I'm wrong or frivolous.

I see the flap that occurs when some "Big Name" (by libertarian standards) makes some silly pronouncement that just about everyone else realizes is wrong-minded BS that fails the ZAP test, and then I'm glad to mostly be unnoticed, but sometimes, when I have what I think is a "great idea" that has never been thought before (and before I realize it has been around for centuries in various forms) I wish I could get more people to hear me and take me seriously.

As I say, I invariably discover that the idea isn't new, so "the world" loses nothing by not hearing me rediscover something that the Statist world has been happily ignoring for generations.  But, I think all "great ideas" and truths will keep being independently discovered until it becomes generally accepted, and you never know when one is going to take hold, or where that spark may come from.  Maybe even from me.

Ah, the amusement park that is the human ego.

.

The truth is harsh and painful

Reality is harsh and uncompromising.  If you fall through the ice in the wilderness, and can't get a fire going, you will die.  How you feel about the situation, that it's "unfair" or whatnot, won't change reality.

The truth is also often harsh.  You have no right to initiate force or take what isn't yours no matter how much you want to justify it.

People don't like hearing harsh truths.  They want to be told they are OK.  They want to think they aren't the bad guy if they initiate force or take what isn't theirs- especially if they can point to a "law" that says it's OK or if they can send others to do it on their behalf.  Calling it "arrest" or "taxation" or even "confiscation" of "prohibited" substances or items doesn't change that you are committing evil- or supporting those who do.

I have sent a Liberty Lines column to the State Line Tribune for this coming Thursday that I expect will not be received well by people who don't want to hear the harsh truth that they are advocating evil.

It is in response to an article about a local man's arrest on "drug, weapons charges".  I don't know the guy; he may be a thoroughly nasty character, or he may not be.  The point is, from the article it seems to me he isn't being charged with doing anything wrong.

I expect there will be some flak, possibly from local law enforcement.  But the truth is the truth, no matter who it upsets.  The truth doesn't care if you believe it or not.  It simply is.

Stay tuned...

.

Anonymoids

Anonymoids- I think that's a good name for those who act like a*holes from behind their veil of anonymity.

I don't run into that much here- I realize most of my anonymous commenters are simply either protecting their privacy, avoiding setting up a Blogger profile (which amounts to the same thing), or are hilarious spammers.  None of which are generally hostile (even when they disagree with me).

But on other, popular, blogs I see lots of anonymoids.  I even have my own anonymoid fanboy on one blog where I occasionally comment.  He rarely lets a comment go by without suggesting that he is shocked I haven't yet gone on a killing spree before offing myself.  I've taken to just giving him a virtual pat on the head like a yapping puppy any time he responds to me, which seems to have taken away some of his enthusiasm.  Poor little guy!

I think if you attract the attention of anonymoids, especially of the rabid statist variety, it just shows you are probably doing something right.  Think of them as an award on your wall.  Their hostility and stupidity just makes you look better.

.

Pardon my constuction mess

Excuse the mess that is my blog right now.

I had promised myself I would redesign the blog after the New Year to fix an annoying problem my old template was giving me.

So, today I did.

In the process I lost all my links to other blogs.  Grrr.

Give me time.  I'll fix that.

Thank you for your patience.

(Do you like it, or not?)

.

Nostalgia and the future

You can't go back again.

I spent the past couple of days working very hard (harder than it should be due to balky computers) uploading some home movies from 10 to 13 years ago so that they can be preserved.  I hope.

Originally they were on VHS-C tape, then transferred to DVD, and now they are digital and "hidden" away on Youtube.

This means I have gotten a massive dose of the nostalgia drug in my system.  I am not foolish enough to believe I can ever get those times back again, but I do believe I can find a way to create more memories worth feeling nostalgic over 13 years from now, with a mix of "old" and "new" friends.

But, as these things usually do, it got me to thinking.

I have said before that liberty lovers don't seek a return to some imaginary golden past- if you are like me you recognize that all eras have their good and bad points, and only liberty lets you pick those which work for you.

I think liberty can give you and me a future better than any past or present has ever been, and I intend to keep working toward it- sometimes by not working at it at all.  If you know what I mean.

I'll end with a clip that you might enjoy from one of the home movies.

Freedom, liberty are messy, like life

Freedom, liberty are messy, like life

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 6, 2013.  A huge amount was edited out this week, said to be "repetitive", which I sometimes find necessary to hammer a point home... but in this case I don't see that what was removed was repetitive at all.  Oh well.)

How is it that more things are illegal today than a year ago, and why has this been the trend for a couple hundred years? It's because there is an imbalance in how "laws" are imposed and eliminated. The scales of legislation are tipped in the wrong direction.

Even if only one out of every hundred proposed liberty violating "laws" is passed, liberty still shrinks, gradually, but inexorably. Because those "laws" almost never go away. Even when they seem to get abolished, in truth another "law" was probably passed to counter the first "law", rather than the first "law" being struck from the books.

But the biggest culprit is all the new "laws" that get proposed to pander to the folks crying "There ought to be a law" over every little thing that upsets their delicate sensibilities.

