Who owns the Bundy Ranch?

I know some people are complaining that the Bundy's don't actually "own" the land they live on, much less the BLM-claimed land they have been using.

That land belonged to the Native tribes before being stolen by some "white" settlers or a "white" government. Then it was bought or leased from the thieves.

Yeah, and before that the Native tribe who lived there at that time stole it from some other Natives who lived there and who had probably stolen it from someone before them and so on since the first humans came to North America. The story is the same world wide.

It's sad, and WRONG, to take land (or any other property) which doesn't belong to you. But, Mr. Bundy* didn't steal that land. No one who originally owned that land before someone stole it is still alive, and some undoubtedly left no descendants whatsoever, having been wiped out in the process of having their land stolen.

Sometimes there is just no way to fix a past wrong. What are you going to do? Obsess over it and hate everyone and everything until perfection is achieved?

As I have said multiple times in the past, at some point you just have to wipe the slate clean and forgive past offenses and say "Never again!" That, or you'll never have any peace.

-

*I'm not saying he is necessarily a wonderful guy. I don't know him. Everyone- including myself- has flaws and faults. He may even frequently recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or "support the troops", or something hideous like that. I'm speaking narrowly here. If you can't stand up for the rights of a bad guy when you see him being violated, your support of the good guy in the same situation is cheapened. And no matter how bad Bundy may or may not be, the thugs calling themselves "government" are always worse, and are the ultimate bad guys in this situation. I'm glad they got beaten in this first skirmish of the war. I hope if they try to attack again their loss is even more dramatic.

.

BLM's new mission deserves a new name

Let's just call a spade a spade here.

The BLM has gone into the business of cattle rustling. Maybe they should change their name accordingly: Bureau of Cattle Rustling.

You know what used to happen to cattle rustlers...

.

NSA and Heartbleed

So, if the NSA knew about the "Heartbleed Bug" for years, and used it to spy on people, doesn't that kind of discredit them?

National SECURITY Agency, not protecting security, but exploiting a lack thereof. I'd say that's good enough reason to cancel their budget, sell off their guns and computers, let their employees stand on street corners with signs that say "Will Molest for Food", and see how long they survive in the real world.

.

"Drug warriors" and other evil thugs

Eventually, all those cops, prosecutors, and prison guards who enforce anti-drug "laws" are going to look just as bad to "society" as those thugs who enforced slavery "laws"- particularly and especially like those who captured the slaves who had escaped.

And when I say "eventually" I am talking about how they'll look to people who aren't me. Because to me that's exactly how bad they look right now. I look at cops and I see primitive, ignorant, brutal thugs "earning" their stolen wages by committing evil.

.

The Bundy ranch situation

Do the Bundy's own the land they have been using? Not according to those thugs who claim they work for something they'll call "The State". Who does, then? Well, according to "The State", it does. Sure, they'll say "the taxpayers", but by that they mean they have the authority to control the land "on our behalf". Ha!

Governments aren't real like people are. They are a dangerous mental problem believed in by most people: a mental glitch in the synapses.

Governments can't "own" anything, since everything they (or their agents) possess was stolen or "bought" with stolen (or counterfeited) money.

A thief doesn't own the stolen property he possesses.

The cattle, on the other hand, are clearly owned by the Bundy's. And employees of that "government" are stealing them. And then using violence against people who are trying to not be stolen from. And attacking the people trying to defend the Bundy's from the violence and theft.

That makes the government employees the bad guys in this confrontation.

As they are in any situation they are a part of.

(see also: Who owns the Bundy Ranch?)

.

The sheriff's kneejerk reaction

Here's the local sheriff's hilariously dumb opinion on marijuana legalization, which I suspect was in response to my Liberty Lines column (previous post):

(click on it to see it bigger) 

Hmmm. Am I surprised a local tax addict would object? No. Around here, just about the only possible justification for his useless "tax"-financed "job" hinges on Prohibition*- of one sort or another. Yes, this is also a "dry" county. So, of course he believes (not "thinks") legalization would be "a mistake". He would probably be out of a paycheck and be forced to find honest work or spend more time fishing. 

I see he's worried about "impaired driving"- like it doesn't happen regardless. But, wait... what about the studies and tests which have shown driving under the influence of marijuana actually decreases the risk of being in an accident? I know, that's not helpful to the anti-drug bigots' narrative, so it's ignored. And when have I ever said that someone who harms another or their private property should be excused? What does it matter "why" they caused the accident? It doesn't.

But it would "increase the difficulty of law enforcement to determine who is impaired"! Whine, whine! Yeah, lets keep violating people for your lazy, thuggish convenience! Here's a hint: If you can't tell if someone is "impaired", they aren't. Leave it at that.

Next, he complains how difficult it would be to figure out if the Cannabis was obtained through "legal or non-legal channels". Idiot. That's like saying slavery shouldn't have been abolished because then it would be too hard for slave hunters to figure out if the person had been "freed legally" or had been a runaway. When what you are doing is wrong, you need to stop doing it; don't figure out how to keep doing it anyway.

"Officers would need education concerning the enforcement of legal sales." No, they wouldn't. This is just more statist propaganda aimed at making liberty look "too hard". Just assume liberty and move along without molesting people. It's really pretty easy.

Same thing with all his excuses about needing more enforcers and bigger budgets if there were fewer "crimes" to feed his lust. It is ALL statist** BS and lies.

Read the whole thing. He just drones on and on, coming up with more unthinking statist justifications for continuing to follow his path of evil. 

But, don't worry- he says it's not going to happen in Texas (or especially locally) because people here are "more conservative".

Conservatives are partly right- there are some things worth conserving. But this isn't one of them. Being wrong- advocating evil- is not worth "conserving", and staying "conservative" on this issue isn't something to be proud of. They should instead be ashamed. When you are going the wrong way, it's smart to stop and turn around, but I suppose "conservatives" such as the sheriff think it's OK to close your eyes and chant about why you have to stay the course as you head over the cliff.

Not only are they going to look foolish in a few years, but they'll be seen as the force for evil they actually are. The blood of multitudes is on their hands over this ridiculous prohibition.

*By way of illustration, here's the weekly "Sheriff's Report" from the same issue:

(Click pic for embiggenation) 

**And I mean this is the worst possible way this time.

.

Liberty Lines- April 10, 2014

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

I wonder how many people thought America's morality was at its end when slavery lost its legal footing. Or when the "Jim Crow" laws which followed slavery were done away with. Probably about as many as now think getting rid of anti-marijuana "laws" spells doom to America's moral foundation.

If your "morality" requires you to violate someone else's individual human right to do absolutely anything that doesn't violate your identical and equal rights, your "morality" is empty. In fact, it is the opposite of moral.

The Prohibitionists of an earlier era realized that to make their campaign "legal" they had to pass a Constitutional amendment- because the Constitution didn't permit any authority to enforce any sort of prohibition. It still doesn't. The current anti-drug prohibition never got even this flimsy veil of legitimacy to hide behind. It was, and is, completely illegal at every level, and enforcing it makes a person a criminal.

That is the real moral problem.

Of course, when something is a violation of a person's rights, not even a Constitutional amendment can make it right. This is why Prohibition is always wrong and why a repeal of the Second Amendment can't eliminate the right to own and to carry weapons. Rights have never hinged on laws.

The worst thing about the new marijuana laws springing up across the country is that they establish a tax for doing something people have always had the right to do- "taxation" is a warm-fuzzy euphemism for theft, and taxes always go to finance new violations of life, liberty, and property.

