Two Americas? Yes, but not the two some see

I was forwarded an email yesterday which I responded to, but I want to respond here as well.  It is about "The Two Americas"

THE TWO AMERICAS

****************************

By Bob Lonsberry

Email:  Bob@Lonsberry.com

Call:  (585) 222-1180

On air:  8:30am - 12pm

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, 

a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM , 

said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":

*************************************************************
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

So, I responded:

He missed the mark.

Yes, there are "dos and don'ts", but there are a lot of things that shouldn't be done. Doing them isn't right. If your "duty as Americans" includes you supporting aggression or theft, you shouldn't do your "duty". If the "law" is wrong, you are wrong to obey it. The best way to "contribute to society" is to live without theft or aggression and respect the liberty of every other person to do whatever doesn't violate anyone else, even if you hate what they choose to do. Your one and ONLY "civic responsibility" is to respect and promote rightful liberty. The Democrats have not cornered the market as the "political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office... that loves power more than it loves its country"- Republicans are just as guilty.

"That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you." Or Bush. Or the next president/congresscritter/whoever. It doesn't matter if the theft is called Medicaid, SSDI, "National Security", farm subsidies, INS, etc. If you are taking money from those who earned it, and giving it to those who didn't- and that includes anyone working for any government that I did not consent to finance doing anything I didn't explicitly ask them to do on my behalf- you are rationalizing thievery.

"It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values..." You mean like Jefferson's "Rightful Liberty"?

"The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, 'The harder you work, the more you get.'" Unless you are working hard at something that American Christian Sharia Law has decided you shouldn't do. Such as grow and sell certain plants. Or rent your body. Or open a bar without government permission and meddling oversight. Or anything without all that red tape, regulation, and "taxation".

"What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow." Agreed. Just like the different flavor of socialism offered by the Republicans.

So, yes, there are two Americas- two worlds, really. It's not the "haves and have nots" or the "dos and don'ts". It's not the "liberals/progressives and the conservatives" or the "Democrats and Republicans". It is those who seek the power (and believe- falsely- they have the "authority") to control the non-coercive, non-thieving lives of others and those who don't. Robert A. Heinlein may have said it best: "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I stand with Liberty. Even when it's inconvenient.

In other words, the advocacy presented in the email is that of the typical "conservative" socialist.  The collective reigns supreme when its "needs" conflict with the needs of the individual.  A rather disgusting, cowardly world-view, if you ask me.

I realize there were a great many more points I could have addressed.  But, I was needing to hit the road for another project which I will present to you in a day or two- or a few.

Yes, I did CC the author, along with the guy who forwarded the email, in my response. I suppose I'll see if he responds.

.

S.W.A.T.ted, but in a good way.

If any of you subscribe to S.W.A.T. (Survival Weapons and Tactics) Magazine, or if you have a news stand nearby which carries it, you might check out Claire Wolfe's "Enemy at the Gate" column (which isn't online) in the March 2014 issue. It's titled "We, The Rattlesnake" and at the end of the column, in the bottom left corner of page 88, you will find a photo of a rather familiar flag. Just above that, in the last paragraph, there is also mention of a particular scoundrel you may have heard of.

Thanks, Claire!

.

Infighting helps the bad guys

It bothers me when I see liberty advocates fighting among themselves.

It's bad enough when libertarians and "liberty-leaning" statists fight over the things they disagree about rather than coming together where they agree, but when real liberty lovers fight over different personality styles or different areas of focus it is really upsetting. And when one side is tossing liberty aside for "the greater good" (whatever they may call it), it distracts people from watching those who have declared themselves to be the true enemies of liberty (and those who seek it).  In other words, it's dangerous.

I see it happen all the time, as I'm sure you do.

Facebook seems to be the arena where those petty disagreements are publicly aired the most, but I've seen it elsewhere.

I know I have done the same, but it's stupid. I am trying to learn to shut up when one liberty lover publicly disagrees with another, and factions form behind each. It seems so very collectivist, or even statist.

And when the disagreement- which may be perfectly valid, and one side may be totally wrong- gets to the point where the sides are saying nasty things about the people on the opposing side, rather than about the wrong-headed idea- it makes me sick.

Liberty is important. The ZAP is essential. Theft is wrong. No "job" can justify any of the bad stuff, even if it might seem useful to ignore the Principles for the moment. Keep focused on the real issue. The issue isn't The State"- it's the violation of rights, and whoever violates rights, no matter their flimsy justification.