Of course, not every one of those bad "laws"- and they are all bad "laws"- gets passed the first time it is dreamed up. However, every time one of those "laws" fails to come to life it keeps getting proposed repeatedly until it eventually becomes "law". The political climate is always in flux, and even the most ridiculous or draconian "law" will eventually find a time and place to take root. The proposed "laws" never die and a "no" is never allowed to be final. "Laws" are held to be sacred, and liberty is an inconvenience to be sacrificed on a whim.

This leads to the condition I call "law pollution", where "laws" come to cover the world like so many "tumblebags" and burrito wrappers drifting against every fence and wall. Where everything not forbidden is mandatory.

That needs to change.

It is never valid to impose a "law" that violates individual liberty or property- no matter how many people want that "law", but pretending for a moment that it was sometimes OK, a "law" that would violate liberty or property should get, at most, one chance to be passed. After that, it should never be permitted to be proposed again. Not by changing the wording, not by tacking it onto another bill, and not by bureaucratic backdoor rule-making.

One shot at violating liberty, and then it's done. Forever.

And that's if you ignore the clear fact that it is very wrong to propose, pass, enforce, or obey that kind of "law" regardless.

Freedom, like life, is messy. Only the dead are predictable and stable. If the liberty of your neighbor scares you, that is your malfunction, not his. You are the one who needs to adapt. No new "laws".
.

Adventures with "borders"

Two discussions on Facebook (one and two) really illustrated to me the fuzzy thinking of the anti-immigration people.

Those who claim to revere the Constitution are willing to stand in line behind the anti-gun wackjobs to flush it right down the toilet in pursuit of their religion of "borderism".  Or try to read things into it that aren't really there, or stretch the things that are there completely out of shape, in order to reconcile their conflicting beliefs.

More and more I see it as evidence that such a person just really doesn't like "Hispanics" (because that's who they almost always have an issue with), and say their objection is only toward those who don't "go through the legal process" because they haven't yet figured out how to "send back" the others.  They are probably still "working on it".  Maybe I'm being unfair?

Me, I'm not concerned with where a person was born, or what color their skin is, or what language they speak, or which State (or it's employees) claims them.  Or, rejects them, as the case may be.  I only care whether or not a person initiates force or theft, and that they respect private property.

Which brings us back to the "borderists".  They always, eventually, fall back on that tired and silly argument that "illegal aliens" are trespassing on US property, which they then claim is identical to someone just walking into your house.  And they try to connect imaginary dots between individually keeping invaders out of your house and enforcers "protecting the borders".  And they almost always use the statist words of desperation: "don't call the cops to protect your property, then" to those who point out the inconsistency.

In other words, the borderists are fully willing to violate the private property of everyone in order to assert the claim of a State over all land inside its "borders".  How nasty of them.  And how inconsistent.  Their claim invalidates itself before it even gets out of their brain, and they don't see that.

I'm not saying here whether "allowing" open borders is a good thing or not.  I don't want aggressive individuals, thieves, and trespassers living near me regardless of where they were born, or whose permission they have received to be here.  But, really, until I need to use self defense against them, it is none of my business.  I have the absolute right to defend myself and my property from violators of any sort, and anyone who seeks to violate that human right is making themselves my enemy.

I also know it is wrong for any third party to control where people choose to travel or settle down, or to demand a fee for giving permission.

.

Government acronyms- it's always opposite day!

Puppeticians are such clowns.  Look at the acronyms they dream up for their stupid and evil rules, for example, the "PATRIOT Act" or the equally Orwellian and anti-safety "SAFE Act" that NY is imposing on compliant gun owners.

I expect to see, someday soon, something like the "LIFE Act", which would stand for something as nasty and anti-life as the "Legalize Immediately Fatal Enemas Act".

And, yet, the mainstream media would see nothing ironic about that rule's name, either.  Not as long as their lover, The State, said it was a good thing.  It would be swallowed without question, and anyone pointing out the ridiculousness of the acronym would be called all sorts of names (or simply ignored).

-
(If anyone would like to help out financially, I could really use $28 before this evening so my phone can stay activated. I have some other expenses coming in the next couple of days, but the phone is the most critical to life and limb.  UPDATE: I got what I need, but I'll not complain if anyone else wants to pitch in.  Thanks!)

.

Let me count the ways (to be an outlaw)

I keep seeing the claim that as of January 1, 2014, 40,000 new laws suddenly came into being.

Is this accurate?  Does it matter?

Even one new law would have been bad enough.  Every "law" ever written needs to go away.  Declining to repeal all the bad counterfeit "laws" (arbitrary rules) is just as big a failure as passing new "laws".

I suppose there is a good side: 40,000 new opportunities to be an outlaw.

.

Controversy is more popular than fluff

I have noticed a sad fact of life: controversial topics in my CNJ columns get a much better response than weak and gentle topics.  And those are the ones the paper hesitates to publish.

When I write about not protecting cops from their rightful consequences, the newspaper is reluctant, but I get lots of comments and "likes" and "shares".  When I write something happy that steps on no evil-doer's toes, the column barely gets noticed.

There's a place for the fluff- simple, happy topics that almost no one could object to- but without the hard stuff- exposing those who are using coercion and theft to control what their neighbors do, especially those hiding behind a "government" position- a newspaper is missing its main purpose.  Newspapers should routinely oppose tyrants (and wanna-be tyrants) and nannies, and only occasionally, after exhausting every other possibility, speak well of them or support them in any way.