If you don't believe people should use marijuana, then don't use it yourself, and feel free to ridicule or shun those who do. And if anyone harms an innocent person or private property, regardless of whether or not they are "impaired", seek restitution. Those responses to the situation are completely within your rights. Using the blunt force of The State to impose your wishes on others is not. In fact, it is an example of America's version of Sharia Law; universally imposed on True Believer and Infidel, alike.

By doing this to others you are testifying to your belief in the rightness of having someone else do the same to you, no matter who gains power or authority in the future. In that case, don't whine when you find yourself on the wrong end of a future law.

-

Check out my next post to see the sheriff's (probable) response.

.

The bright side of Obama?

I've heard it said that Obama is the greatest gun salesman in history.

I am beginning to wonder if he's not also the greatest recruiter for liberty of all kinds, as well.

Talking with someone yesterday I recognized a theme I have heard a few times from some unexpected places. People who were "Tea Party", quas-libertarian types becoming more firmly libertarian, or even, dare I say it, anarchist- due to things Obama and his cronies have done, and attempted to do. For them the shine seems to be gone from the Tea Party notion of electing "the right people"- at least for now.

Would I be seeing the same if the other, completely interchangeable, statist monster had won the last election? I don't know. It may be that the mess created by ignoring reality and Natural Law has finally gotten to the point that no matter which tyrant sits at the desk and plots to violate you, the results will be the same, and some people are beginning to see it.

I know there are a lot of people who will continue to support what they have convinced themselves is "their side" even as the fangs pump the poison into their flesh, and no amount of reality is going to change their minds. But, for some of those willing and able to see the truth, it just may be that Obama was the kick in the pants they needed.

At least, I hope so. I'd like to be able to see a bright side to Obama (besides the fact he hasn't been able to do most of the worst things he wants to do).

Now, I hope most of these people don't revert back to their old ways and support the next candidate who promises to be the Anti-Obama... I'll do my best to help them stay strong if they feel tempted.

.

Bureaucracy violates your rights

Bureaucracy violates your rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 7, 2014)

Legalized? Decriminalized? Why?

Most things wrongly made illegal should instead be ignored, which is difficult for those infected with the lust to control. They are not proper areas of governance under any circumstances. Even under the most well-meaning situations, "there ought to be a law" is misguided. No new law is necessary; the laws which were unethically imposed just need to be repealed, be ignored, or be defied.

To bother to legalize or to decriminalize anything which isn't aggression or theft would seem to imply some government authority in that area of life- where none exists.

For example, in Colorado under the new legalized marijuana laws (which the federal government refuses to honor, violating both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments), banks have been caught up in the confusion. Even those which want to to do business with the perfectly legal marijuana shops are refusing, mainly out of fear of federal retribution for refusing to walk the prohibition line. The state and federal rules are at odds, and even with very meticulous federal guidelines which banks are promised they can follow without fear, the risk of entrapment is too great for most to dare.

Which illustrates just one reason banks should also be freed from federal meddling.

I disagree with those who say "legalize and tax it". Taxation feeds the state. Don't feed the beast; starve it.

It would be much better to admit the Constitution doesn't give any authority for prohibition- as a previous generation of prohibitionists once admitted, since they knew they had to pass an amendment to make their anti-alcohol crusade legal, if not right.

A similar situation of too much "law" exists in those states where laws are passed to make it less legally risky to do what humans have always had an inalienable right to do, and an explicit Constitutional protection of that right which allows zero exceptions: to own and to carry any kind of weapon they wish, wherever they go, openly or concealed as they see fit, regardless of age or legal status, without asking permission of anyone, ever.

It is simply the government employee's duty to comply with the Constitution and not violate the right in any way. Period. Yet, look at the parasitic compliance and enforcement bureaucracy which has grown around that very simple human right. There are taxes, license fees, transfer fees, background check fees, etc. All feeding the bureaucracy established for no other reason than to break the law that binds them- and violate your rights.

Those who seek to rule your life would do well to butt out and mind their own business, which means not giving everything a legal status.

.

How I think bloggish thoughts

In one of my dozens of spam comments (which Blogger intercepts before you ever see them) the "question" (before the spamiferous link) was posed: "How do you clear your head and center yourself before you write?"

Now that's a spammerbot which deserves an answer.

The way I have found that works best for me is to read my emails, and check posts on Facebook, check out some news stories- and then go do something.

I have blogs write themselves while I shower. Or cut and split firewood. Or do some clothing/hat repair. Or just about anything that gets my mind off writing, without tying my mind up with something else.

It helps if my hands are busy with something (no comments about the shower!) but my thinking brain is unoccupied. I used to find scraping deer or elk hides was a never-ending source of ideas- but that was mostly before I started writing- such a shame (although I did pen a few letters to the editor during those years). Just sitting staring into a fire doesn't work that well for me. Because my hands usually aren't busy, I suppose.

Busy hands; bored brain. When I have trouble finding something to write about, it is usually because one part of that formula is missing. Does that qualify as clearing my head and centering myself?

Now, when I write my Clovis News Journal columns there are two additional steps. After I write what I want to say, I go back and make sure it isn't too long- which always means cutting out an awful lot of words. Then, I go back and find ways to "tone it down" without compromising the message at all- and that's even harder than cutting out words and points I think are important to what I need to say.

So now you know.

.

"Mistakes were made..."

When the first person initiated force or theft and was allowed to live...
And when the first person fell for the belief in "authority"...
Which led to those who survived their initiation of force and theft setting themselves up as "government".
When the first govthug made up a rule that wasn't based upon Natural Law.
When a "standing military" was permitted.
When that military was used in wars of aggression.
When "laws" against owning and carrying certain weapons were imposed and not defied universally.
When those rules were applied to people whose ONE JOB (whether it's a legitimate "job" or not) is to use weapons.
And that leads directly to a government pawn killing government pawns in a "gun free zone"- Ft. Hood.
And, yes, it is a "gun free zone" anytime the right to own and to carry weapons is violated in any way, and there are "authorized" armed people singled out as above the rule.

And, as long as those same old mistakes keep being made, the same thing will keep happening. The enormity of the stupidity is astounding.

.

Warlords

A new post on my Libertopia blog: The fate of the Warlord

.

If smoking pot is wrong...

If smoking pot is wrong, then taking aspirin is wrong. 

If smoking pot is wrong, then taking Prozac is wrong.

I don't believe doing any of those things is wrong. 

Taking too much aspirin or too much Prozac can be bad for your health. Maybe smoking "too much" marijuana might also be unhealthy- or maybe not. But that is a separate issue, not a matter of right or wrong.

The claim that smoking pot is somehow wrong is among the silliest things I have ever heard anyone espouse.

.

Pity the control-freak

I know, and have known, many control freaks. Observing control-freaks at work makes me feel sorry for them. What a frustrating, exhausting way to live!

Just imagine living as though the entire world is your responsibility, and if you don't tell everyone what to do and how to do it, and then watch over their shoulder to make certain your instructions are obeyed, the world will collapse into chaos. And people tend to resist them (or ignore them), making their lives even more frustrating for them.

I have enough to do running my own life, and as long as someone isn't molesting me (in a bad way) I'm content to leave them alone. Even the control-freaks.

.

"Please..."

There, I fixed it even more. From here.

.

Initiate force; complicate the plot

Here's a little homework* for you: Watch movies. See the characters initiate force and also see that even in fiction- where extreme cases are the norm- it isn't "necessary", but could always be avoided. There's always a better way.

Now, apply that to your own life.

Of course, your life isn't contrived to make an engaging story. You'll probably never find yourself in situations like those portrayed on the screen. In which case it should be even easier to see that initiating force isn't the right thing to do.