But, if you are faced with a liberty lover who for some reason seems to be advocating going soft on evil, violating principles, or otherwise throwing liberty under the bus for "pragmatic" reasons, try your very best to not attack him or her while pointing out why their idea is wrong. Give them a chance to learn by your better example. And don't give the real troublemakers something to use against liberty lovers and liberty.

.

Ignoring dumb and dangerous rules

I'm happy that so many Connecticut gun owners are ignoring the new anti-liberty rules. I'm happy that so few New York residents are ratting out their gun owning neighbors to the "authorities" for not complying with that state's new anti-liberty rules. It seems that silly rules are being ignored by growing numbers of people.

I could be bothered that anyone complies at all, but you'll always have a percentage of people who can't bring themselves to disobey what they see as "legitimate orders" coming from "legitimate authority". Poor fools. Watch these people, and don't turn your back toward them unless you are knife proof.

Of course, there may be some people who- due to previous compliance or circumstances- are already in too deep to simply ignore orders. They eyes of the Stasi may already be on them. You'd probably be better off not being too close to these people, either. The State's aim isn't precise, and they really wouldn't mind getting two birds with one shot anyway.

Back to the happy news, it seems that growing numbers of people are finding it easy to ignore new rules.  Or too troublesome to comply. Maybe I'm just seeing it the way I want to, but when more and more people choose to join the Outlaws it makes me happy. Does this mean I want rampant lawlessness? Yes. When those "laws" are counterfeit I like to see everyone ignore them. Real law is discovered; fake "law" is written. Ignore the fake "laws" every chance you get. It will make you a better person.

.

Call for donations (But read this first)

(The newer posts will be below this one for a couple of days.)

If you have donated to me (and this blog and my website) before, this isn't to you. You can stop reading now.

If, however, you haven't ever donated, and you can and would like to, please do. I have a big expense related to this KentForLiberty activism which is coming up next week, and no money.  Use the buttons to the right.  --->

Thank you for your help and consideration.

.

Pontificating on what you don't understand

Every so often, I'll experience the joy of having a statist telling me what I "really believe", or what I "really want".

And they are always terribly off-base in their assessment.

Usually it is because they don't understand the first thing about Rightful Liberty.

Often it is because they also don't understand that protecting the rights of others to do anything that doesn't initiate force or take the property of others doesn't mean I necessarily want to all do the things humans have a right to do. There are some things we each have the right to do that I have no interest in doing- I might even think some of those things are "wrong"- at least for me, personally. But "wrong" doesn't mean it should be "illegal", or that goons with guns should come cage you for doing it.

Because, as much as it may pain some people (down in the comments) to hear it, all "laws" are either unnecessary or harmful. You can't make things better by making up a "law".  Vices can never be real universal wrongs.

But, facing this truth doesn't mean I want to see the destruction of civilization, either.  Quite the contrary.  I want to see the State- the most uncivilized mental problem ever to take root in the brain of humankind- taken out of the equation, so that civilization can flourish.  I don't want everyone running around, given in to their "animal natures"; raping, killing, stealing, etc.  Nope.  I want to end the most disgusting excuse ever dreamed up for doing all those evil things. That is why I advocate liberty. That is why I am an enemy of the (thugs who call themselves the) State.

What about you?

.

Wrong far different than illegal

Wrong far different than illegal

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 10, 2014)

A constitutional amendment defining marriage, in any way, would be wrong; an egregious example of government overreach. It would be the moral equivalent of Sharia Law; just because it happens to support your religious ideals doesn't change that fact. Once you claim it is right to base laws on your religion, and apply those laws to people of different beliefs just because their behavior offends you, you are opening the door for those who have different, or even adversarial, beliefs to do the same to you. Is that really a door you wish to open even wider?

Constitutions should only exist to prevent governments from infringing on individual liberty by limiting what government employees, rules, and laws are permitted to do, not to give them more latitude to violate some minority. To use the constitution to make a political statement or to express your solidarity with religious beliefs is to abuse it.

Nowhere does the Constitution give government the authority to define, ration, or regulate marriage. This is another example of the overwhelming number of things which are not within governmental authority. No one's marriage needs the state as the third, and superior, spouse.

The lack of such an amendment isn't forcing anyone to do anything, which would be wrong, but passing that amendment would result in forbidding others from doing something that doesn't involve you; something purely voluntary and none of your business. Which is also wrong.

It doesn't matter if you write a constitutional amendment to legalize the violation or marginalization of some individuals and their consensual relationships, it will still be wrong. Chattel slavery used to be "legal", too, as were FDR's Japanese Internment Camps.