What happened to the days when newspapers were supposed to be "hard hitting"?  To have an edge that cut through the local "Good Ol' Boys Club" of puppeticians and those who pulled their strings?

I guess the need to keep advertisers happy- many of whom are connected to the corrupt local politicians and enforcers- has won out over uncomfortable truth in today's tight news market.

And that's a tragedy.

The independent internet is now filling that void, but a rogue local newspaper that stuck to uncompromising libertarian principles would be a nice thing to subscribe to, and to advertise in.

.

Easy enough for a 6 year-old to do it?

It's been interesting teaching a 6 year old about her property rights.  Perhaps I make it harder than it really is, since kids seem to automatically understand the concept of "mine".  

I always remind my daughter that her stuff is hers, but since we all have to live in this space together, she needs to respect the rest of us too by keeping her stuff under control.  And, until she is willing to do her own laundry and put all her clean clothes away, vacuum her floor, and feed and clean up after her turtle, that includes keeping her room neat enough I can walk through it without injury.

 And I tell her she controls how others use her stuff, too.  She is never forced to "share", but is free to do so if she wants, and is reminded that not sharing goes both ways.

Which leads to interesting circumstances, especially where one neighborhood collectivist-in-training is concerned.  He came to the door with his (nice, polite, and enjoyable) sister a few days ago and decided to claim a candy bar he saw.  His justification: "But I want it!"  He didn't get it.  He has also gotten chased out of the yard (by me) for refusing to respect my daughter's property and then becoming belligerent when called on it.  

He is also the subject of lessons in self defense I have been giving my daughter: "Don't hit him for calling you names, only to stop him from hitting or pushing you or someone else."

I don't want my daughter growing up to think it's OK to violate the property of others, nor to excuse those who claim a "right" to violate hers.  She'll have to decide for herself someday where to draw her line in the sand.  But, as of now, I stand behind her decisions regarding defending her own property, I make sure she respects the property of others, and I do my best to respect her property and admit when I overstep my bounds.

It actually works pretty well.  Now, if she would just clean and feed her turtle...

.

Working holidays should be choice

Working holidays should be choice

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 29, 2013)

To shop, or not to shop. That was the question.

Did you go shopping for early "Black Friday" specials on Thanksgiving Day? If so, what brought you to the stores? The deals or something else? Perhaps your family is unbearable and you'd prefer the company of strangers. Or perhaps they would prefer you find something to keep you out of their hair for a few hours. Or, maybe your family, like mine, sometimes finds another day to be more convenient for the celebration, leaving the official holiday open.

Many people got very upset over stores being open this year. What bothers me about stores deciding to open on Thanksgiving Day isn't that management chooses to open; it's that the employees of those stores usually didn't sign up for this and have other, more important, obligations to fulfill.

Sure, they knew they would have to work according to their boss' wishes, rather than their own preferences, when they accepted the job, but take a job with the knowledge that it is going to be closed on certain days, and when the boss changes his mind, you might not be happy. For good reason.

A business owner should be free to decide how to run the business and when to be open- although that isn't usually the case anymore, anyway. Plus, in a free society there would be plenty of jobs available, and stiff competition for workers, so people would never feel trapped in a job where they feel exploited.

But America is not a free society; it is a society burdened with crony corporatism- "fascism" is the proper term. The arrangement they have entered into with the State allows "bad actors" to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the past, when I wasn't able to be with friends or family, I have chosen to work on holidays. It was better than sitting around feeling lonely. My preference would be to see stores offer employees the same opportunity to choose- or close for the holiday. I doubt anyone would need a fully staffed store on a major holiday, and letting people sign up to voluntarily work that day- perhaps with a financial incentive- would be enough to get things done.

Personally, I probably wouldn't choose to go shopping on either Christmas or Thanksgiving; I have better things to do. If I didn't, I still doubt I would go shopping because I don't want to encourage stores to force employees to work major holidays against their will. I hope people will consider where their choices lead.

.

Happy New Year 2014

Happy 2014, folks.

It has been a year since I made my computer "standing room, only".  I think that was a very positive thing.  My lack of resolutions otherwise has gone about as expected.  Almost everything is just as it was a year ago.  I'm not sure I can take that being the case a year from now.

I have some wishes for the coming year, but no concrete ideas of how to make those wishes reality. Nor any way of knowing if those wishes are even a good idea, or whether they would end up ruining what is good in my life.  Not sure if I need to find a way to tolerate the intolerable, or smash it.

I'm not really feeling very positive about the coming year this morning, for a few different reasons.  I'm not sure how to fix those areas I feel need to be fixed.  As is often the case, I think I may be backed into a corner where anything I do- or don't do- may cause disaster.

I apologize for the downer post.  I did enjoy last night (no drinking involved), except for the one glaring shortcoming.

May my outlook improve soon, and I hope you are in a better place, mentally, than I am today.

.

Year end stuff

Humor:  The ObamaCare website is fixed- go sign up now. (It's safe)

Truth: Don't Become a Libertarian.

Survival skills: An alternative weapon- the Bolas

If you celebrate, please survive to celebrate again.  If you don't celebrate, please celebrate somehow anyway.  2013 was an "interesting year".  I wonder what's in store and what I'll be saying about 2014 a year from now.

