Extreme? Hardly

It amuses me when liberal/progressives get up in arms over Tea Party folks (whom they often call "Teabaggers"*). They act like those guys are so extreme.

But the truth is they are just barely- almost imperceptibly- "different" than the rest of the mainstream DemoCRAPublicans.

Just imagine if those upset "progressives" discovered the rest of us who are actually "radical" and thought we were a threat. They'd get the vapors, for sure!

-

*I don't get this either- why do the liberals use a term associated with homosexual behavior as an insult? Isn't that like claiming there's something wrong with it? It's like me insulting someone by calling them a "Shooter", a "pothead", or, yes, "gay".

.

Helping others

I want to help people. That led to my presidential campaign. It is also part of the reason I eventually rejected politics. It is why I write now. And it is why I live by the ZAP- the best way to help often begins by not making things worse.

I want to be the best I can be. I'll always keep looking for more ways I can help.

.

Bend over and be serviced good and hard

A recent story I read was praising a mother and her daughter for both pursuing "careers" with government; one in the military and the other as a cop. It claimed they had a "legacy of service".

Ha!

A government "job" is not "service"; it is a drain on society. Parasitism.

Want to serve people? Get a real job where people have a choice to use your service, or not, and every cent you are paid is given voluntarily instead of being collected at gunpoint.

It is so tragic that people mistake this kind of thing with "service" and doing good, when it is the polar opposite. I guess government school is succeeding in dumbing people down where they believe this nonsense and stumble over each other in the rush to honor their violators.

.

Walmart beggars... and me

Is my asking for donations just like someone sitting at an intersection with a "will write for money" sign?

Because, to me, it often feels that way. (Not that I could stop writing anyway.)

Every entrance and exit at the local Walmart is usually occupied by someone holding a sign asking for money. I also know someone who works there who says those same people come in and buy alcoholic beverages as soon as they collect enough- although one guy did buy a sleeping bag once because he said his was stolen.

And one of her co-workers' adult offspring also sit there with their signs. Even though they actually have a home in town, their signs often give the impression they are traveling and ran out of money.

One guy even sits there with a gas can.

You'll see the same person trying different signs on different days; I guess that's "A/B Testing".

As long as they aren't holding a gun (or threatening to do so) against people's heads, I am not too bothered by the begging. Although it would be nice if they were honest about their situations and what they are spending the money on. I actually used to give money to some people like this, even suspecting they would just buy booze- but knowing too many of the behind the scenes stories has made me lose sympathy for the Walmart beggars.

I don't want to be seen as being too much like them, either.

So I try to provide something in exchange for the donations, and I try to not ask unless things get really sticky. This is my job, such as it is. And, if I ever ask and you want to tell me exactly what you think of my request, I don't delete any comments, so everyone could see what you have to say on the matter. I hope it seems like a "fair" deal.

.

Liberty maximizes prosperity

Liberty maximizes prosperity

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 18, 2014)

Many times over the years I have been asked some variation of the question "I don't understand; what is it you want?"

Well, what is it most humans want?

I think most of us want health, safety, and prosperity- let's call this combination "happiness"- for ourselves and our loved ones. I want the same things! Since there's no disagreement there, what we have is a common goal.

Like most goals, it can probably never be achieved perfectly in every way, but should serve as a North Star to let you know whether you are moving in the right direction or not. The question comes down to "How best to get there?"; which system works best for moving relentlessly toward your goal.

Your choice is between self determination and being controlled by someone else. Can I trust myself and my decisions to get what I want or should I trust someone else's judgment and decisions? It's a matter of "Do It Yourself" or rely on others to do it for you.

Not everyone is an expert chef, yet just about everyone manages their meals just fine, and if you prefer to leave your food preparation to someone else- a professional, perhaps- it is no one's business but your own. However, just because you prefer to hand off your food preparation responsibilities to others doesn't give you any right to demand everyone else follow your example.

The same goes for every other aspect of life.

Liberty- the absolute right to do anything which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else- is the best system ever discovered for allowing each and every individual to maximize his own health, safety, and prosperity. It even leaves enough left over so you can help others who might be having trouble of their own.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has helped out when I had an abundance and the opportunity presented itself.

But government, that anti-social institution, always gets in the way. It's a vehicle used by those with the most influence to force you to do everything the way they prefer you do it, regardless of your wishes or the more accurate information you may be operating under. It takes away choice and volition and replaces it with fiat.

There are a few people who benefit from this arrangement: those who work for the government and those who are utterly dependent upon it due to refusing to take responsibility for themselves. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a good idea to let the most dysfunctional people in a society have a say in how I live my life.
.

An honest monument to government

So, Oklahoma's "Statehouse" is getting a new Satanic monument.

Seems redundant to me.

A "statehouse" is already a Satanic monument. So is a capitol building, a courthouse, a DMV office, or any other government building. Even a library or a zoo run by government is. And I love libraries and zoos.

But theft isn't ever the right thing to do. Not even if you really, really want something.