No law can make right something which is wrong- which, ironically, is the same argument the opponents of the new laws granting marriage freedom seem to be using. This should make it obvious that right and wrong are completely separate from legal and illegal. Aggressive violence and theft are the proper purview of laws; absolutely nothing else is or can ever be. Even if you consider something a sin you have no authority to outlaw it as long as it doesn't violate the person or property of a third person- vices can never legitimately be crimes.

I find it very sad that the idea of writing a new rule defining marriage in the state constitution is so popular around the region. What ever happened to being neighborly and keeping your nose out of other people's business? I guess only radicals such as myself still believe in that virtue.
.

Evil is additive

Most individuals are decent. I have rarely been violated by individuals acting independently.  Sure, it has happened, but it is a rare thing.

On the other hand, almost every time I have been violated in some way, it is by individuals who have joined some group which they believe gives them justification for their antisocial behavior. 

Groups are much more likely to cause evil behavior in the individuals who identify with the group. And, it seems evil is much more likely to be additive.

Would you kick in your neighbor's door in the middle of the night, shoot his dogs, stomp the kitten, slap his wife, hold his kids at gun point, and kidnap him- or murder him if he resists- over a plant?  What about if you join a group that preaches that this is part of "doing your job"?

Doing the exact same thing, with the exact same results, depends on your membership in a cult. As an independent individual you are called a criminal- but as part of the group, you are called a "hero". About the only thing that can overcome the "hero" status is if you happen to be opposed by a more popular violent cult.

You have absorbed and added to the cumulative evil of your gang.

.

Infested!

Just sitting, watching cars drive past, and noticing how many of them are cop cars. Disgusting!

I know no one needs cops. But, pretending for a moment that their "job" (cough, cough) is legitimate and "necessary", I can still say this with confidence: No town* ever needs more than three cops. (Yes, fewer- zero- would be better, but we're pretending here.)

If there were an event that "required" a cop, one would suffice in most instances, and I doubt there would be more than one incident occurring simultaneously in a town where cops didn't violate the fundamental human right to own and to carry effective firearms of modern design- but if the improbable happened, three cops could back each other up in an extreme situation. Not that it would be needed if cops didn't make themselves the enemy of people in the community, because in that case every passerby would be armed and willing to come to the defense of anyone in need- even a cop. Cops are a huge part of the reason that doesn't happen much today.

But, any town where you can sit for a few minutes and see multiple cop cars driving past is infested with them.  It's the opposite of a "civilized" place.

.
*I'm talking about a regular town, not a Super-Sized MegaCity- but the observation still holds true no matter the size of the town- you should never see multiple cop cars in a few hour window of time. They should be an exceptionally rare sight- if you ever see one at all.

Open season on thugs?

I wish.  Because it should be, and in a free society, would be.

But, at least the guy who was arrested for "capital murder" when he shot a dangerous, armed, home invader who happened to wear a badge won't be facing the Texas "justice" (Ha!) system's death squad.

As for the dead badge bully: good riddance to bad trash.  I wish more of your "brothers" would face justice like you did.

As I have said before, every single time one of these home invasions is carried out, at least some of the invaders need to die.  Every single time, even if the raid is based upon some actual wrong and I would support taking action otherwise.  Because the cost of letting these badged thugs get away with this is much too high.  They need to know that one of their group won't be going home after the raid every time they suit up and make the choice to kick in a door.  Only then will they weigh the cost of being thugs and see the cost of their evil behavior is high.  Perhaps some will even recognize the results are worse than what they are fighting, and just maybe, if they are smart- or have a will to survive- they will stop acting like thuggish cowardly parasites and go back to being simply cowardly parasites.  That would be an improvement.

Perhaps then, knowing death awaits would make it not worth the cost to kick in doors and violate people over plants- or meth.  Or guns.  Or anything.  A man's home is his castle, and invaders need to take a boiling oil shower.  If they are doing something actually really bad inside, then it would be worth losing a few rescuers to save someone- and saving an innocent is the ONLY thing that would be worth it.

Of course, in this recent case the nasty and brutish copsuckers still insist that the innocent man's ongoing problems are a result of him choosing to possess plants and guns, and if he hadn't, none of this would have happened, so they intend to punish him as harshly as they can get away with for those non-wrongs.  Which shows that it's not only the home invaders who need to suffer the rightful consequences of their evil behavior.

Hat tip
.

TEA Partiers are so cute and silly!

Ah, the disconnect from reality that some people manage to navigate.

I got this picture from Facebook, and found it hilarious.

Don't "TEA Partiers" realize that if the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually became the "culture" it would negate all the rest of that wish list?