.

Personality type pondering

I don't know for certain what value there is in knowing what "personality type" you are.  Everyone is an individual, after all.  You may decide there is no value in it for you at all.  However, I have learned a few things that help me understand how I approach the world, and the ways my approach is lacking, by applying the knowledge gained by taking the tests and reading about the results.

I am an "INTP".  Also known as the "rational architect".  As usual, I am a rare type of critter.

Mostly, my personality type has served me well.  I really enjoy thinking and plotting- um, "planning".  I can hardly imagine being some other way, although I do feel the past several years have allowed me to stretch my boundaries a little.  And shown me where I need to change.

I need a little more of whatever trait it is that would help me make money.  All my life that has been the toughest thing for me.  If I enjoy it and I'm good at it, it's practically guaranteed to not be popular enough to lead to financial success (and by "success" I don't mean "get rich", I mean "allows me to make enough to eat and pay some basic bills").

My other difficulty has been maintaining intimate relationships.  I'm not "cold", I'm just difficult and different.  (And the lack of money has always been a stumbling block in that area, too.)  I'm hoping I am softening up where I need to and becoming more approachable and "relatable" now.

Understanding the INTP traits has allowed me to see how I interact with others in all aspects of life, and shows where I need to focus some attention and put forth some effort.  I am trying to accentuate the positive traits and minimize the negative ones.

I also wonder if it might be part of the reason I have always been drawn to "rules, not Rulers".  After all, one of those pages above states "Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. "  You've got that right.  Expertise impresses me, position is meaningless without it.  And, if your expertise is in coercing the innocent, you don't "impress me" in a good way- but you do make an impression.  You expose yourself as someone to watch when TSHTF, in case self defense (and defense of the innocent) becomes a more critical necessity.

But, then, I also feel pity for those cursed with a personality type (along with other traits they may have no control over) which draws them toward coercive "jobs".  What if that were me?

(Writing this post, and doing what I always do when I write, amused me this time as I struggled to make certain each and every word was just the exact word I meant to use.  Just as the INTP profile says "rational architects" are wont to do.  Which is also why the editing of my newspaper columns gives me heartburn.)

.

Be careful what you ask for- or how you ask, anyway

My dad got an e-reader for Christmas.  He's the least technologically capable person I know.  I'm not that much better, but I was setting it up so that he could use it.  He saw that it had voice recognition capabilities and wanted to try it out.

I got everything ready and handed it to him.

We discuss Bitcoin a fair amount so when he tried his first search he said "search Bitcoin".

He immediately got thousands of results for "Best porn".

My twisted sense of humor will forever be amused that whatever else happens that will always be his very first "search".

.

Fix your roof and insulate your walls

My favorite desert hermit posted a really good blog that I think you'd enjoy.  One wise point he makes is this:

The only person who is actively doing destructive things to me is me, and I’m welcome to stop. Hating on the great omnipotent “they” – and calling that a struggle for freedom – has never gotten me anywhere. It’s like bitching about the weather: Great fun, but not as useful as fixing my own roof and insulating my own walls. The weather itself won’t change just to suit me.

Read the rest of it here: My own kind of freedom: I try not to bother being “anti.”

.

Cops and robbers

Cops and robbers.  Why do people act as though they are opposites?  Like the Dallas Cowboys and some other football team (I can't think of others at the moment), you are talking about different, interchangeable teams playing the same sport.  You may cheer for one and boo the other, but pretending you are talking about something as different as a football team and a bakery is ignoring reality.

.

(Too hard on cops?)

.

Merry Christmas

See you tomorrow.

.

Remove perks that enable Police

Remove perks that enable Police

My Clovis News Journal column for November 22, 2013.

This one was heavily edited, with a lot of "allegedly" added by the newspaper. And some other things I will point out.

After you read my column at the link above, please come back and read this post, then read the column as I originally wrote it at the bottom.

I disagree most vigorously with the addition of the words "alleged" and "allegedly" in the editing of my column.  I completely understand that the editor needs to protect the interests of the newspaper, so I didn't fight him on that.

The word "allegedly" has a place when it is one person's word against another's- one who denies the accusation.  After all, you and I weren't (usually) there to see what happened- we are taking someone's word for it, and everyone has an agenda.  People want to win their lawsuits, or keep their job, or make the other guy look bad, or whatever.  So, since the facts aren't known for certain, the word "allegedly" makes that point clear.

But, nowhere are the facts of these cases I am writing about in dispute.  Neither the cops, nor their gang's official spokescritters, nor either hospital's staff, dispute that the events happened as described in the lawsuits- the only dispute is that the cops and copsuckers and other "authority" worshipers see the acts as justified and "allowed by law" in pursuit of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.  That is total BS, and anyone with any morals or ethics knows it.  Rape is rape, and wearing a badge while you rape doesn't change that fact.  Nor does raping in pursuit of some goal you hallucinate to be "noble".

The newspaper also has to appease the local puppeticians and cops by bending over backwards when discussing even non-local cops and puppeticians in order to look "fair" to these people- to the point of being unfair to those of us who aren't gang members- and I also understand that.  The newspaper needs to keep access to these people, or they'll be shut out and denied access to news releases and whatnot.  That would damage their ability to function as a newspaper.  However, over time this appeasement creates other problems, by not exposing corruption as thoroughly as it deserves to be exposed.  Trying to appear "fair" to a known bad guy makes one lose credibility in the eyes of those who are observing from the side.