In movies, if the hero always did the right thing by refusing to initiate force, the movie would often end before it got started. Initiating force complicates the plot and draws it out longer so you'll be more likely to pay the price- after all, who would bother going to a 15 minute movie?

-

* OK, not "homework", which I despise in all its forms, but a strictly voluntary suggestion you can take or ignore.

.

Take the plunge

One thing that happens to me fairly often is getting a message from someone saying how I have opened their eyes to liberty. There is almost nothing in my experience that feels that good.

The thing is, if I can do it, you can do it.

I have no special skills or training. I am still more comfortable sitting alone at a campfire in buckskin clothes than debating anything online. When I actually have to speak face-to-face with people who don't agree with me I feel out of breath. And even unpleasant exchanges online can fluster me beyond what is reasonable.

Yet, it is all worth it for those occasional confessions from people I have influenced in a positive way.

Some people may claim that writing isn't really "doing" anything. (They are waiting for the shooting to commence.) That may be. But writing down your own thoughts can give you the strength to act on what you know to be right. It sure works that way for me. And living liberty is the most powerful thing you can do to promote it.

If you want to write, do it. Don't worry that you aren't "good enough". You are. For someone out there your writing would be just the thing they need.

If you don't want to write, there are other things you can do. Sing songs. Draw cartoons. Paint. Make videos. Post comments- which is still writing, but bouncing off someone else is something I find easier than coming up with my own train of thought.

I know it sometimes seems as if the internet is made up of nothing but people making their own content and no one actually consuming it, but I actually know of several people who "make" nothing, and simply devour what they find. And, if that's really what makes you happy that is nothing to be ashamed of- but if you secretly desire to produce something for others to "consume", do it. I think you'll find it invigorating.

And who knows who you'll end up influencing, and what hurricane your butterfly wings may trigger on the other side of the planet.

.

Who to serve is business’ choice

Who to serve is business’ choice

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 28, 2014)

In Arizona a new "law" is being considered which would allow business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. This is another case of a law being inflicted because of a misguided past law.

Does a business owner already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Yes. No matter what any "law" to the contrary might say. "Anti-discrimination laws" are all violations of the right of association. Even though discrimination based on most criteria isn't nice, no "law" has the authority to force people to do business with anyone.

It cuts both ways. I am also free to refuse to patronize a business because of whom they refuse, and free to tell everyone why I won't do business there. I don't like bigotry, no matter the excuses.

Will their business thrive, or will it die, due to their choices? Let the chips fall where they may.

But what if the business's product or service is critical to life and limb? Like housing, food, or energy?

It's amazing to me that anyone would believe the type of business matters in this question. Why would I ever choose to open a type of business anyone believes requires the State telling me how to run?

Those who advocate this are endorsing fascism. "Fascism" is the economic system in which businesses are "owned" privately, but are told how they must operate by the State's laws, which also demand a cut of the money ("taxes"). Fascism is here- thus all the permits, licenses, taxes, zoning, regulations, etc. controlling businesses. It's also why corporations have found ways to pull the strings of government.

If you own a business I think is "too important" to deny people, I could open the same kind of business and cater to the people you refuse to serve. Maybe we will both stay in business, serving different groups of people. Where's the "loser" in that?

If it is my business I have the inalienable human right to serve- or not- anyone I choose. "Laws" which seek to violate that right are wrong. My reasons may be stupid, bigoted, or absurd, but no one has the legitimate authority to violate that right.

Be that as it may, I would shun any business (and its owner) which refuses service to people who aren't physically attacking the innocent or stealing from them. I would also reward with my patronage any business I discovered refusing service to people who made a habit of using aggression against the innocent, or of committing theft in any way.

This is just a basic human right- the right of association. Respect it or violate it. Your choice.

.

The murderous ABQ enforcers

I hadn't said anything here about the guy in Albuquerque murdered by enforcers for camping without permission. Because, what do you expect?

It sounds like the guy who was murdered, James M. Boyd, had problems, and may not have been a wonderful person, but at the time he was murdered, he wasn't doing anything to deserve it. At that moment, he was innocent.

He was camping- and found himself faced with aggressive, armed goons who were obviously making credible threats to harm him. Of course he had knives in his hands. He was not a credible threat to anyone not intent on escalating the situation. The cops were in no real danger from Boyd's words. (So he should have had a gun or two.) They were simply on the prowl for an excuse to kill someone that day.

It seems that of all the murderous police gangs infesting America, the one in Albuquerque may be among the worst.

I suppose "the people" of ABQ are getting fed up, but (foolishly) instead of demanding abolishing the police department and replacing that tumor with nothing, they'll be content to "clean it up" in some touchy-feely way. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results...

I can't help but believe the protests could have been averted if the terminally corrupt and stupid police chief hadn't gone on TV and lied and excused his murderous goons so quickly. At least give the illusion of impartiality, moron. I think this was the insult that triggered the backlash. Law enforcers should NEVER be allowed to investigate or decide on punishment for law enforcers. That is the very definition of "conflict of interest".

It is funny to me that most of the "mainstream" news reports about the protests mention the protests "turning violent" when the riot-gear clad cops showed up. I wasn't there, so I can't say whether the protests were violent beforehand, but I know cops always- always- escalate any situation they are added to. And, no, I don't think it was "wrong" to trap some enforcers in their own (stolen) car and try to forcibly remove them. They should have been standing with "the people"- their superiors and bosses- and against their "brothers in blue" and they would have not found themselves in that predicament. In other words, they could have shown that there are some of those "good cops" I keep hearing about.

I don't know whether private property was being damaged in the protests- I suspect it was. That is wrong. If you are going to protest, you need to focus your attention on the police department "property" and employees. You don't gain legitimacy by targeting the wrong people. Hang the guilty, not the guy who just happens to be walking past when you are angry.

And, if Anonymous really wants to help, they should delete- permanently- all files and records on the APD computers, rather than just shutting them down for a while. And then they could move on to the rest of the police departments all over the world.

It's a big mess, but it can be fixed. Disarm on-duty cops, never let enforcers (or anyone connected to any government) investigate enforcers, and then abolish all police departments. Eh, just skip the preliminaries: abolish police. It's the only reasonable course.

No, I'm not "April Fooling".

Added: I keep seeing mention of the protest becoming violent and confrontational WHEN THE MILITARIZED RIOT POLICE SHOWED UP. Now, I keep in mind that almost everything reported by the media is wrong in some way, but I think it is very likely that the cops showed up specifically to turn the protests violent. Probably thought they'd discredit the protesters that way. It failed.

.

What? No blog post?

I was doing some stucco repairs yesterday, and tools weren't doing the job and only fingertips would work, so I have 3 raw/bloody typing fingers today. And, for once I had no scheduled blog posts, so this is what you get for the moment.

.

"Well, what do you expect?"

A while back I read Albert J. Nock's "Our Enemy, The State" and thought it was excellent. Well, I found something else he wrote that is more concise and possibly even better. It is "The Criminality of the State", and here's an excerpt:

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." Albert Jay Nock - The Criminality of the State (1939)

I love his suggested reaction to every expression of outrage at something "the State" has done- "Well, what do you expect?"

I highly recommend reading the whole thing, while keeping in mind that "the State" isn't real- it is a belief, and every single thing "it" does is in actuality done by flawed, and vulnerable humans who can be beaten.

.

Adventures with Slave Numbers

Wanna piss me off? Complicate any simple procedure by insisting I provide "my" Federal Slave Number/Social Security Number.

My first reaction is invariably "You want what?"

I don't have such a thing. Some branch of the fe(de)ral gooberment assigned one to me long ago- but it most certainly isn't "my" number. It is strictly the "federal government's" number- and since "government" isn't even a real thing...