Now, I don't really know enough about Satanism to say whether it advocates theft or aggression- I am just playing off the common perceptions here to make a point. And I might be wrong about details of the religion. Government is something we all know advocates theft and aggression, so it may be the only actual evil here, in which case the Satanists should reconsider whether they really want to be associated with such a place.

.

Whose news?

The "mainstream media", those outlets that people often look to for "the news", are not telling you the truth. They are telling a skewed version of the truth, which may not be exactly false, but it isn't really true, either.

I know, that's not "news" to you.

Even most of those which allow a lone libertarian (or other) voice of truth only do so to appear "balanced" or "fair". Or as a curiosity. The rest of what they spread is simply government-approved propaganda which various government employees want placed into your mind. It saves them work to allow a government employee to hand them their "news" rather than working for it themselves, or to only think what they are told to think about an issue the State is involved in. If nothing else, options (and opinions) are limited.

So, while they may allow an opinion to be shared that points out government is nothing but theft and aggression, the bulk of their daily message is that government is normal, necessary, and good- as long as it is done right by the "right people" in "the right way". It's the vast majority of what they print and broadcast- government did this, official spokescritter said this, etc.

It's difficult to counter that constant drumbeat.

The "journalists" are propping up the very evil they should be exposing. It's like the exterminator feeding the rats in your house. Possibly for much the same reason.

A free society would not have as much opportunity for the "mainstream media" to feed- things would go too smoothly for their comfort. So, by propping up The State they can be assured of a constant supply of scandal and trouble. The exterminator feeding the rats instead of killing them is protecting his market- just like the "journalist" who keeps preaching subliminal (or open) support for The State.

Plus, most journalists seem to be government extremists, themselves. It's an incestuous relationship, but you and I are the ones getting screwed.

Now, I realize that truth isn't popular. When the majority of people have been trained to clap and perform tricks for The State- and have been made psychologically dependent on its continuation, and sometimes physically dependent on its handouts- they don't want to hear that they are supporting a systemic evil. They want to feel good about themselves. Anything or anyone that exposes them to reality will be hated and vilified.

But truth is needed anyway.

And that's where the internet comes in, to fill the holes. Sure, you have to keep your brain engaged. There is probably even more deceptive content on the internet than on TV, radio, and in newspapers and news magazines. But YOU control what you are exposed to this way. And you can talk back. Please do.

.

Death to cops?

A couple of days ago I got into a discussion with a cop on Facebook. He took it personally that I pointed out that any honest depiction of cops will seem like a "slam" to those who believe there are "good cops".

Among the various comments he made was that I gloat over the deaths of cops who are just trying to make life better and safer by catching people who don't "act as they should". (Yeah, I'll ignore the numerous falsehoods, faulty premises, and outright delusions in that assertion for now.)

It's not just cops.

When I hear of the death of anyone engaged in aggression or theft I count it as a win for each and every individual who makes up society. If a cop can do his "job" without becoming an aggressor or thief I will not gloat if he dies "in the line of duty". If not- good riddance to bad trash.

The problem is that even that cop on Facebook knows that simply isn't possible. He knows he's a bad guy- he just expects others to pretend otherwise and worship him and his "brothers" based upon their imaginary "necessity".

Not gonna happen from this end.

.

Stupidity in the name of religion

Some followers of Islam are stupid because they use their religion as an excuse to stone, kidnap, enslave, or behead someone.

And some followers of Christianity are just as stupid because they use their religion as an excuse to support the State.

Support of the State may be the biggest danger in any religion. In fact, in the long run, that's probably more harmful and has caused more brutal deaths altogether than any other thing done in the name of religion.

Absent the brute force of The State, few religions would have much power to maim and kill and get away with it anymore.

And without being propped up by religious people who believe they are doing the right thing, States would have more trouble pretending to have legitimacy.

It's quite a handy incestuous relationship.

.

Ow, ow, ow!!

The fallen tree just about did me in.

It has been almost a week since I got it all taken care of, but in the process of lifting and loading the big logs I apparently gave myself "tennis elbow". And then the 4 loads of branches I loaded and hauled away the next day just made the problem worse.

So, I am in a lot of pain when I try to straighten my right arm and extend my fingers, or lift anything (even small, lightweight things). Or pretty much use my arm for anything.

Good news for this blog is that typing is about the only thing I can do which is pain-free. But I do have other things I need to do, too. I guess I could use the injury as an excuse to not do them... Ha.

.

Unicorn Memorial Day

Oh, wait... that's "Peace Officers Memorial Day".

What a laugh.

If "peace officers" ever existed, they are extinct, and what we are told to honor in their place is dead Law Enforcement Officers, I actually saw a story that said: "Peace Officer Memorial Day: Flags to be lowered to honor Law Enforcement" - that's like proclaiming "Unicorn Memorial Day" and worshiping road-killed possums while hoping no one notices the substitution.

I noticed.

If there were ever "peace officers" they still lived on money stolen at gunpoint from its rightful owner. Not an honorable thing to do. Since all we have now are Law Imposement Officers, I'm certainly not going to mourn when they die while doing their vile "job". Good riddance to bad trash.