These cops really did do what they are accused of- they don't even deny it.  So let's not tiptoe around the facts- let's call them what they know they are: rapists.

At the end of the "30 day exclusivity" I will post the column as I originally wrote it, below.  Come back then and compare the two versions.

Here it is, as originally written, with parenthetical comments and an important link added:

The recently publicized examples of assault by police officers, while supposedly looking for drugs, are much more than "simple assault"; they are acts of aggressive penetration. If you or I did anything similar we would rightfully be called rapists.

Is bodily penetration becoming a weapon of choice in the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? Texas police began this tactic a few years ago with their road-side syringe assaults to steal blood from drivers- penetrating the body of those they wished to incriminate.

Now New Mexico cops have overshadowed their Texas brethren, getting caught in multiple acts of medically assisted gang rape against drivers who weren't yet sufficiently terrorized, and justified by the 21st Century equivalent of the witch trial: a false "alert" by a drug-sniffing dog- a scam as scientifically invalid as "polygraph tests" and astrology. (The newspaper objected to this characterization, and edited it out, saying that dogs can be trained to sniff out all sorts of substances- yes, they can, but that's not the point. Dogs want to please their handlers and learn how to do so by "alerting" falsely. Also, a dog's alert is only as good as the word of its handler- if he lies to justify a rape, the dog can't come back and testify against him. And, we all know cops lie. If using dogs to find "drugs" were scientific, it wouldn't result in so many false positives. It's a scam.)

No individual involved in these rapes should ever again have any "authority" over anyone. I would never hire them, nor knowingly do business with anyone who did.

I salute the hospital whose staff wisely recognized that compliance with the police demand was wrong, and refused.

The medical staff at the other hospital, who assisted in these rapes in violation of their medical oaths, should all lose their "licenses" and be fired.

Each attacker needs to be paying the victims out of his own pocket for the rest of his life. There is no excuse for letting them get away with this, nor for forcing the "taxpayers" to pay the restitution.

Leo, the "drug dog" who alerted on command for his handler (and whose certification expired years ago, by the way- "according to media reports" the newspaper adds), needs to be retired and rescued from being employed in this vulgar manner.

It's not enough to make these rapists face justice; it's long past time to end that which makes their crimes possible. Abolishing prohibition, which has become the excuse for just about any violation of individual rights you can imagine, is essential. It was never an ethical endeavor, but has become downright vile. It's not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater- that's not bathwater, it's sewage, and those lumps are not a baby.

Next, dismantle the domestic US police state. Return cops to their only legitimate position- one of servitude- and remove all the perks and "officer safety" protection which has emboldened them over the past several decades. Or end the disastrous experiment in policing, altogether.

The people who will say I am going too far are the same ones who call for freelance rapists to be castrated or executed. I am reasonable by comparison. (The newspaper thought this last paragraph was confusing and deleted it.)
.

Where do you want to be?

There is a continuum from good to bad when you talk about how to attempt to live among other humans- what people call "politics".

To me, when keeping the discussion limited to where I currently find myself living, it goes something like this: anarchy to minarchy to the Articles of Confederation to "local government" to the "states" to the Constitution to whatever it is the individuals in America stagger under now.  Of course, there can always be something worse.

Your particular manner of arranging them from good to bad may differ from mine, but I'll bet you do still have a preferred order.

I'd be happy for any move toward the good and away from the bad, but I won't be satisfied anywhere along the continuum except anarchy.  How much liberty is enough for you?

.

Cops are a cult

Someone shared with me a very good blog post which he had written, wherein he makes the observation that cops are a cult.  His analysis is spot on.

Read it here:  On Cops as a Cult, by Dreamwanderer

.

Afraid of cops?

Cops.  Yes, I hate them.  Do I also fear them?  You bet.

Not that I go around scared to make a move, afraid that a cop will see me.  I don't alter my behavior just because I know our society is crawling with cops of various kinds, all hungry to make a score at any cost.  I don't look over my shoulder afraid a cop is following me.

It's only when I have occasion to be noticed by one (or more) and they start speaking at me that I become afraid.  Only an idiot would refuse to recognize the danger in that situation.  Just like if you notice a rabid fox in your house.

Cops are cowardly, paranoid, sociopathic, potential murderers.  Any interaction with one is a life and death situation.  Sure, you could claim anyone and everyone is a "potential murderer", but some "jobs"- such as a mafia hitman, a drug cartel lord, or a cop- have a much higher potential to lead to you committing murders than other, more ethical, life choices.

If you are aware of reality, dealing with anyone of that sort will get your adrenaline flowing.  I try to do nothing to make those twitchy parasites any more dangerous than they already are, if I have to speak to them.  I don't believe in magic incantations that will make them change their "mind" and let me go on my way if they have decided to molest me further.  So, I try to be polite while being glad they can't read my mind.

But, yes, I am nervous around them.