I have never learned it, and I don't carry the silly scrap of paper it is printed upon with me. I remember what the first 3 digits are (not even sure why I remember that much), and I know some of the digits- but not their order- in the rest of the number.

But to claim it is "my" number? Yeah, right.

If I am standing in line at McDonald's, and they have given me a ticket number, that makes sense. I can watch or listen for that number, and it is easier than trying to hear them mispronounce my name when my order is ready. And then the number has served it purpose and goes away, never to be required again. But to number a person for life?

Let's say I decide to assign a number to every reader of this blog- or anyone I interact with in any way. That doesn't make the number "your" number, it's just my number for you, and you should laugh at me if I tell you that you must use that number for identification purposes for the rest of your life. The whole concept is ridiculous.

Didn't it used to be "illegal"- for whatever that is worth- to use that number for identification purposes? Did that "law" change, or did it just become too inconvenient for tracking and controlling the cattle?

I never even run into the demand to give that number except when doing supposed favors- usually financial in nature- for other people. And I am rather tired of it.

And, I managed to do what I wanted eventually, anyway, without giving anyone "my" number. Suck that, collectivists.

.

The root of the problem

I don't think "government" causes every problem that exists. Problems would still get in the way of life even if no one woke up believing in "government" tomorrow morning.

Aggression and/or theft causes every elective* problem (those not natural)- they are not the private domain of the State. It just so happens that, at least in America, people acting as "government" are the primary offenders. But certainly not the only ones.

Obviously, there is no problem that can't be made worse by adding some "government" to the recipe- and aggression and theft are prime examples.

-

(*Yes, all government-caused problems are elective by nature- someone chooses to cause the problem instead of choosing to not cause the problem. Sick, isn't it.)

.

Want to make something irresistible?‏

Forbid it.

It's just basic psychology. The attraction of the "forbidden fruit".

Two kinds of people do that. The sincere idiots who wish to prevent harm, and those enforcer types who want to find an excuse to punish those who break their rule.

The second type doesn't care about the harm- they'll cause it themselves if it doesn't happen on its own. As Ayn Rand wrote: 

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Sometimes I think the sincere idiots unconsciously do this too. Give ultimatums so they can feel superior when their target "sins".

Prohibition is supported by both types- and both are control freaks of one sort or another.

Control freaks irritate me.

.

Rights are to be asserted, defended

Rights are to be asserted, defended

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 21, 2014. This was my "emergency backup column" which I whipped out after my original column for today was rejected. You can read that one here: link.)

Often when I hear people speak of "rights" they seem to be saying rights are something others are required to respect. Or even give them.

The truth is rights are something you need to assert. They are nothing if you don't defend them from all threats.

A right is something you don't need to ask permission, from anyone, to do. It is the opposite of a privilege.

Rights don't come from other people, nor from groups of other people or from any documents. They come from your existence. To prove you have every single human right that has every existed in anyone, anywhere, at any time, you only need to show up. You don't have to prove your identity or your citizenship or that you are "law abiding" (whatever that might mean now).

Every right is simply about not having something done to you.

The so-called "positive rights" all seek to enslave someone else for your benefit. This makes them contradictory, since in this case your "right" would violate someone else's right. No one is obligated to give you health care, or a job, or food, or a place to live, or a gun. But no one has the right to prevent you from providing those things for yourself as long as you don't violate some other person's equal and identical rights by attacking, stealing, or trespassing on private property.

The core nature of rights is the reason why the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs can never be a moral cause, and why anti-gun "laws" are never legitimate.

Some libertarians believe that rights don't really exist- they are a mental construct without basis in reality. If that's the case, then no one could have a right to tell others how to live or otherwise try to control another's life, which brings us full circle, so I'd be OK with that. If it were true.

But how far do rights go?

You have the fundamental human right to do absolutely anything that doesn't violate any other person or their property. No matter how badly it offends someone else, as there is no "right to not be offended". Any "law" that seeks to prevent you from living fully, within your rights, is a counterfeit "law": it may look like a real law, it may use legal language, it might even be enforced and upheld, but it lacks a legitimate foundation and is therefore completely unethical. Don't be caught advocating or defending counterfeit "laws". Instead, spend your energy defending rights.

.

Ask a simple question...

A while back, on Facebook, I asked a question:

I have a question for a couple of specific people. For this I chose the most vocal "liberal" on my facebook, and the most vocal "conservative". I realize it may take a while to get both to answer, but I am really curious and hope others will wait to see how the question is answered by these two. (If you would like to "share" this status on your own timeline and tag your own favorite "progressive" and "conservative", feel free. Maybe this could be the start of an interesting experiment.) 

PLEASE NOTE!: ***I don't want this to be a debate over the relative superiority of either side, nor an attack on the other.*** I just want to get a feel for how a (mostly random) "representative" from each side "feels" about the situation. Please don't make me regret asking this! I will delete this status if trouble ensues. (Remember that as a libertarian/voluntaryist/anarchist I agree with each side some of the time and roll my eyes at them the rest of the time. 

To lead into my question: It seems that both the "liberal/progressive" side and the "conservative" side lament how much power and influence the other side has over politics in America/The United States right now. 

So, my very simple question for y'all is this: 

Do you see "society" moving in the general direction you would prefer? Yes, no, other?

And, after getting some answers, I have come to some conclusions.

Will people follow instructions? Not really. I wanted everyone to wait until the people I asked had answered before chipping in with their own opinions. They didn't. I wasn't surprised. And some people just went off on strange tangents that had me confused from the first. 

Will people respect a polite, sincere request? No.

Will people stay civil? Not looking good. The barbs were somewhat veiled, but were still there.

Who will get nasty first? Pretty much the first person to actually answer the question. See above.

Will libertarians be able to resist commenting even though they weren't asked? No. LOL. I knew that would happen, since I probably would have been fighting the same urge to weigh in.

Do people see "society" moving in the direction that makes them feel like the underdog or like the victor? "Conservatives" seem to see themselves as the righteous underdog, and "liberals" seem to see themselves as the "victims" of a rich conservative smear campaign (but still on the winning side). So, it's a little of both, but probably depends on how they want to see "their side" at the moment. Funny thing is that neither side sees the same position applies equally well to their adversaries- depending on the issue.

How strongly will their own biases color their response, and how they phrase it? Their biases seemed to color who they saw as the ones causing the political system to be broken, but neither side saw allowing the political system to exist as a problem. That's a problem. 

So, "both sides" see a problem, and interpret the problem differently, but neither sees themselves as the root of the problem. It's all someone else's fault. "The Rich", the irresponsible, the stupid or gullible. They blame "money in politics", but don't see that the root of the problem is allowing anyone to make up any rules which will violate the rights of some people for the "benefit" of others. Money isn't all that causes that harm- the "capital of victimhood" is even stronger in some cases.

Although I didn't ask, it seems that the libertarians who responded see "society" going the wrong way, too, similar to the reaction of the "conservatives".

Personally, I think it's not as cut and dried as that.

Yes, politics and its shadow, "The State", are growing more tyrannical and evil. Those thugs are trying to squeeze the last drops of liberty out of our lives. But... in many ways the technology which empowers the bad guys also empowers the good. The internet is letting more and more people see just how ridiculous Rulers really are, and the real-world destructive consequences of allowing them to have any "authority" and power. For each new strike against liberty by The State, a new weapon to defend liberty is created. The control freaks are busily created the tools of their own destruction, and the more frantic they get about the threat liberty poses, the fasted they work to destroy themselves. It won't be a comfortable trip, though.