And what of all their innocent victims, killed because the cowardly scum can murder with near-impunity? Where's their memorial?

Maybe I'll fly my Time's Up flag extra high today to celebrate all the dead LEOs. And then tomorrow to celebrate dead rapists. And the next day to celebrate dead (freelance) muggers. And the next day to celebrate dead dictators.

.

Flags. Everywhere!

Yes, everywhere.

I saw a blurb that listed things about America which those from other parts of the world found very odd, and "flags everywhere" was at the top of the list.

I hadn't really thought about it too much before, but the next time I drove around I counted. Yep. Those things are everywhere.

I guess a lot of people like to celebrate their enslavement and worship the captor.

I know, I know. Supposedly the US flag (which is NOT the "American flag") represents liberty and justice for all. That's a nice dream. Actually I see it more as representing the federal government and all its interests.

Don't believe me?

Refer to the Constitution or (shudders!) the Declaration of Independence, and the feds will consider you a domestic terrorist. Pledge allegiance to their flag and they say nothing- Oh, some of them may look down on the addition of the "under God" part, but on the whole...

Fly the Gadsden flag and they consider you a domestic terrorist. Fly the federal flag and they are fine with it.

If any of them were aware of the Time's Up flag, they would consider you a domestic terrorist for flying one. Their flag? Not a problem.

Now, if you fly the federal flag and do one of the other things mentioned above, flying their flag won't be enough to get you out of trouble, but by itself it is completely government-approved. Think about that for a minute.

.

The gloves are off in Europe

WARNING: NSFW! Sex and violence galore!

Here is a European ad to "encourage" voting. It's more honest about the violence inherent in the process than most- even if it stops at the voting booth and doesn't show the violence that comes from that.

If you still want to view it, here's the link (I don't wish to embed it here): "Voteman"

.

Unintentional statist humor

A while back I received this inquiry from a local political group's "leader":

"Do you know anyone in [Town X] who would carry the petition for Voter ID to the clerk's office to register it on May 1?"

I responded: "Most of the people I know [with regards to this sort of thing] are pretty opposed to politics, so I'm not sure who would take a petition."

The reply: "This isn't exactly politics.. its about voting and using photo ID's to assure that the person voting is the person registered and qualified to vote."

Ummmm....

Added: if voting is such a wonderful thing...?

.

Immigration control breaks the law

Immigration control breaks the law

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 11, 2014.)

End deportation of illegal immigrants?

Government at every level throughout America needs to obey the U.S. Constitution- the highest law of the land- to the letter. All federal, state, and local governments need to tightly control and regulate who is allowed to enter our country, and make sure those allowed in are complying with all the immigration laws the Constitution establishes in order to make sure our borders are secure. Their papers must be in order, or else!

But, there is at least one problem with that.

The Constitution doesn't allow government to regulate or control immigration at all. It spells out how the states may regulate the importation of slaves, and permits government to establish a way for immigrants to become citizens, but that's all it permits with regard to "immigration". And, the only powers the Constitution permits governments to have are those specifically spelled out in its text.

So how can those who cry most loudly for government to obey the Constitution ignore this inconvenient fact?

Honestly, I don't know, but I have some suspicions.

I support those who gathered last Saturday in Clovis and across the nation to protest deportation policies. Since a law which runs counter to the Constitution is not a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey this pretend "law"- according to an earlier Supreme Court ruling- there can be no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" to deport, Constitutionally speaking.

The claim "but they are illegal" is as meaningless as saying it was illegal to be (or harbor) a runaway slave. "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" is countered with "What part of 'unconstitutional' don't you understand?" Because, as far as written and enforced laws in America are concerned, nothing can trump the Constitution. Not even if you think it's a good idea, or absolutely "necessary". That's the same excuse dredged up by anti-gun activists.

The only mistake the activists make is asking to be equally violated by "drivers license" requirements, which are also not within any government's authority.

If you are calling for "immigration control" and pushing for deportation, you are advocating breaking the law. You become the "illegal" you rally against. See why I love irony?

When any person attacks an innocent, or violates private property, I support unflinching self defense or full restitution. I don't care where aggressors and thieves were born. Being attacked by someone whose family has lived here for generations is not somehow "better" than falling victim to someone who just arrived from somewhere else. To pretend otherwise shows a willingness to ignore the root and focus on the insignificant pettiness that divides people and empowers the state.


.

Request for funds

I am in need of $30 (well, technically, $29) because of an unexpected expense. Unexpected as in I forgot it was coming up and the automatic reminder I thought I had set up didn't remind me.

If anyone is so inclined to chip in, I would appreciate it.

UPDATE: It is taken care of. Thank you very much!

.

Your brain- use it or lose it

I just don't get it when people are so determined to stick with "the party line" that they say idiotic things just because "their side" always takes that side.

Liberals against guns is one example, as is conservatives against drugs.

Think for yourself. Weigh the arguments for yourself. Decide for yourself. Stop listening to other people as a shortcut to avoid doing what you should be doing. Stop parroting what "your side" says automatically whenever a topic comes up.

It will make you smarter.

.