I don't do anything wrong that warrants an intervention by cops.  I don't steal or initiate force.  Any problem anyone has with me can be dealt with in a civilized manner- which NEVER involves inviting a cop into the mix.  Once you bring a cop in, my cooperation ceases because you have asked someone to point a gun at me on your behalf.  So any contact by a cop is illegitimate from the beginning.

You may not have a healthy fear of cops.  Good for you.  I hope your lack of fear proves to be the right choice.

.

Consequences, pain, and growth

Ten years ago today every bad thing I have ever done, and every bad decision I ever made, came back to bite me.  Hard.  Tore my world apart, in fact.  Caused me to lose everything I really cared about.  And I knew I had no one to blame but myself.

In a lot of ways the person I was before died on that day.  Many times since then I have felt that every day since has been a sort of "freebie".

I still have the emotional and psychological scars, and I always will.

But I also believe the experience made me a better person.  At least, I sure hope so.

My pain immediately caused me to get active and begin to write more than the occasional letter to the editor.  Having nothing else to lose took away a lot of the fear I had before- fear of silly things.  Yeah, it's true: "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".

I would have never started speaking out before that day.  I would never have decided to run for president, which means I would have never started writing this blog, and I would have never written my books or made my videos.

It took a while, and I now have things to lose again, but most of the fear never came back.

But, I still wish I could fix things.

.

"No weapons"

When I see or hear "No weapons" I know I am in a backwards place populated by backwards minds.

Not a civilized place at all.

.

Let’s just outlaw feeling pleasure

Let’s just outlaw feeling pleasure

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 15, 2013.  But most of the activity is on the Portales News-Tribune site this time.)

I think I have come up with the winning strategy in the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

The problem is, each time a new substance is criminalized, independent innovators come up with something new which isn't yet illegal. Marijuana is illegal most places, therefore "synthetic marijuana" (which is actually dangerous, unlike the innocuous plant whose effect it mimics) was invented. The synthetic marijuana is then outlawed by "do somethingers", so a new substance will be created. It's an unending battle of unintended consequences.

And each new volley fired at society by either side hurts more people than the original problem ever did.

As opposed as I am to the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, I see the only solution is to cut to the root and address the reason humans desire to use drugs.

The substances themselves are not the most critical piece of the puzzle. The drugs are just a means to an end; just the delivery system. You've got to address the feelings they produce. The goal is the feeling of pleasure- or at least a temporary reduction in misery- people get from using the substances.

The Prohibitionists need to stop focusing on the delivery system and focus on the feeling. They must write a "law" forbidding anyone from feeling any pleasure- that way all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, would be outlawed. Just what the Prohibitionists have always craved.

One problem this would create for the State is the loss of income from the pleasures that are currently legal and "taxed".

It's not only chemical substances that cause the scourge of pleasure. Activities and hobbies do too. People get pleasure from football, religion, hobbies, cars, food, friends, romance, and more. Will those be exempt? Wouldn't that be a dangerous precedent which could create pleasure loopholes?

I suppose that can be dealt with when it becomes too much of a problem and distracts people from their primary purposes of producing "tax revenues" and being enthusiastic cannon fodder for The State.

Another problem would be finding a way to manufacture the exceptions the anti-pleasure advocates would demand for their own pleasures. After all, "my pleasures are acceptable; yours are shameful and wrong". Or, at least that seems to be what the anti-pleasure nannies have been saying with their advocacy. Obviously, the thrills the anti-pleasure nannies get from criminalizing other people's joy can't ever be subject to limits. That would never fly. It would expose the hypocrisy of the whole prohibition movement to even acknowledge that pleasure exists. I never said my solution would be perfect.
.

Blind hate fueled by ignorance, and more than a little stupidity

Anti-liberty bigots are just insane.  There's no other explanation for things like this: link

I posted the following comment:

How sad that you blame objects and not acts. I suppose in your mind it is better to be murdered by a thug using a fist, a knife, or a rock than by a thug with a gun.
No tool in the history of the world has made it more possible for a smaller, weaker victim to fight back against a stronger, determined aggressor with less chance of being harmed in their resistance. It’s not a magic talisman- you still need to know what you are doing. But this stupid and, quite honestly, evil objection you express toward gun safety training would be like you demanding that kids not be taught to swim or even touch water, and then acting surprised when kids drown needlessly.

Feel free to join in.  David Codrea's "The War on Guns" pointed me to the post.

.

"Gifted with such advantages..."

I'm currently reading "The Count of Monte Cristo" and really enjoying it.  I decided to read it after my most recent viewing of "V for Vendetta" (on November 5th, of course).

I was quite amused by one little bit, which isn't pivotal to the story, but that I enjoyed for obvious reasons.  Edmond Dantes goes to a barber to get "cleaned up" after his escape from the dungeon:

"At this period it was not the fashion to wear so large a beard and hair so long; now a barber would only be surprised if a man gifted with such advantages should consent voluntarily to deprive himself of them."

"Gifted with such advantages..."  I like the sound of that, although I'm not sure that has been my experience so far.  Maybe I need the beard, too, in order to get the advantages, but my whiskers are sparse and pathetic due to my genes.  I can grow the hair, though (if the new cat doesn't keep chewing it off while I sleep).

Mostly I like my long hair because it just feels better to me, but I also like that it is so different from the short hair of so many State enthusiasts and enforcers, especially those with the silly little scalp rug so in fashion among the cops and military.