It isn't that "we" need to elect "the right people", or get money out of politics, or force everyone around us to wisely be responsible for themselves. The problem as I see it is that way too many people still believe it's OK to coerce others to live as we want them to, and to violate their property rights as a way to finance their own slavery. You can't do the right thing in the wrong way- you can't be helpful by being evil.

What you can do is be responsible for yourself and your own property. Don't violate any other person's life, liberty, or property, and come to the defense of those who you see being violated by anyone. If it neither "breaks [your] leg nor picks [your] pocket", butt out. Drop the delusion that you should control other people for their own good, or protect them from the consequences of their own actions against their will. They are not your property to control. Get over it. Politics has no place in life.

Looking at "borders" more closely

It really bothers me that some really smart people, whom I generally agree with on just about everything else, disagree with me about the validity (and wisdom)- or utter lack thereof- of "national borders".

I take this as a sign I need to re-evaluate.

First of all, I do agree that humans are generally tribal, and get along better with their own "tribe" (however they may define that). I agree that forcing people together, who don't want to be together, causes a lot of problems and violence. I agree I would be more comfortable where I could be a part of the dominant "culture"- not that I have ever really been, but I do believe I would enjoy it. But do those things really depend on States and their "borders"?

I recognize and respect private property lines. They are the real "borders" I defend.

"National borders", on the other hand, can't exist without a State enforcing them, with coercion, while violating private property lines and individual rights. Is that violation justified by a "greater good" or a necessity?

Tribes have always had territories, and sometimes those align, incidentally, with "borders". When that's the case, no "state" is required to maintain or "protect" the borders. When it isn't the case, a Berlin Wall/Border Fence won't be enough to stop the migration. I believe the Berlin Wall is the clearest illustration of the illegitimate nature of "national borders"- at least in recent history.

If I build a fence through the middle of town, ignoring the property of the people already living there, is my fence a "real" border? What if I fought another guy on the other side of town for the "right" to put a fence there, and we agreed between us that this was the proper place to build the fence- and he would be "authorized" to rape, murder, and rob the people on his side of the fence, in exchange for protecting them from the people on "my side" of the fence doing the same to them. And I get to do the same to "my people" with the same "responsibility" to protect them from him and his people. What if the people on my side of the fence mostly agree that it is better to be raped, robbed, and murdered by me? What about those whose property is now divided between territories, or cut off from family and friends on the other side of the arbitrary new "border"?

It's insane, isn't it?

Is it really any better if I use a pre-existing street, ditch, or property lines as my "border", of which I now declare myself to be the "authorized user and defender" (and, by definition, "owner")?

What if some individuals from "their tribe" move into your neighborhood and overwhelm "your tribe"? In a neighborhood where private property rights are understood, respected, and DEFENDED, I don't see this being an issue. Are those migrants stealing houses to live in, and otherwise trespassing? Defend the property however necessary. Are those migrants buying or renting their living quarters? Then mind your own business- or try to convince the landlord/seller to not rent/sell to "those people". Or outbid them with the help of other members of your tribe. Above all, don't focus on who they are, but on what they do. If they rob, rape, or violate property rights, you are completely justified in using violence in defense- my monopoly over "defense" and "justice" is a much greater threat; really the only real threat (as long as you tolerate my "authority", that is).

If people you don't want move in anyway, a friendly reminder that theft and aggression will be met with defensive violence (and then doing it) is in no way a violation of anyone's rights.

But what about your "culture"? I realize that different people, from different origins, have different cultures. Do you really believe your culture is so inferior that it can be so easily "corrupted" or destroyed? Is there a danger of you rejecting your own culture? Or of your kids rejecting it? Do you not believe your culture can compete in the market of ideas? If not, maybe you need to look at why that is. Maybe it's because the competing culture is "easier" or more attractive in some other way to the worst nature of humans. If so, there is nothing you can do to save your own culture. Not without changing human nature. Resign yourself to being "the remnant". Maybe, though, there are things in your own culture that are bad and need to be eliminated anyway, in order to make it more competitive. Why wait until your are forced to face that fact? Start changing now. I'm in no danger from other cultures, unless they inspire me to begin initiating force and stealing for some reason. That won't happen since that principle isn't "cultural" anyway, so I can enjoy and sample other cultures and enrich my life.

If you are worried about "those people" partaking in your monthly divvying up of the stolen loot I ("government") distribute to back to you (the victims), the root of the problem lies in allowing the theft to continue; not in how it is distributed. I'm sorry, but this IS the real issue, and it doesn't matter if "this is the system we have; we need to accept the reality and work within it- until that changes, immigration must be restricted". Yes, it is "the system" as it exists, and it is wrong. Alter or abolish it. And stop blaming others for your reluctance to do so.

So, after going through all this in my own head I conclude that those who still believe in "borders" are still wrong. I sympathize with their fears, but think they are going about fighting those scary things in the wrong way.

.

People in glass hou... er, cop cars...

The local cop/police chief has certain aspects of his personal life which, in past societies, would have been "illegal" and could have resulted in execution.

I realize the same could be said for myself, and quite probably YOU. There is no reason to go into greater detail- almost everyone does things which were highly "illegal" at some point in the past in some society. The list of "offenses" throughout history is almost endless.

The difference is that I don't believe it's right to make up (or enforce) rules against anything which isn't aggression or property violation. For that matter, I don't advocate rules against those, either, I just expect you to defend yourself and your property against all violators and I support your right to do so.

Yet, this hypocrite enforces rules- which are just as counterfeit as those he would have run afoul of- against others in this town every single day as part of his disgusting "job". There is nothing "good" about that.

(Has anyone else had trouble with the font being too small? I normally use the default "normal" Blogger font size, but someone says he can't ever read it, so I tried "large" this time. I don't see a way to change the default, though, so I probably won't remember to keep doing it manually.)

Gun quotes

Bob has collected some good gun-related quotes- both for and against: Some Useful Quotes on Gun Control

.

Reluctant statists

Last week's blog post on "The good intentions of statists" got an unexpected reaction. Statists were upset at being recognized as statists!

I understand that people who "only" want a tiny amount of government imposed on someone are not as bad as those who want "cradle to (early) grave" controls placed on everyone who isn't them- and don't want to be associated with those MegaStatists in any way. I understand there are a great many different ways even that tiny amount of government could be applied. It's why I tried to explain that I believe most statists are of the minor variety, and that they aren't evil; just misguided.

But I am mystified that they would be upset that they are recognized for what they are.

I am an anarchist. It wouldn't make sense for me to be upset at being called an anarchist unless I believed I am wrong, and that some tiny amount of government is actually right, necessary, and good. I don't, and I am OK at being called an anarchist or voluntaryist or whatever you want to call it.

If being recognized as a statist because you want any amount of governing imposed on anyone, anywhere at any time bothers you, perhaps you need to examine your premises. You may just need to turn your back on that last vestige of statism in order to get to where you instinctively know you need to be.

Or, embrace the label of statist and make your point.

Think about it.

.

Flight 370- I found it...

... THREE times! And I have photographic evidence:

Governments are harmless

No government has ever harmed any individual. Did I really say that? Yes, I did.

Do you doubt me? Well...

Let's say you believe in a god- let's call it "Unext"- your god can't harm me. It isn't real and can't really "do" anything. Right?

But you can harm me because of your belief in Unext, if you thought Unext wanted you to do so.

Just like a cop or Brownshirt of some other variety could kill me for "the government". It's not the imaginary thing which is dangerous, it is the believers (and those who don't necessarily believe, but are just using it as an excuse to pillage). 