If they actually obeyed those documents it would mean

• the borders would remain as open as they were in 1791, 
• there would be no "official language" and no mechanism for imposing one,
• no prohibition of any kind- along with no "welfare" (no "freebies" for anyone)
• no term limits for any puppetician

I don't believe a "balanced budget" would result, but I know "tax reform" would happen, since the income tax is, and always has been, illegal.

Here would be my alternative wish list:

• Obama:  Who cares?- No president
• Borders: No borders except private property lines
• Language: No "official language"
• Culture: ZAP and Covenant of Unanimous Consent
• Drug Free [sic]: No free drugs unless someone gives them away voluntarily.  No prohibition of any kind, and no welfare; only charity, which you can give or deny for any reason or whim
• No freebies to: Anyone, unless it is given voluntarily
• No budget, unless financed through voluntary donations
• No "taxes"
• No congress or senate

And who cares how many "send this on" or how many I believe "should"?

.

Libertarian humor

I would like some libertarian jokes for an upcoming CNJ column.

That means they have to be "family friendly". I would prefer nothing mean-spirited, either.

It would probably be best not to come up with original material, since it probably won't be credited. I can do a search for some- and I probably will- but have you read any that amused you particularly?

If you'd like to join in, leave a comment with the joke.

Thanks.

.

Stealth wisdom

I saw these quotes yesterday (from here), and they made me think.

“I have always observed that to succeed in the world one should appear like a fool but be wise.” — Montesquieu 

“It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish.” — Aeschylus 

“All wisdom is folly that does not accommodate itself to the common ignorance.” — Montaigne

I have never been good at that- having far too little patience with stupidity. I need to work on that.

I suppose what those quotes are talking about is being sneaky; not standing out to attract negative attention so that- just maybe- people will listen to what you have to say.

It is all about "fitting in", which I have never been any good at.

When I was a teenager I went through a couple of spells where I wanted to fit it. It never succeeded for long. I would make a comment and have people looking at me as it I were an alien whose human mask had just fallen off. Usually the masquerade would end when someone would say "You're weird."

Come to think of it, some people still tell me that.

.

Coercion a human-created problem

Coercion a human-created problem

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 3, 2014)

I have learned that most people don't want solutions. They want temporary stop-gaps that make them feel a little better because they are "doing something" without really examining the status quo. All they are really doing is allowing the problem to grow larger and more dire after having been kicked down the road for someone in the future to deal with. Is that future person you next year, or your kid twenty years from now? Neither situation is good.

This habit of avoiding the issues is very destructive, but doing the exact opposite of what should be done is even worse. If their boat is sinking because it has a big hole in the bottom, most would rather bail with a spoon, or look the other way, than switch boats. And a significant percentage of people insist on drilling more holes in the bottom to "let the water out".

Every week I see news story after news story where a government-created problem is the topic, and the "solution" proposed is invariably more government. Sorry, but reality just doesn't work that way.

Whenever there is a problem, and government proposes to fix it by passing "laws", you can be sure of two things: The problem will not be fixed, and there will be unintended consequences that create even more problems which will inspire new "laws". Unless you break the cycle it will keep spiraling out of control.

Just a few examples of this destructive cycle in action are the problems of prison overcrowding, drug abuse, violent crime, school shootings, and the economy. Every one of these problems is made worse, if not created entirely, through government action and "laws".

The existence of these problems causes statists (those who believe running other people's lives through legislation and enforcement is a legitimate activity) to call for more "laws" to fix the problems their meddling created in the first place.

At the root, coercion, no matter who uses it, is the one real human-created problem. Of all the problems in the world, the only ones that can really be stopped before they begin are coercion and theft committed by people. Anyone who commits these acts against others needs to be exposed and opposed.

Your part of the solution is to refuse to initiate force and reject theft as a way to get what you want, and remind everyone that self defense is always their right. The only real solution begins with you and me.

.

"Fanging myself"

Wow, I'm miserable today.

Nothing is going right. Every technological thing I touch is giving me trouble. The cats are wreaking havoc in the house. I did everything wrong this morning, according to my daughter. It's icy, misty, and cold and I'm going to have to ride my bike (or walk) to the post office anyway, because today I have to go before the window closes because of an obligation. And I don't really enjoy the journey in town even when the weather is nice.

And there are the same old problems that seem to never vary, unless they get worse.

But, I realize that most of my misery is coming from inside myself.  My attitude probably makes things seem worse than they are.  What do they say?  "Looking at life through s#*t colored glasses"?  It's just "one of those days".