I just enjoy seeing the "olde tyme" references to long hair.

.

Time's Up cap

Here's someone offering a slightly different version of the Time's Up design on a cap.  I get a little money from any sales.

.

Waylaid by wildlife thieves

The armed and badged New Mexico wildlife thieves (backed up by other gangs of LEOs) were setting up checkpoints yesterday, to try to catch folks who dared take "wild" food without their permission.  I had the unfortunate experience of having to pass through their Nazi-esque checkpoint as I crossed the state line.  I hadn't been hunting or fishing, and I think it was obvious I hadn't been, so I didn't have much extra trouble, besides being delayed and having to speak to the tax addicts, but I hate talking to these parasites.

All over something as imaginary as "poaching", or harvesting the "wrong" game, I suppose.

A thief claims property that is not his to claim, and in many cases backs that claim with the threat (or the actuality) of violence.  It's what is behind most cases of theft-by-state-employee.  They let you do the work to get the property, then they take it at gunpoint- claiming it was theirs all along.  And rob you of your tools and money, as well.  And possibly kidnap you.  And murder you if you resist.

The wildlife doesn't belong to anyone in "government", nor to some nebulous "public".  There is no such thing as "poaching" unless you are trespassing on private property and taking the game that is there.  Even in that case your offense doesn't involve "the state" in any way; only the property owner you have violated.  Let him deal with you as he sees fit.

I should never be put in a position to "need" to speak to an enforcer- unless, perhaps, I am attacking or stealing.  In fact, peaceable individuals should be able to live their entire lives without ever having to see or speak to a government employee at all- without ever even being aware these people exist, in fact.  I am absolutely sick to death of being put in the position of having to be civil to people who are a mortal threat to me and my daughter.  Every time a cop stops a peaceable person, the cop deserves to be shot and killed.  Every single time.  Think I'm being overly sensitive?  Consider: every interaction between an enforcer and you is a gamble that you are on the losing side of.  The "house" always has the advantage at this point in history, and if you keep playing you WILL lose.  As the police state ramps up, more and more things will be excuses to stop and search and kidnap and rob.  And "officer safety" will excuse your murder as long as the cowardly cops say you scared them.

The lack of effective resistance thus far just emboldens these vermin.

I'm not saying killing every cop that stops you is a smart thing to do at this point in time- it's not, because they have a bigger gang and still have most people brainwashed into believing they are the "good guys"- but it wouldn't be wrong.  Not anymore.  It is self defense, plain and simple.  That's the sad reality of the unfortunate times and the police state I find myself living in.  The cops should change their ways before the risks of civil interactions outweigh the risks of violent resistance for the average person.  Because it IS heading that direction quickly.

.

"... and with $100 you get this $2 totebag..."

Except that you don't actually get a totebag in this case.

I could use at least $10 if anyone is feeling so inclined today.  If not, that's perfectly understandable.  As always, your family comes first and I would never want anyone to have any hardship because of donating to me.

Thanks.

.

American facts approved by the US government

I was laughing at the "facts" about North Korea that the North Korean "government" morons promote- and then, in the midst of the laughter I started thinking about the "facts" the US "government" morons promote.  You know, stuff like:

"The USA is the freest country in the world."

"Soldiers give you your freedom."

"The Civil War was fought over slavery."

"Cops are heroes."

"Taxes are necessary and refusing to pay makes you a criminal."

"Without government schools you would be illiterate and ignorant."

"Government created the internet."

"The US troops in all those other countries are there to help the people there be safe and free."

"Voting matters and is important."

"Rights come from the Constitution and are all subject to reasonable restrictions, and can be cancelled in emergencies."

"Respect the office, if not the man."

"Without government, no one could stop you from murdering or being murdered."

"Prohibition is good and necessary."

...and balderdash of that sort.  I guess every criminal gang has its own ideas it tries to brainwash into others.

.

Politics or reality?

"More guns" isn't a political thing- it's a sensible, safety thing.

Getting (or "requiring") permits for those guns, now that's a political thing.  One I find disturbing.

.

Disarm the military!

Yes, seriously.

You and I know the Second Amendment was intended to be a protection from a tyrannical US government.  Yes, as uncomfortable as the truth makes some people, that means shooting and killing politicians and "troops" (including, now, cops) when they become a threat to rightful liberty* (as they all are now), and when they refuse to stand down when facing "citizens" and free individuals (as they do every day).

But the anti-liberty bigots like to say that even if this were the case, you and I, with our hunting rifles, shotguns, Glocks, and 1911s could never defeat the US military with its fully-automatic weaponry, missiles, bombs, jets, helicopters and unlimited amounts of ammunition.

Maybe... although it only takes one well-placed .22 round to make that superior weaponry change ownership... correction: to liberate it from the thief's agent and give it back to the true owner who paid for it in the first place.

Anyway, assuming the claim that "resistance is futile" is true, it means the Second Amendment has a subtext that has been ignored and needs to be rediscovered.

It means the military must be disarmed until they are no longer a threat to individuals intent on restoring liberty.  They must be rendered technologically inferior to deer hunters and farmers and inner city gangbangers.  All the weaponry which has made the military a superior fighting force must be distributed among the people who paid for it.