So, while government, by itself, is utterly harmless because it isn't really there, the belief in government has been the most deadly mental virus ever to infect the mind of any species on Earth.

.

Life is too short not to have fun

Life is too short not to have fun

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 14, 2014)

Libertarians usually enjoy a good joke at our own expense. The most amusing jokes are based on truth.

Q: Why did the libertarian chicken cross the road?
A: "None of your business. Am I being detained?"

In today's police state, this humorous response to an all-too-common occurrence lets us laugh at a serious, and growing, problem.

Then there are jokes which probably won't be understood as well by people unfamiliar with libertarians and their ideas:

Q: How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: "None. If the market wants that light bulb screwed in, it will happen on its own."

Of course, libertarians know "the market" is us. If we want the light bulb screwed in, we will either do it ourselves or pay someone else to do it. That is how it happens "on its own" rather than with someone throwing authority around and ordering it to be done.

Some humor is found in the common perception of libertarians, whether it's completely accurate or not:

Q: What is a libertarian salad?
A: "Lettuce alone!"

Personally, I like being with people as long as they aren't pushing me around, but the joke still made me smile.

Turnabout is fair play. The absurdity of both the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and false authority create the humor in this popular tale:

A DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas, and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.” The rancher says, pointing, “Okay, but don’t go in that field over there.”
The DEA officer explodes: "Mister, do you see this badge? I have the authority of the Federal Government with me. This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish--on anybody's land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear?”
The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.
A short time later, the rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life, chased by the rancher’s big Santa Gertrudis bull.
With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he’ll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs: ”Your badge! Show him your BADGE!”

If only everyone recognized such authority for what it really is as well as that fictional bull.

Yes, I laugh at jokes directed at libertarians as well as those directed at our opposition. When you're on the right side, you have nothing to fear from jokes. Life is too short to not have fun.
.

Signs of freedom

I hang my head in shame and admit I have never shot a road sign. Never even felt tempted to.

Now, probably most people who do shoot road signs aren't doing it as an expression of liberty. They just see something that attracts their attention and shoot it. "Shiny objects", and all that.

Others, just perhaps, are expressing themselves when they perforate those ugly sheets of metal. For them, road signs are an affront; a stand-in for the people who enforce the "instructions" on the sign. It is freedom of expression- "free speech", supposedly protected from State interference by the First Amendment. In that case, shoot away! If it makes you happy (and you are aware of your backstop).

Road signs aren't private property. Their utter destruction, in most cases, wouldn't harm anyone. In fact, they should all (well, all but those which give directions to get from here to there) just be removed forever- and those which give needed information, replaced with signs placed there by the individual who owns the road, using his own money, after the socialist road system dies a well-deserved death. And shooting those individually owned signs would be wrong.

I recognize that destroying a road sign will cost "tax" money when it is (stupidly) replaced. I realize that if a sign gets shot up badly its message- whatever that may be- will not be communicated to travelers. And in the case of ignorant things such as "speed limits"- your ignorance of the "law" is no excuse, and some enforcer who is ignorant of the laws which should eliminate his "job" will still violate you for doing whatever the sign said not to do. But highwaymen have always been a danger for travelers. The solution remains the same.

So, to me, a road sign riddled with bullet holes is a symbol of freedom. If there ever comes a day when the signs have no bullet holes, it will be a clear sign that freedom and liberty have been lost.

.

Licensing another liberty

A while back I helped someone get a New Mexico "license" to sell alcohol at retail stores. The test was online. Yeah, the thought of sitting through hours of statist indoctrination disgusted me, but since I'm the "brains"... (Yes, they passed.)

The test material even quoted MADD, as if that group has the slightest bit of credibility!

Anyway, I noticed something rather interesting about the test.

The whole purpose of the test was to shift responsibility away from the purchaser of the alcohol, and attempt to place it on the seller. If the seller "gets it wrong", they are the one threatened with punishment. How's that for a continuation of the sort of "thinking" indoctrinated into kids in government schools? Do something stupid, blame someone else.

I did learn several tricks to buying alcohol, and traps to avoid (things the test taught the sellers to be on the alert for), so I guess it wasn't a total waste and might come in handy one day. Perhaps I should offer to sell my knowledge.

.

"Press 1 for English"

If you are worried about "Press 1 for English" you have been successfully distracted. Congratulations!

Instead of worrying about what language the guy standing in line at the grocery store speaks, or whether some answering system accommodates people who speak other languages, I'd rather make puppeticians speak plain English instead of lawyerly weaselspeak.

And then, maybe people would see that ignoring those monsters- or at least withdrawing their compliance- is in their best interest.

"Even" when it means you might be exposed to more people speaking languages you don't understand.

The language spoken doesn't matter (not even if it's lawyerly weaselese); only the initiation of force- or the credible threat to initiate force- and theft matter.

Worrying about anything else is just a sign you have been tricked into worrying about things that are not real issues. Why would someone do that to you? How does it benefit them? Do you like being manipulated for their benefit?

Press 1 to refuse to cooperate anymore.

.

Just keep wiggling that key

I think the Constitution was a big mistake. You don't enhance liberty by setting up another government, no matter how "good" you believe your new government to be.

And, every person alive has the exact same right to own and to carry weapons regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists, and regardless of where that person may be.

However, I can see what the Second Amendment was supposed to do without saying it was needed, and while seeing it failed.

Second amendment was like a door with a keyhole protecting the universal human right to own and to carry guns, knives, swords, flamethrowers, and other "arms" from the control freaks on the other side of the door. By putting it in writing, and by creating the illusion of "authority" in the body of the Constitution, the keyhole was created. It probably wasn't smart to install a keyhole at all. A better strategy is always to simply defend yourself from those control freaks- to the point of death if they are (as usual) too stupid to learn from their mistakes, but I'll ignore that for now.

Unfortunately, since there was a keyhole, some stupid, evil, or misguided people felt they needed a key to get at that right- it wasn't safe to just leave it unmolested. That keyhole was originally a fairly tight fit leaving no room for violation of the right to own and to carry weapons. Tyrants didn't like that so they kept fiddling with it. After centuries of wiggling the key, government meddlers have gotten the hole so wallowed out you can now drive a truck through it. That's why there are "laws" against "concealed weapons", openly carried weapons, automatic firearms, normal capacity magazines, short-barreled shotguns, and whatever else some moron decides is "too dangerous" to his plans to  rob, rape, and murder- I mean "protect" you.

I will never mourn the death of any anti-liberty bigot- especially if his death comes as a result of trying to infringe on the right to own and to carry weapons. Some acts just need to lead to death every single time they are performed. I will also not condemn anyone who kills one of those anti-liberty bigots, even while recognizing that sometimes, the right thing isn't the smartest thing to do.

That is just the reality of the world as it is.

.

Breaking Bad? Breaking Best!

I have never watched an episode of "Breaking Bad"- it's just not the kind of thing that interests me. I have no problem with someone making meth- I do have a problem with someone using aggression to ... well, do anything.

From what I have heard, the term "breaking bad" means that at some point, a person will have a choice to go either "good" or bad" and some may fall- "break"- to the bad side, which becomes self-perpetuating and leads somewhere you might not have expected. Like a teacher becoming a meth kingpin.

I guess there are many things like that in life, points where a small, seemingly insignificant choice will tip the scales either to the right side or the wrong side.

When you find yourself at those points, I hope you "break good"- to the libertarian side. And, even more than that, I hope all those small choices add up to you "Breaking Best"- anarchist!

.

The good intentions of statists

I have no doubt that the average statist has good intentions, means well, and only wants the best.

But they go about it all wrong by ignoring reality.