Yeah, I care

Every time someone is "arrested" on drug charges, my own liberty is violated just a little bit more.

Every time someone is "arrested" on some weapons violation, my own liberty is eroded by a fraction.

Every time someone is "arrested" for "prostitution", gambling, or "tax evasion" my own liberty is being stomped on.

Every time someone is "fined" for some code violation, going faster than some arbitrary speed, for not completely stopping for 4 seconds* at a "STOP" sign, for not licensing their dog, for driving without a "license" or not having the State's tags on their car, for building or remodeling or running a business without a permit, or anything else that doesn't involve aggression or property violations, my own liberty gets chipped away.

And people ask me why I care?

How could I not care?

-

*One of my ex-wives was told by a cop who pulled her over that she didn't stop "long enough"- his claim was that she was supposed to stop for at least 4 seconds. Seriously.

.

"Don't vote and the other side wins!"

One of the biggest justifications for voting goes something like this: "The enemies of liberty always vote. If we don't vote, they win!"

Voting, and who wins, only matters if you intend to comply and obey. Their "victory" is empty unless you give it the weight of your consent. Stop it!

But, really, when both "sides" are "the other side"- neither any good for liberty- what benefit is there in voting for someone who is your enemy to a slightly lesser degree? The "other side" wins regardless. "They" always win, no matter which guy gets the office.

The people making that claim always assume one side is less dangerous to liberty than the "other side"- in the liberty-lover sphere, the "less dangerous" side being promoted is usually "conservatives" or Republicans. That hasn't been my experience, and isn't borne out by observation.

If you allow an enemy into your house because you are wrongly told it is either him or some other enemy, who is to blame when your throat is cut in the dead of the night? He is, but you share some blame for being dumb enough to let him in. Be responsible and don't invite either guy into your house. If you do, and it turns out he isn't as wonderful as you had hoped, you have no one to blame but yourself. In fact, if I were prone to thinking like a DemoCRAPublican, I might even say "if you vote, you can't complain".

Yes, some bad guy will win the election whether or not you vote. And he will impose "laws" that will violate your Rightful Liberty a little more than the previous "laws" did. Perhaps he may weaken some bad, liberty-violating "laws", too.

That stuff only matters if you let it.

You have an absolute, fundamental human right to do anything that doesn't violate the other guy's identical right. Do it and stop asking permission and stop voting for the next slave administrator.

.

"They should know better..."

Sometimes I think I'm harder on "conservatives" than I am on "liberals". That may be because I grew up around "conservatives" and I was able to see through the nonsense. I think they should know better, too. But, all too often, they refuse.

I don't really know what goes on in "liberal" social circles and families, so I can't say whether they should know better. I would hope they would be able to. They are human, and possess a physical brain, after all.

But, for all humans, the dangers of holding wrong beliefs have been greatly reduced, which makes it too safe to be stupid. That's not a good thing for the future of civilization- or the species.

But you can't make stupid people reject their stupidity. You can only control yourself. Try to pay attention and avoid being caught up in the stampede into the ravine.

.

Statist attempts to discredit the alternative

I'm sure you've heard some of these:

"Anarchists are 'useful idiots' for totalitarians."

Sure, because statism has been so successful at keeping totalitarians at bay for thousands of years.

"Anarchists are childish."

Because it's not like any backwards tribe 20,000 years ago- or any schoolyard bully today- could have come up with the bright idea of ordering others around and taking their stuff.

"Anarchists just hate everything civilization has given them."
Hmmm. The way I see it I hate The State for interfering and preventing civilization from developing even more good stuff. Society and civilization are held back by the State- every time, everywhere States arise.

If you examine a statist objection to liberty, it always falls apart quickly.

.

Everything I needed to know about life, I learned from "The Twilight Zone"

Maybe that's because I never went to kindergarten.

But, really, from The Twilight Zone I learned important things such as always have spare glasses.

And: Don't panic- the situation may not be what you believe.

Plus: Fitting in may not be the best thing.

Or: You may be the monster.

And, I also learned many of the characters made their own trouble by looking at things the wrong way. In one episode a guy has made a deal with the Devil to be immortal- and ends up facing life in prison. So he uses the "escape clause" to have a heart attack and die. That was completely pointless. He wanted life and excitement, and there was a perfect opportunity. Why not use his immortality to seek adventure in escape attempts and planning? I know, because that ruined the irony of the situation for "entertainment purposes". But, really...

.

Costco missed chance for good will

Costco missed chance for good will

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 4, 2014. Here's the background.)

Like just about everyone else around here, I was dismayed to see 58 truckloads- 950,000 jars- of perfectly good Sunland peanut butter, packaged for Costco Wholesale, go into the Clovis landfill. That is a tremendous waste.

Facilitating the sale of the bankrupt Sunland Inc. was one of the justifications given. I'm not aware of all the skulduggery required to "expedite" a bankruptcy sale of this magnitude, but if the "law" makes things like this necessary, the "law" is clearly wrong. How can laws trump common sense and still have any meaning?