I can almost laugh at myself over this.  Almost.

.

Misjudging your intended target

I have missed out on some things in the past couple of days. I have some weird thing going on where my computer will not display Facebook, Youtube, or Google and this means I have missed out on most of the firestorm over the Coke commercial.

Apparently, during some widely-televised game, Coke aired an advertisement where some State hymn (reports vary as to which one) was sung in some language(s) other than English (Spanish was mentioned with particular vehemence) and had verses added which were apparently "Islam-friendly". Or something... as I say, I haven't seen the ad and am only going by the garbled and semi-literate rants I have managed to read.

So people are bothered by the fact that a State hymn was sung in other languages, and may or may not have tried to include adherents of various religions in the worship- but not that the hymn was sung at all? Strange critters, these humans.

I don't watch sports of any kind. Never cared for them at all- even manage to hate them when they get rubbed in my face. Neither do I worship States of any sort. The enemy of all humans is coercion and theft- any coercion and theft- and since goons who work for States are the worst offenders (though not the only ones) I hold a particular dislike for those nasty and brutish organizations.

I drink Coke on occasion, although Dr Pepper is my vice of choice. I have found their advertisements to be amusing in the past- although not all were to my taste. I understand they were trying to reach out to the State worshipers with State hymns, but to do it in "other languages" when those State worshipers are going through a phase (which has outlasted its humorous life by several years) wherein they hate and despise anyone not a Red-Blooded "American" (by which they mean a USAcan who speaks only American English in the popular way, waves the federal flag, cheers the invasion of other places- and the murders of the defenders- around the globe by federal troops, and wants the borders to protect him from "those people") probably was a bad call- they didn't understand their target demographic at all.

It's like trying to speak to anarchists by telling us voting is our patriotic duty.

Or, maybe I'm missing the whole point by being somewhat out of touch due to my computer's whimsical behavior.

.
Thanks for your support, and please consider helping if you can.

.

Changing rules

Playing games with my daughter is an educational experience.  She likes to win (as do I).  So she makes up rules arbitrarily as we play. The rules keep changing to give her the advantage.  And I violate those rules as fast as she makes them.

I hope she learns something.

Not that I "cheat", but that rules which are arbitrary and changed on a whim have no validity.

If we both agree on the rules of the game, or a rule change, I go along willingly.  The other rule changes I ignore while she declares herself the "winner" because I violated her "rule".  I would expect her to do the same if our roles were reversed, and some day I may try to introduce my own arbitrarily changing rules in the hopes she does the same to them.

.

Thanks for the support, and please consider it if you can.
.

"Stop hitting yourself!"

As a kid did you ever see a bully- possibly an older sibling- beating a smaller kid with the victim's own hands while chanting "Stop hitting yourself!"?

Well, apparently cops are those stupid bullies grown large.

So often in the case of people they brutally beat to death, the murderous cops can be heard screaming "Stop resisting!" as they beat their non-resisting victim to a bloody pulp- or beyond.  What's the difference?  Besides the fact that childhood bullies rarely continued until they were murderers.

I understand that the murderous cowards are trying to alter any witness's perceptions of reality- maybe if they chant the magic words loudly enough, and often enough, they will make them true.  Maybe any witness won't really watch too closely, and will assume from the girlish screams of the attacking pigs that the victim really is "resisting".  Unfortunately for the murderous cowards, videos aren't so easily fooled.  Unfortunately for civilization, the truth doesn't matter when the murderer wears a badge.

"Resisting arrest" isn't wrong- especially when you are being kidnapped under a counterfeit "law".

Never stop resisting.  If you find yourself under attack, kill your attacker if you have to, whoever it may be.  There needs to be a high price for being a thug, and sometimes it may be up to you to charge that price.

.

Thanks, and please consider it.
.

Today's newspapers are missing their point

In a discussion on Facebook, where someone complained about the local paper, I posted this:

I think newspapers have a very fine line to walk in today's market. Yes, they should be hard-hitting and generally expose and oppose the local politicians/"authorities"/sacred cows as a matter of duty... however, those local politicians/"authorities"/sacred cows control access to information and also can influence advertisers (and may have businesses which are advertisers themselves)- and they have families and friends who will stand by them no matter how corrupt they may be, and will set off a domino effect of cancelled advertisers and subscribers. So, even though a no-punches-pulled news source would be nice, I doubt it would survive today without some truly independent financing that didn't depend on keeping the local power-mongers happy. It's a conundrum.