The reason I have this opinion is because almost everyone I know is a statist. They aren't intentionally evil. They simply haven't thought through the things they support and advocate enough to see where they lead.

In most cases, they probably want the same things I want: the health, safety, and prosperity of themselves and their loved ones. They just haven't acknowledged that the way they go about trying to ensure these things is evil- they cause harm to the health, safety, and prosperity of others who aren't important to them.

The problem is everyone is someone else's "other". Statism becomes a big cannibal feast where no one is going to come out whole.

The nicer, and more rational, choice is to recognize that everyone has an absolute right to do anything that doesn't violate the life, liberty, property, or "pursuit of happiness" of anyone else. It's the only way that doesn't create a victim. It's the better alternative to being a statist.

-

Added

.

America founded on liberty

America founded on liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 7, 2014)

How much do you love your freedom, and what are you willing to do for liberty?

Freedom, to me, is simply doing whatever you want to do. It can be good or bad, depending on your character, but is often neutral.

Liberty, though, is the freedom to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate another person's equal and identical liberty. Liberty - Thomas Jefferson called it "rightful liberty"- is what America was founded in order to protect and promote. Nothing more or less. No rules or laws can legitimately violate that.

Do you love liberty enough to let people make their own mistakes and deal with the consequences?

I do.

I love liberty so much that I am willing to not interfere in other people's lives with the expectation they will do the same for me. Even if I don't like a behavior, as long as no one is being forced to participate, and no third party is being harmed, I will swallow my annoyance, however great it may be, and mind my own business.

On the other hand, I love liberty enough to speak up when people are doing things which have popular support, but which do harm a third party. I am willing to stick my neck out and take the slings and arrows of those who are desperate to justify the wrongs they wish to commit with a numbed conscience, in person or by proxy. I speak up even when the violations don't directly affect me at all. It may not be the path to popularity, but it's the right thing to do.

There is no other way to protect liberty. You can't limit freedom or violate liberty, or support those who do, while giving those noble concepts lip-service, without being a hypocrite. Yet, I see it every day. Almost no one will point out the Emperor has no clothes, no emperor deserves to be worshiped or obeyed, and he isn't even an emperor to begin with. I'm not speaking only of any current Imperial Personage, but any who believe they hold such power and authority.

How much to you value freedom and liberty? Enough to put your love into action even when it makes you uncomfortable? Enough to sacrifice your personal wishes for what's right? It shouldn't even be seen as a "sacrifice" to stay out of other people's business, but for too many, it is not only a sacrifice; it's such a costly one they can't bring themselves to do it. Liberty is what ends up sacrificed on the altar of those anti-liberty, non-consensual collective actions that have wide popular support.

.

How many posts?

This is my 3000th post to this blog. How did I get so wordy? I was always so quiet; kinda kept to myself...

I appreciate all the readers who have stuck around since the beginning (I'm assuming there are one or two, and I suspect I know who they might be) and I'm very grateful for all those who have joined me along the path.

I also look forward to picking up new travel companions as I keep wandering down the trail ahead.

In that vein, if you know anyone who might enjoy my particular obscure corner of the internet (or if you know someone who'd hate it, and you'd like to piss them off), invite them to give it a try. I'd really like to see if my blog could break through the wall it seems to have settled against- in numbers of readers. The word "stagnate" comes to mind, but that seems much more negative than I really feel about it.

I'd like for my blog to be more popular, but I'm not willing to compromise for that popularity. Quality over quantity and all that- and I do feel my readers are the highest quality I could hope for.

I'd probably keep writing if there were only two or three people visiting my blog every day- just because it helps me organize my thoughts better.

If you know a place where a link might attract more readers, please go ahead and share it. If not, that's OK too.

Thanks!

.

"Whatever floats your boat..."

I saw the following exchange, which I have paraphrased:

A: "If you live by the Zero Aggression Principle how can you deal with those who aggress and will never change?" 

B: "Do whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't sink mine" 

A: "What if your 'floating' jeopardizes my boat?"

Now, if those are actually aggressing, as is hinted at in the first question, then you are completely within your rights to defend yourself with whatever level of force you think is necessary. I won't second-guess you. I don't think the answer was a very good one.

As for the second question, which is unrelated to the first, but was asked in response to the strange answer he got, that's where some differences of opinion come into play. The range of answers to that question is kind of the common justification for "drunk driving laws", isn't it. And most anti-gun "laws", too, for that matter.

"Jeopardize"?

I still think that the possibility of doing harm isn't the same as actually doing harm. Yes, some things increase your risks. There are risks all around you, whether you are aware of them or not (and you should try to be aware of them). Unless someone is initiating force against you, or violating your property in some way, I can't sympathize too much that you feel their actions "jeopardize" you.

I would rather have my risks increased than be guilty of "proactively" putting restraints on (violating) the liberty of those around me. Being aware of my surroundings and doing all I can to keep myself- and those around me- out of harm's way is my responsibility. No one else's, and certainly not the "law's".

Still, I also believe that if you feel you "must" violate the ZAP for some reason, do what you feel you have to- and accept the consequences that go along with it.

.

Drug tests for control-freaks

I'm tired of seeing posts and emails calling for drug tests for welfare recipients.

I have a better idea: drug tests for cops, bureaucrats, and politicians. Every day when they show up for their "job".

Then, if the politicians fail the test- in other words if there is not a lethal level of some drug or another in their system- send them home until they rectify the situation. I think liberty could be saved with drug tests in this way.

.

Statist on Exhibition

I realize this blog post is from a long time ago, but someone recently posted it on Facebook and I made the mistake of reading it.

(I wonder if its author is the same doofus who made a similar comment to me a few days back.)

Anyway, after reading the painfully ignorant post I was thinking to myself "Can statists really be this stupid?"... and the answer, obviously, is yes. Yes they can.

Just one example of the absurdity from the post "...[The Philosophy of Liberty video] illustrates libertarianism with abstract stick figures representing people devoid of race, gender, and historical context."

Well, yeah, because "we libertarians", as opposed to the author, aren't racist, or sexist, nor do we seek to blame and punish people for things they didn't do- such as things done by their long-dead ancestors centuries before the people you would punish for the acts (or their grandparents) were even born.

In other words, I am not an insane bully.

The author spends a lot of time hand-wringing over the rights violations of the past. Yes, slavery of the forcibly imported Africans (or anyone), and the genocide of the aboriginal North American people (or anyone) were wrong. Guess what- no one living today participated in either of those things.

Statist author is upset that "For most American libertarians, if the government taxes rich white Americans, it is theft, but if rich white Americans stole African American labor, time, energy, and talent, it happened a long time ago and accounts should be cleared."

"Taxation" of anyone ever, in any amount, is theft and is wrong. Period.

Stealing labor (which is exactly what "taxation" does, too) from anyone, by any individual, under any pretext, by any name is always wrong. But if you can't make it right since all the thieves and their victims are dead and have been for many years, you really should "clear" the "accounts".

What would the statist suggest instead? Punish people for things they didn't do?

If the author's grandfather murdered someone before he ever had children, and got away with it, should we put Statist Blogger on death row today for the grandfather's violation? I'll assume here that the grandfather's survival and subsequent reproduction "enriched" the author's life in some way- either through existence, property which wouldn't have otherwise been inherited, or just from a family not broken by the imprisonment or execution of a father/grandfather.

And, even in the case of "taxation" being extorted from people (both rich and poor, by the way) in the past - it's the past. There is no possibility of really repairing past damage this long after it occurred. Get over it- and don't do it again.

The past is gone. You and I will never know the whole story (or even more than a few highlights which may or may not even be accurate)- and "minor" details can make a huge difference.