There were other excuses given as well. It seems the jars had leaked some peanut oil. Was this the reason the peanut butter was rejected? If so, it seems awfully petty, especially considering the alternatives the company had.

Maybe this oil damaged the labels, and would not have appeared professional. Maybe the Costco decision makers thought the oil meant inadequately sealed jars. Perhaps Costco was worried about liability and didn't trust all the tests which indicated the peanut butter was perfectly safe. Can't a product be donated "as is", with those who accept it doing so at their own risk? I would have eaten it. Well, not all 25 tons.

Costco wouldn't even allow the peanut butter to be repackaged to remove their name from it and then donated.

I really don't know much about Costco, having never been in one. Now I will never again hear the name "Costco" without thinking of this waste.

The peanut butter was Costco's property, to be used- or not- as they wished. However, the company's choice has forever tainted the way I will view them, and if I am ever in a position to do business with Costco, I will remember the peanut butter, and I will most likely not spend my money there.

Sometimes doing something you have every right to do is not the wisest path you can take, for reasons you may not even see at the time.

Costco wasn't obligated to share their property- that would be socialism. However, they missed an opportunity for a windfall of good will and positive publicity, trading it instead for a black eye on their reputation.

If one person in the company was responsible for the decision, then that one person has single-handedly damaged the company's good name and may need to be looking for a new job soon. If the "law" gave him no choice, which seems unlikely since the peanut butter had been cleared for sale, then the law is where the blame lies. Either way, each and every one of us can pay attention to this situation and remember.

.

The price of being correct

It's a shame there has to be a price for being right when "the majority" is wrong. But, there is, so...

Since that's the case, I would rather be shunned for being right, than to be accepted for being wrong along with "the majority".

Of course, there are worse things. Worst of all is to be shunned for being wrong when "the crowd" is actually right, and being too stubborn to see it. I've probably been there, too.

.

“Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”

I admit I haven't watched this video. I may later.

I don't quite believe Ron Paul is the guru of liberty that some seem to see him as, but I do think he's better than just about anyone else who has been a part of Leviathan. How much better could he have been if he had stayed out of that gang and spent his energies in more constructive ways? I don't know, since maybe no one would have ever listened to him in that case.

Still I have often enjoyed what he had to say, even if I rolled my eyes when some statism was clinging to what he said.

Anyway, here's the video: “Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”

.

Cops, lawyers, and their child porn violations

Cops are not "special"- well, unless you are discussing the fact that a normal (or higher) IQ disqualifies applicants from police "work". Cops were never intended to have "special rights" (if such a thing could even exist)- if a "law" applies to you it also applies identically to a cop.

So, any cop (and by this I mean any enforcer working for government at any level, magically granted the "authority" to kidnap and/or murder people who break the "laws" they are enforcing) who finds and confiscates "child pornography"- as well as the court's prosecutors and judges- is also guilty of looking at and possessing it. And the state's databases which compile "child porn" for "research purposes" or for prosecutorial purposes are gigantic stashes, and everyone who works for them is guilty of possessing and distributing child porn. I don't care how they attempt to justify it, how "necessary" they claim it to be, or what kind of "safeguards" they say are in place.

Now, if a person is convinced they are doing the right thing prosecuting child porn, then they should be willing to pay the penalty that goes along with their "job". If not, they are a hypocrite.

I have a suspicion about people who go into that line of work, though. I suspect most of them are people who are drawn to child pornography and were smart enough to figure out a way to get to look at all they want, "legally". Just like child molesters are drawn to "jobs" like the TSA where they get to molest hundreds of people a day- including children and teens- and anyone who resists or objects can be "smote" with the full power of the federal gooberment.

It's why even this justification for "The State" doesn't wash with me.

And, speaking of child abuse, has anyone else noticed that the people who squawk loudest about this issue are often very enthusiastic advocates of spanking? Just one of those things I notice.

.

My favorite desert hermit

I see nothing wrong with Joel's idea of interior decorating, nor with his laundry. It all looks good to me! What do you think?

.

Day by Day- Times up May 4, 2014

Day by Day, 5-4-2014. 

(Also, Happy Star Wars Day! May the 4th be with you!)

Thanks, Chris! I think I'd like that girl... LOL

.

Is statism an admission of cowardice?

I see statism as an admission of cowardice. The excuse for some form of State (externally imposed government) always revolves around the state's armed goons protecting someone from something. And it's not even always personal. Sometimes it's the justification that "someone" must protect "someone else" from something.

On the home territory that "something" is often "drunk drivers" or "drug abusers". Or child molesters. Or "rich capitalists" and dishonest businesses. Or guns, illness, poverty... the list is endless.

Thinking "globally" that "something" is often "terrorists" or "foreign invaders" who are just waiting for any sign of weakness to come to your home and take over unless the US government keeps a standing military.

I really can't identify too well with either type of fear. It just didn't take root if anyone ever tried to implant it in my head. But, I can't blame people for what they are afraid of, either- it's not a rational decision which they made. I do feel sorry for them.

But, I can't let other people's fears rule my life.

If you are afraid of what would happen under liberty, then no one is forcing you to be free. However, I am under no obligation to pretend your fears are related to reality, either. Nor any obligation to allow you to box me in to make you feel better.