My editor then responded:

Not so much a conundrum, Kent. We're not afraid to annoy advertisers or public officials. We do that all the time. Every newspaper is challenged by lack of resources, in multiple forms -- time, experience, money, etc. But fairness also comes into play. It's not ethical to publish rumors; we need facts. Multi-layered discussion, best addressed one specific issue at a time.

I don't want to "get into it" with him, but I disagree.  Actually, his answer was even more disturbing than my original suspicions.

It's not about fairness (which as Scott "Dilbert" Adams points out, isn't a feature of reality, anyway).  

While it might not be ethical to publish rumors (which I actually agree with, by the way), it is a newspaper reporter's job to pursue those rumors relentlessly to see if there's any validity to them.  Yes, you need facts. So find them.  Or discover that the fact show the rumor seems to be without merit.  For now.  All "public officials" should feel so much pressure that they are afraid to do anything even marginally questionable for fear of being caught.  Never let off the pursuit.  I'm not even talking about when they're sneaking off to see their mistress or "pool boy", or to smoke crack or other private matter, but those times they might be tempted to make a backroom deal, or ally with a known crook in any way, or pocket that kickback or bribe- anything in the public realm, where they are "officially" advocating, passing, or enforcing rules against you and me and violating liberty.  In fact, the scrutiny should be so intense and unending that no one wants the job at all.  If it results in less "governing", so much the better.

No one forced anyone in a "public office" [sic] to take that "job".  They made the deliberate choice to live at my expense, without my consent, and place themselves in a position where they feel empowered to order me around and violate my life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  So, if they want to whine about being subjected to intense scrutiny, they should resign and get an honest job instead.  I have no sympathy.

And that is what a newspaper should do.  And what they don't do anymore, if they ever really did.  And that is very tragic.

That being said, I'm glad I'm not a reporter.  And all local cops, bureaucrats, puppeticians, and authoriturds should be, too.  Because I would enjoy exposing them way too much.

.

Thanks, and please consider it.

.

Fun with "COPS"- the flipside

Now that you've had a few days to have "fun with COPS", pointing out what they have become, let's shame them by playing the same "backronym" game with what they should be, instead.

I'll admit this is much harder for me, since the only thing I think cops should be is something other than cops, or unemployed.

Still, I'll start this so you can see what I mean.

"Civilized Old Protector"
"Consistent On Principles"
"Caring Over Policing"

Can you do the same awesome job with this, more difficult, idea as you did with the original?

.

Add hate for even more misery

A couple of days ago I had to take a trip to The City because my daughter had a doctor appointment.  After the doctor visit my daughter wanted to go to the mall to ride the escalator, the mini-carousel, and play at their play area.  That was fine with me- she doesn't get the chance very often.

Nemesis bitched, complained, and whined endlessly about it- at the risk of ruining Daughter's fun.  Daughter offered to let her wait in the car, which didn't go over well- as you might expect.

And in the midst of this Nemesis added that "of course" I don't mind going, because I just "like everyone"- even "those kind of people".  Whoever they might be- but whom I suspect might include young, attractive, happy, friendly females.  They are Nemesis's kryptonite.  Although, when you pretty much hate everyone it is hard to pin it down.

Funny thing is, I didn't always like people.  It was only after I fully embraced liberty and anarchy that I was able to let people be themselves without being "offended" in some way.  Yet, libertarians are claimed to be the "angry" ones?  Not from what I've experienced in my own life.  Nemesis enjoys hating too much to ever let go of that, even if it kills her.

Too bad- it sure is more fun to like people and get along.

.

Life is better without coercion

Life is better without coercion

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

I love people. If you had known me fifteen years ago, that would sound like a shocking statement coming from me. But that was before a few things changed in my life to bring out the best in me.

Within a period of a few months I discovered there is a name for how I had always pretty much believed anyway: "libertarianism"; I discovered I wasn't the only one in the world with this philosophy, and I started going out and being sociable.

Before those things happened I had thought I was a disgruntled conservative- tired of being stabbed in the back by politicians I assumed were on my side, and disgusted because of seeing so many people refusing do what I thought was right.

I also considered myself a hermit.

I wouldn't go back to either of those ways for anything.

I still don't like the choices a lot of people make, and I'll criticize those choices. Sometimes it sounds like I am criticizing the individuals who make those choices, but all they'd have to do is stop initiating force or stop violating property rights and the criticisms would no longer apply to them. It's simple, really.

Sure, some people are so invested in their life of theft and coercion that it is hard to distinguish between the act and the person, but it's still nothing more than a bad choice they are making. They are not what they do.