Yes, there is a time when the slate has to be wiped clean and a "from this point forward, never again" path needs to be followed.

My brain hurts from exposure to this level of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I wonder if the author still believes what was written in that post.

.

Legal tender

A while back I ordered a couple of Aurum 1/10 gram gold "bills". Very pretty! And I like the idea.

One thing that jumped out at me as I examined one is the statement printed thereon: "Not legal tender".

The first thing I thought was "Obviously! This has actual value!"

Then I got to thinking "Is this a warning or a promise?"

What is legal tender and why would I prefer it?

Well, the definition linked above says that back in the 1730s "legal tender" meant "currency that may be lawfully tendered in payment of a debt". Notice the word "may". Sounds nice and voluntary. I have no problem with that.

Unfortunately, the current definitions all include coercion: "Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept" and "currency in specified denominations that a creditor must by law accept in redemption of a debt". Note the addition of the rude word "must".

I don't know about you, but my thinking has always been that if you feel the need to use coercion to get people to go along, your idea probably isn't a very good one.

Sure, I'll accept "legal tender" as long as it's around, but I'm always happy to accept money that avoids the "legal tender" trap. It's the polite alternative.

.

Pardon me...

Next week I have to make a trip to The Big City for my daughter's doctor appointment. It's not anything too major, but they will be taking blood*, and it would be kinda nice if I had a few extra dollars to spend while there- she's not going to enjoy the appointment ( an understatement)
So, if anyone feels like tossing a small donation my way, it would be appreciated. As I say, this isn't a critical need or anything, so please don't feel bad if you ignore this message.

Thanks.

(* Trying to solve the mystery of her seemingly constant infections of one sort or another- the tentative diagnosis is an IgA deficiency.)
.

Liberty Lines- March 6, 2014

The headline in the State Line Tribune says "Texas primary election on tap". Wow! I never thought of it that way before, but I can't argue with the accuracy.

That particular tap is better left alone. Like beer, elections can be addictive and are apparently very intoxicating. When it comes to voting, those deepest into the keg look down upon those who stay sober, sometimes to the point of virulent hatred.

Maybe a careful vote here and there won't really hurt anyone, but each vote makes it easier to do the next time. You forget to only vote against new State power, which can possibly be excused, and end up voting for this or that new "law" or puppetician. For many people, moderation is impossible.

You make excuses about why you drink... I mean, vote so much, saying you need to. It makes you feel better or gives you a sense of importance.

You quickly develop a taste for it, and before you know it you are lying in the gutter with Democrapublicans, incoherently mumbling about "next time".

The current situation, which is what people often say they are voting against, is a result of people voting for those people and "laws" which they believe will control their neighbors, and their enemies, the way they'd prefer. How has that worked out? With everyone subject to innumerable violations of their Rightful Liberty, in every area imaginable, each and every day. The only "winners" are those who do the controlling or profit from the inevitable enforcement and bureaucratic leviathan.

As is often pointed out, it is insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Why not try something different? Mind your own life and stop trying to find people and "laws" to control others on your behalf. You'll be amazed at how empowering and liberating that can be.
.

Not all opinions are equally valid

I have said it before, and I will say it again: not all opinions are equally valid.

Yeah, I know... this isn't a "nice" thing to say in this era of "everyone is entitled to their own opinion...". Yes, they are. That doesn't automatically make their opinions valid in any way, though. You (and I) are completely within your (or "our") rights to be dead wrong. It also doesn't mean I am required to pretend all opinions are on equal footing.

It may hurt someone's feelings when their opinion that "taxation isn't theft", or that "there need to be reasonable restrictions on guns" is laughed at due to the fact it isn't a valid opinion, but the truth is still the truth, and the truth has no room for feelings.

If it is "necessary", in your opinion, to violate the fundamental human rights of others- for "the children", the "common good", or whatever- your opinion isn't valid. It doesn't matter how many justifications you can come up with. It doesn't matter how passionately you defend it. It doesn't matter how important it is to you, how much you believe it, or who agrees with you. It doesn't matter if you have the numbers on your side to impose your opinions on others in the form of "law"- that just makes you dangerously wrong.

I realize that dismissing your opinions on this basis isn't likely to make you like me, or get you to change your mind. That is why, in casual conversation, I'm not going to burst into laughter when you express one of those empty opinions you hold dear. But, eventually, it comes down to this: opinions which, if put into action, would violate the life, liberty, or property of others are not valid, and if they are put into action or made "law", they may have to be defended against. Violently.

Weigh your opinions and examine them in the harsh light of liberty. And toss them in the trash heap if they don't measure up. You'll be better off.

.

Knee-jerk reaction not a solution

Knee-jerk reaction not a solution

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 31, 2014)

How frequently people do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

It is right to care about people who hurt themselves or others through substance abuse. It is wrong to impose prohibition in an attempt to save people from themselves or others.

It is right to care about innocent victims of random violence. It is wrong to impose anti-gun rules which can only affect those who aren't the problem.

Not only is the knee jerk reaction- passing another law or more draconian enforcement of the rules already "on the books"- wrong, it almost always has an effect opposite the one advertised.

Prohibition is the federal government's "narcotics price support program", as well as the biggest excuse for violating every principle America was founded upon; as is the sad continuation of the 1920s-era prohibition: the anti-"drunk driving" rules and police state-style "checkpoints". You can have America, or you can have prohibition. You can't have both.

The same goes for anti-gun rules. Some leftists complain that the reality that criminals aren't affected because they don't obey laws anyway- by definition- shouldn't invalidate anti-gun proposals, but "should" or not, it does.

Anti-gun laws only harm those who have no intention of breaking laws, and would therefore not go on a murder spree to begin with. Advocating, passing, and enforcing those anti-liberty laws only empowers the bad guys.

This is the danger of doing the wrong thing with good intentions. Assuming the intentions are truly good, which is only speculation based upon giving the benefit of the doubt.

You can also do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The recent push for "state's rights" is one example. States have no rights; only individuals do. However, anything which diminishes the federal government's power will most likely boost individual liberty in the long run.

The re-legalization of marijuana which is slowly gaining momentum around the world is another example. It's wrong to fine or arrest people for possessing or using a plant, so anything that results in fewer drug war victims is a good thing, even if the new tax revenues are a stain on the good.

The liberalization of concealed carry, and open carry, rules is another cause for some optimism. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, so anyone supporting any "law" concerning guns, including the issuing of permits for something which "shall not be infringed", is a criminal. But, even this diluted liberty results in more dangerous conditions for the aggressors among us, and that is a net benefit.
.

Backward priorities

Would you want to see your son die saving the life of a dog? Not unless you love the dog more than you love your son. 

What if the dog were an imaginary dog? 

If you would be happy to see your kid join the military- which always includes the possibility of death or dismemberment- then you love the government (not "America", or "our nation") more than you love your kid. And what's worse is government really only exists in your mind. It's an imaginary dog.

The only thing your kid could die for, while in military "service", is the US government. That's the nebulous entity whose interests he or she is protecting and promoting. Not mine, yours, or any other individual's. Well, maybe the president's or most congressvermin's, so no worthy individual. 

Even if your kid dies saving the lives of fellow military members, the politicians benefit- you have saved "government property" as far as they are concerned, and promoted the idea that being in the military is somehow "heroic".

Do you really want your son or daughter to sacrifice life or limb- or mental health- for any politician?

If so, and you encourage them to join the military, or at least not try to dissuade them from joining, then you would sacrifice your child's life for a dog, or the illusion of a dog. Why do you love the State more than your kid?

.