.

Differences of opinion

There are issues that sincere liberty lovers take opposite sides on. The Bundy ranch situation is one. Abortion is another.

Unfortunately I am cursed with the capacity to usually see both sides- and it's not as wonderful as it may sound.

Instead of meaning that half of the people agree with me, it often means that half of the people disagree- and angrily tell me why I am wrong and won't be satisfied until I usher in the subjugation of all humanity. But usually in all "caps"...

Even though I can see both sides, there is usually one side I settle on slightly more than the other for one reason or another. And the people on the other side do their best to shove me completely over the fence.

My suspicion is if there are sincere liberty lovers, who are smart and informed enough to make opposing points on an issue, then there probably is not enough real information to make a "right" choice. In that case, until more information is discovered, we'll just have to disagree. It would be better to concentrate on the things that aren't under dispute, but that doesn't seem to be the human way.

.

State Line Tribune readers...

If you came here looking for the reply I wrote to last week's letter to the editor, that post is found here: link
Thanks.

(This will be pinned to the top of the blog for the next week to give those who come across that note in the paper a chance to find it.)

.

Have you visited TOLFA recently?

I haven't posted an encouragement to go through The On Line Freedom Academy in a long time. So, here's a reminder.

It's free. It's free-ing. I think Jim Davies has put together a very useful tool you should consider using (and his books are great, too).

Check it out, if you haven't before. I don't think you'll regret it.

.

For these cannibal clowns, every day is Opposite Day

Government actions are the opposite of what is claimed.

To "prevent poaching", government goons claim ownership of things they can't own (wildlife) and steal it for themselves.

In the name of "traffic safety", cops become the greatest distraction and danger.

To prevent theft, they steal and use that money to finance even more theft and abuse in order to prevent anyone else from getting "a piece of the action".

To fight "terrorism" they become the nastiest terrorists.

They enforce anti-gun "laws"... with GUNS!

They enforce prohibition and mandate drugging kids.

I'm sure you can think of a lot more examples.

They discredit themselves and their "mission" with their immense hypocrisy. It's really hilarious once you see it.

.

Government not great at spying

Government not great at spying

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

Maybe Malaysia Airlines' missing flight 370 will have been found by the time this gets into print. Or maybe various officials are still saying "we know where it is... we just haven't physically seen it yet". Either way, I'm pretty sure the news won't be good for the families of those missing, whenever it turns up.

I have no doubt the mystery has a mundane explanation, whatever it may be, even if it turns out to be human malice- which is unfortunately common enough to be fairly mundane, and always has been.

The one and only bright spot in this whole tragedy is the observation that apparently the governments of the world don't have quite the inescapable spying, tracking, and surveillance capabilities they would like you and me to believe they have. Big things can escape their notice and slip through their fingers.

Yes, the world is a very large place, and the plane vanished over an area that isn't exactly as populated as downtown Tokyo or New York City, but electronic communications signals aren't as limited by geography and distance as human eyes are; being routed, as they are, through a web of networks which are all interconnected. Yet, the plane- a huge Boeing 777- has been missing, assuming it hasn't yet been found, since March 8. That's about 3 weeks now.

If a whole plane full of people can disappear, even for a few weeks, perhaps you don't need to be as worried about useful information being stolen from your data as you might have thought.

It's still a good idea to refrain from using unencrypted electronic communications to send messages that would make spies and their handlers twitchy and give them reason to watch you more closely. But that has been the case throughout history. Nothing has really changed there.

The more data the snoops collect, the less likely they are to find that elusive needle in a haystack. The more they analyze, the more false "pings" they will encounter, the more dross they'll have to sift through, and the more time and computer power they'll waste. That's why you should always say things such as "She's the BOMB!, or "When did ANTHRAX become 'classic rock'?" Or "My boss went NUCLEAR when I showed up for work in my pajamas!" in your phone conversations, emails, and text messages.

Don't be stupid, but don't spend your limited lifetime worried that the bad guys are reading all your emails. And, if you want to be found in an emergency, remember it is ultimately up to you to make sure you can be.
.

Conservatives and Progressives are right

Conservatives (real conservatives, not neocons) are right about something- there are things in our society and culture which should be conserved. Worship of the military and police, and prohibition are not examples of those things.

Progressives (who used to be called "liberals", but never lived up to the label) are right about something, too- there are many ways in which "society" is in desperate need of some progress. However, violating liberty just because you are afraid of regular people owning and carrying guns is the opposite of progress. As is thinking it is "generous" to give away other people's property, and making up "special rules" by which some people are given "extra rights" that place imaginary obligations on others.

If both of those sides could get past some of their misguided delusions, they could contribute so much to life.

.

Fire all cops- and don't "replace them" with anything

If it is wrong for you to do, it is wrong for a cop to do. If it's OK for a cop to do, it's OK for you to do. It really is that simple.

Police have no special morality or ethics. In fact, most have none of any sort. And cops were never intended to have any special "authority" over you or me.