If I say I hate green shirts, I am not talking about the people wearing those shirts. There's no reason to get angry over something that is separate from you and could be taken off and tossed aside if you wanted to. If you wear green shirts and my lack of approval offends you, either don't let me see you wearing a green shirt, or just shrug off my comments.

But, my criticisms are not quite so trivial, are they? After all, you would probably criticize the same behavior I do if the person committing the act didn't have a government job that supposedly justified the behavior.

I know how much better life can be when you stop advocating sending armed people to coerce others on your behalf "for their own good". All I want is for you to discover the same truth for yourself. Because I love you as a person, even if I don't always like what you advocate or do.

Try it for yourself and have a Happy New Year, and a happier new you!

.

A gentle reminder

See the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons over there?  Hint, hint. ------->

.

Jefferson's "Rightful Liberty"

Thomas Jefferson said:

"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."

This is just another way of stating the Zero Archation Principle.

Would "laws" against burning "The Flag" get a pass?  Would anti-drug rules, or anti-gun rules, or minimum drinking/driving/whatever age rules?  Are anti-property rights rules, such as "border control", "property codes", or "zoning laws" existing within the confines of "rightful liberty"?  Would compulsory school attendance rules, traffic "laws", or any form of "taxation" pass the test?

No.  All those reflect only the tyrant's will.  If you support or advocate any of those things (which I doubt many of my regular readers do) you have declared yourself to be an enemy of rightful liberty.  Jefferson would have hated what you stand for and would count you with the rest of the collectivists.

At least be honest about it.

.

Smug Prohibitionists

I happen to live in a "dry" county.  Yes, those relics of a barbaric past still exist in some places.  And smug nannies (or should that be "ninnies"?), who apparently hate and distrust everyone else, believe that's the way it should be.

I just read a letter to the editor in the State Line Tribune (no website) where the person was saying that keeping the county "dry" is the right thing because of the "neglect, and destruction of families" and "drunk driving" that comes with alcohol abuse.  Oh, and because of the "fact" that moderation "often fails".

Never mind that these things still happen, and are still blamed on alcohol, in this county which has been "dry" since it was established over 100 years ago.

He (they? the letter was signed as a couple) was also upset that Hollywood is destroying the morality of the country.

I can only speak for myself, but Hollywood doesn't dictate my morals- if it did I might be a murderous flag-sniffer, since there has always been a lot of that coming out of that industry.  It's sad that some people think that "good" requires them to advocate violating the rights of others, and are so incredibly weak-willed that they can't keep their own houses in order if their neighbor lives differently.

And I'm not even a drinker.  But in this era of fairly easy transportation (other than running the LEO gauntlet), if I want alcohol, I can drive 5 minutes (or less) and be in another county (another state, in fact) and buy alcohol there, so the belief that a "dry" county keeps alcohol out of the system of its residents is a delusion.  Or would be if they actually believed it.  But they know it's a lie.  It just makes them happy to be "moral" by telling others what they are allowed to do- I suspect it makes them feel superior in some way.  The truth is, they just want to dictate to others.  They are bad people, regardless of whether or not they are "nice".

Yeah, it makes me mad that people like that don't get shouted down, shamed and exposed, for what they advocate.

.

Fun with "COPS"

A friend sent me his acronym (or, more accurately, a "backronym") for the word "cop".  Finding fun and painfully truthful "backronyms" is a game I sometimes like to play, so how about we see what we can come up with.

His suggestion was "Consistently Oppressing People".

The one that immediately came to my mind was "Cowardly Overweight Perverts".

"Count On Penetration" might be a good one for the rapists of the Deming, NM police department.

So, what can you think of?

.

"The Terrorists Won..."

Bill Buppert has a good one: "The Terrorists Won (Not Those Terrorists)".

The US is a Terrorism State- although that's probably a redundant term.  All states, nations, etc. are based upon terrorism.

But he's talking specifically about the terrorists called "police officers" and the recent rash of murders and attacks by those armed thugs. He points out that: 

"This is quite simply a declaration of war on ordinary Americans by every police department in America, all 19,000 departments."

Yep.  And it's a war in which only one side is "allowed" to do the shooting and killing.  A good person on the other side is told to just sit tight and take it.  They are told that their killers are the good guys and fighting back automatically makes one "bad" and deserving of death.  I wonder how long such a narrative can last.

"Cops remain the largest threat to human liberty in history and continue to carry on that proud thuggish tradition in America."

Yep.  That's why I keep pointing to this truth.  Cops have decided that YOU are their enemy.  When will you return the favor?

.

Another book?

I have had several people ask if I plan on writing another book.  The answer is: I don't know.