This would end the empire-building and make you and me safer by ending the ongoing terrorist recruitment campaigns; the US military actions around the planet.  And, if a real external threat ever cropped up again- as unlikely as that is- I'd gladly either take up arms myself or hand my "military weapons" over to someone who would.
.

*"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ~ Thomas Jefferson

.

"Guaranteed minimum income"?

If there were a "guaranteed minimum income" it would quickly become the new zero.

Then, someone would demand the minimum be increased.  Again and again.

Why are "smart" people too dumb to see this?

.

Wage hikes feel good, solve little

Wage hikes feel good, solve little

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 8, 2013)

I have seen many well-meaning people calling for an increase in the "minimum wage" as a way to fight poverty. If only it were that simple. How much do you raise it? To $100 per hour? More?

Unfortunately, economics doesn't work that way. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the fewer people a business can afford to employ. Many people will be priced out of a job altogether.

A higher minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, which means prices will have to go up or businesses will close. Employees getting the new minimum wage will soon be facing proportionally higher prices for everything they buy- completely negating any benefit they thought they were getting, thus creating a vicious cycle.

The economy isn't a pie; it's a pie that can grow exponentially. A dollar someone else pockets doesn't necessarily take a dollar out of your pocket, unless that dollar is gained through theft or coercion.

Many CEOs are paid a ridiculously inflated amount, but the solution isn't to raise the "minimum wage", it's to eliminate the fiction of the corporation, and get government OUT of the "business" of controlling business. That includes completely eliminating "minimum wages". When businesses are privately owned, but are told by government how they can operate, what they must pay, how much they can charge for their services, and are forced to pay a percentage to the State, that is the socialist economic system properly called "fascism".

But what if the "minimum wage" had simply kept up with the cost of living? Wouldn't that solve everything?

If the minimum wage had "kept up" with the cost of living, unemployment and inflation would have been proportionally higher all along. The reason the cost of living keeps rising is the devaluation- the counterfeiting- of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Strike at the root of the problem, not the side effects.

Even a minimum wage of $100 per hour or more wouldn't make everyone happy. If the average person brought home the same amount as a vastly overpaid CEO, or what the average plastic surgeon makes, it wouldn't be long before everything cost many times what it costs now. That's just a basic law of economics- supply and demand, and the ability to produce enough to meet demand without a free market. The same number of items will always be out of reach of the average person, no matter how high you make the minimum (or average) wage.

Don't fall for the feel-good solutions which solve nothing.

.

Which would you be?

Warlords and Protectors.

That is what many guys naturally tend toward.  They are just opposite sides of the same coin, I think.

Every statist seems to worry that everyone inclined in this way will become a Warlord if the State collapses, but wouldn't more people choose to become Protectors when freed of the silly notion that "that's government's responsibility"?

If that's the kind of person I was, I would certainly get more satisfaction out of coming to the rescue than I would subjugating others to my will.

Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?

.

Josie the Outlaw

Nice!

I'm sure you have probably already discovered her videos... but if you are one of the unfortunates who has somehow missed out, check her out.  And share her videos with statists who might just want to see a hot anarchist.

Her website is here: JosieTheOutlaw.com/

.

Christmas colors: Red and Bluish Yellow

"Bluish yellow? You mean 'green'?"
"Oh, I don't like labels."

Labels exist for good reason.  They can help people communicate when used correctly.  They can also prevent communication when used incorrectly.  If you call green "blue" your message is getting muddled.

If you call a conservative or a socialist "libertarian" you are not communicating, you are confusing.  Yet major "news" sources are doing this all the time.  So much, in fact, that it is probably intentional.

Be annoying.  Correct them relentlessly.

.

Things left unsaid...

Any subject I address- for my CNJ columns in particular- ends up being necessarily abbreviated.  I am limited  to "around 400 words".  Take my recent column, on people being forced to work on Thanksgiving, for example.

I had to stick with a narrow peek at one aspect of all the possible things that are related in some way to the topic.  I couldn't really go into the nationalization of the holiday by Lincoln.  I couldn't go into whether a day set aside for being thankful really makes sense, or whether it is necessary to believe in the supernatural to feel a sense of thankfulness.

I didn't address whether holidays are silly collectivist nonsense, or a necessary diversion for humans.

I didn't have time to address every detail of whether it makes a difference if you work for a corporation or a small family business.

I didn't go into the whole load of myth and misinformation that has grown up around "The First Thanksgiving Day" and pilgrims and "indians", or "the evils of industrial farming techniques", or whether eating meat is ethical or healthy, or... well, lots of other things that certain individuals out there feel are important to tackle every time the issue of "Thanksgiving Day" is discussed.  And that's just on the Thanksgiving side of it.  Anything anyone writes on a subject is going to ignore more than it addresses.  That's just reality.

As hard as it is for me- and it really is difficult- I have to focus on a tiny part of all the potential tangents I could explore anytime I write on anything.

And it seems that some people always manage to mention what I didn't address rather than focus on what I did.  Which is fine.  More can always be discussed in the comments.  Right?

But, maybe that's not enough.  Blogs are free to set up.  Whatever you feel is not being addressed by others may be calling to YOU to address it.  Start writing.  If I can do it, you can, too.

.

"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.

.