If it's OK for a cop to murder you because he is frightened and believes you might have a gun, it is OK for you to do the same to him. If it would be wrong for you to commit this murder, it is wrong for a cop to commit the murder under the same circumstances.

If it's OK for some people to stop drivers and rob them at gunpoint because they were going "too fast" according to some completely arbitrary rule, it is OK for everyone to do the same. If being a thuggish highwayman is not within your rights, it is wrong for a cop to do it.

If it's OK for a cop to carry a gun into a school or in a place that has a "no guns" sign, then it is OK for anyone else to do it. If it would be wrong for you to ignore that sign, it is wrong for a cop to boldly expect to be the exception to the rule.

If it is OK for a cop to set up a fake social media profile and entrap people into doing things that will lead to being kidnapped and molested, it is OK for anyone else to do the same. If lying and entrapping someone would be wrong of me, then it's wrong of a cop.

Cops have no special "authority"; they are just like garbage collectors in that they were hired to do a job anyone has the right to do, but most might rather not. But garbage collectors have mostly stayed honorable and helpful. Cops have most assuredly not! The fact they have grown beyond the original selling point to become the greatest burden- and threat- to society is all the reason anyone needs to call for them to all be fired.

No one "needs" cops.

.

"So, Kent, What did YOU do today?"

Well, now that you asked...

High winds (and blowing dirt and sand- see the color of the sky?) were terrible today, and took out the one tree on the property. The carport took a hit.

Had some family and neighbors come help, and the tree is cut up somewhat and now piled off to the side, and the carport is propped back up- more or less straight- with chains and whatnot. Mostly to keep it from falling into the house if it decides to topple.

No "official" contact of any sort- which I'm glad for. The tree was out in the street a bit for a while, as were some "support vehicles" as we worked.

My daughter missed an event due to the minor disaster, which happened not long before we were to leave, and was so upset over the property damage that she was throwing up.

Now, I am hopeful I can get some things repaired and the tree hauled away (it would be pretty much worthless for firewood- it's rotten Siberian elm) without spending much. Free would be good.

I hope your day was not so eventful.

Added: Here are a couple of pictures of what's left of the tree (along with my daughter hamming it up for the camera).

.

Bullies galore, blind to their own evil

There's an inevitable wedge driven between me and most of the people around me because they think it's OK to beat me up to force me to do what they want- whether I am harming any innocent person with my behavior or not. I don't pretend it's alright to do the same to them.

Sure, few of them are willing to do it in person- they'd rather pretend it's "government" doing the beating, instead- in the name of enforcing Holy Laws.

But as long as they support that "government", and its counterfeit rules, they might as well be personally throwing the punches. In fact, I'd prefer that level of honesty to this self-deception they wallow in.

How about you?

.

Who needs police?

No one "needs" cops.

People have been fooled into believing they do by having their rights violated and reserved for police only.

It's like being conked on the head, having your arms tied behind your back, and then saying "but how can I feed myself and wipe my butt without someone doing it for me?" Simple. Remove the bonds and do what you always had a right to do.

You don't need anyone to do it for you- especially not those vermin who are trying to prevent you from doing it yourself.

.

Day by Day: Time's Up again!

Day by Day, April 25, 2014:

Thanks again, Chris!

.

Fellating enforcers at gunpoint

I've long suspected there was some sort of a perverted sexual thrill that drove much enforcer behavior, but I just had another realization which seems to confirm it. It's the Breathalyzer- thought of forever more, in my mind, as the "coward's cock".

Which, once more, re-enforces in my mind the notion that almost everything a cop does is some form of rape- or worse.

"Blow me, Citizen!"

And, just imagine, some people still think of these parasites as the "good guys"!

(Sorry that this one is a bit less "family friendly" than usual, but seriously- the title...)

.

Brain re-wiring

Let's suppose you have a friend who has volunteered for an experiment*. His brain will be wired to a device, and when activated, this device will make him feel happy (at least temporarily) and powerful. It may even eventually make him wealthy.

It also has a 95% chance- or greater- of changing his personality and making him a bad person. His previous ethical or moral reluctance to steal and aggress will be short-circuited.

And he's asking you to be the one to push the button to start the device.

Would you do it?

What if it takes two people to push buttons simultaneously? Would you be willing to share half of the responsibility? Remember, your friend wants this. What if there are millions of buttons that would all have to be pushed to activate the experiment? What if "authority" figures tell you it is your duty to push the button, and your other friends, family, and neighbors all agree? They say you should be ashamed if you refuse. Why do I see shades of Milgram?

This is the same thing as voting for a decent person who wants a political office. Only, in this real-world experiment, those who push the button and those who refuse will all be victimized by your friend after he gets what he wants and is changed.

How can you consent to be among those who do this to a good person?

-

*Of course, it's not really an "experiment" since it has been done multiple millions of times with the same results- you know how this will end unless you are successful at deluding yourself.

.

Supporting liberty not contradictory

Supporting liberty not contradictory

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 21, 2014)

What is a quick way to cause confusion? Advocate liberty consistently and watch what happens.