My previous books haven't sold well enough to justify all the work that would go into a new book.  It's not simply about the money- although that is part of it- it's about having a limited amount of time, and I am already spending time on my other paying projects, and really don't see a way to dedicate more time on another book without cutting the time spent elsewhere, thus cutting into the money I am currently making.

However, all the other five books are still available, and I have recently updated (and improved) the Kindle versions of all my books.  You can find all the information on the books by going here: My books.  If the other books ever really take off sales-wise, I would definitely consider a new book worth the effort.

And I have an idea of what I might do for a new book.  If it becomes worth my time.  If you'd like to see it happen, buy my books and suggest them to others.

.

Cops/Terrorists

There's a fair amount of attention being paid to the claim that cops have killed more Americans since 9/11 than the terrorists killed that day.  Not surprising, but why not include cops with their brethren, the other terrorists?  It's a false distinction.

Anyway, I wish someone would make a distinction between murder-by-cop and a cop killing someone who needs to be killed.  If you or I would face punishment for acting as the cop did in any incident, it's most likely a case of murder.

I accept that some people, in the midst of some actions, need to be killed to protect the innocent- and I can even accept that in some cases the only people present and in danger might be cops, and in that case I wouldn't fault them for killing in self defense.

But further, I would like to see how many of those cases of self defense were made necessary by cops escalating a situation.  If you are enforcing some BS rule such as prohibition (guns or drugs) or trying to help someone violate the private property of an individual through "taxation" or "code enforcement", then you started it, and your actions can't be self defensive at their foundation.  You deserve to die "in the line of 'duty'".  I would be willing to bet the cops wouldn't fare well under such scrutiny, so I doubt the facts will ever be released where they could be analyzed.

I would take an encounter with an honest terrorist whom I could shoot without too much danger of being punished for defending myself over an encounter with a cop, whom I would undoubtedly be punished for defending myself from.

How about you?

.

Wishing you joy in simple things

Wishing you joy in simple things

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 20, 2013.)

It's that time of the year again, when all but the most cynical grumps among us feel a bit sentimental and more forgiving toward their fellow humans. It's a time when gifts are given and received, bringing joy to everyone involved. Unless the gift involves terra cotta and chia seeds.

I wish I were rich enough to give everyone around me something tangible which would adequately demonstrate their worth. Since that's not possible, I'll tell you what my wish for each of you would be.

My wish is for you to find joy in the simple things you'll end up spending most of your time doing anyway, and still enjoy the surprises which come along to turn your world on its head.

My wish is for all your relationships to be strictly voluntary and non-coercive. Not only at this time, but throughout the entire year.

My wish is that you realize the ability to have or to do the things you want the very most, and come to understand the only way to have that is to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

My wish is for you to have just the exact amount of government you are happy to have controlling your life; no more, no less. I wish the same for each and every one of your neighbors. As long as you keep this gift to yourself everyone will be happy. Sort of like those Rudolph underwear you got a few Christmases ago.

My wish is for you to find the joy in discovering that you can get everything done which should be done, voluntarily. My wish is for you to accept that if you have to force people to participate, it's probably not quite as wonderful as you claim. I wish you the peace of letting go of those things you believe everyone else should want, but they don't, even under threat of jail.

My wish is for you to have the ability to make an honest profit by doing what you actually enjoy, so that you'll never "work" a day in your life, and that you'll always have people clamoring at your door to spend their money with you of their own free will. I wish for you the ability to keep everything you earn, safe from thieving hands of any kind.

My wish is for you to be able to worship in any way you like, free from fear of oppression or coercion, but that you never gain the ability to impose your religious ideas on others through law.

Merry Christmas- or the winter solstice holiday of your choice.
.

Nationalism- ewww!

Nationalism is messed up. It's still messed up even if your country really were "the best" because of how it becomes automatic and blinds you to negative changes.

Suppose you had a "country" that was founded upon rightful liberty, and which only had rules that reflected that.  Sure, those rules would still be unnecessary, but very little harm would come from them.

I could understand some sort of nationalism in your mind toward this "country".

However, if over time, your "country" changed to where rightful liberty was thrown under the train by more and more harmful rules, and you were in such a habit of "loving your country" that you didn't notice the change, then your nationalism becomes a caricature of itself.  You are now cheering a corpse.  A rotting, festering corpse which is spreading disease and killing all those who insist on kissing it on the mouth.  Or wherever.  You now stink just like the corpse.  You appear insane to anyone looking on who is even slightly removed from your beliefs.

That's how nationalism appears to me.

.

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.)

.