I'll use myself as an illustration:

I am a firm believer in the high value of education, therefore I am not a fan of public schooling, nor any schooling based upon the same template.

I hate aggressive violence which threatens the innocent, therefore I actively and publicly oppose all anti-gun "laws".

I know the necessity of good, safe roads for all aspects of life and liberty, and therefore I don't appreciate seeing government employees patrolling and controlling them.

I crusade for property rights, opposing all theft and aggression against individuals, therefore I want nothing to do with laws or courts, and have no respect for either.

I hate to see people destroy their lives through addictions, therefore I expose prohibition for the unconstitutional and inhumane abomination it is.

These positions only seem contradictory to people who refuse to notice the actual, real-world results of the state's approach. Once you dig to the bottom of things you can see the world in a much clearer, brighter way than before.

But, getting to the bottom of things can make one unpopular. It means calling a spade a spade, no matter how much others wish to see it as something else. It means digging up problems with favored institutions and other things which many people are emotionally attached to, and exposing bad sides people would prefer to not face.

It means recognizing that schools based upon the "Prussian Model", as are all schools in America, were never meant to educate, but to indoctrinate and pacify.

It means understanding that anti-gun "laws" only restrain those who are not bad guys in the first place, leaving the real thugs free to prey at will.

It means knowing governments don't build roads, nor are they held accountable for the road conditions or damage their roads cause, all the while claiming use of "their" roads implies consent to give up all your basic human rights in the name of "safety". This is nonsense.

It means admitting the greatest threat which has ever existed to property, as well as to life and liberty, is (and has always been) people calling themselves "government" of one sort or another. Real restitution is a low priority for them, compared to enriching the state's treasury and paying for the bureaucracy.

It means seeing that the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs- Prohibition- has created the market for more concentrated, and more dangerous, substances, and causes people to not seek help they might otherwise want, out of fear of the disproportionate consequences.

Being consistent in support of liberty only looks contradictory until you examine the alternative.
.

Kids' problems

I was watching kids playing at the park while there with my daughter. I noticed what happened when kids encountered problems. They solved them.

For one example: There is a ring that the kids can hang from and ride as it slides from one end of a track to another. Only it binds up in the middle and if a kid doesn't have enough momentum, it will stop before they get to the other end. And most kids are not tall enough to reach the ring when it is not by one of the end platforms. So, when it gets stuck they'll work together. Or they'll try jumping at the ring to knock it to one end where they can reach it. They'll try to find a taller kid or adult. They'll find a tool (tree branch) to extend their reach. But, always, they find a solution.

Kids solve their own problems if not interfered with. Give them the liberty to find their own solutions. It will make them smarter and stronger than if you coddle them.

Now, kids are not perfect- just like adults aren't. Some think it's OK to initiate force or to steal. Some can be very cruel. Let's not give them bad examples by our behavior, and certainly let's not place the worst of the worst- cops and politicians- on some kind of pedestal and pretend these are people for kids to look up to or emulate.

.

"Name one..."

Recently I saw a person ask to be shown a society or culture anywhere in the world which has been based on Zero Aggression.

OK. Sure. No problem.

My society is grounded in Zero Aggression. I don't attack those around me, and I don't respond well to those who do. The aggressors out there are not a part of my society.

It seems the culture around me is based on Zero Aggression, too. Those who use aggression and theft are not "my society" or "my culture". They are alien to me.

I'm not sure why that's hard for anyone to understand.

.

Gratitude, or its opposite.

I was just listening to a video from a pretty "famous" (as these things go) libertarian/anarchist guy where he was complaining about a small donation he got. He went on about the value of what he was providing, and talked about if you don't "put your money where your mouth is" no one will listen when you say the free market and charity can fill the role of The State.

I was embarrassed listening to him.

Now, he did somewhat temper his message a little later in his video, and made some really good points about having a passion for what you claim to believe- but I almost didn't get past the first few minutes.

I have never complained or ridiculed any donation I have gotten. Not even in the privacy of my own head. Nor do I expect people to pay for what I do or to feel guilty if they don't pay something. And I am certainly not going to publicly scold- even anonymously- someone who actually donated money to me. That's just not the way this works.

Some people can't afford to donate- I get that and it's perfectly OK. I still want them to get what they can from what I write. I'm convinced they can make my life better that way, while improving the quality of their own lives even more. A deeper understanding of liberty can only benefit everyone.

Nor do I have some delusion that I "deserve" donations more than someone else does. There are more deserving and more "important" liberty advocates out there who are more valuable than I am, and do much more important work. Maybe even the guy who was complaining about the small donation.

I also know that everyone has a life. It's an honor to even be a tiny blip on their daily calendar, and no one is obligated to sit around and dwell on me in any way.

I'm not sure why his complaint disturbed me so badly- it may be that it just seemed so ungrateful.

You don't "owe" me anything by reading my blog. And please don't ever get the idea that I believe you do!

.

"I aim to misbehave!"

Day by Day today:

(click to... well, you know...)

I love seeing the flag make appearances.

Thanks, Chris!

.

Fear and ignorance banished! (I wish...)

Here's my response to the letter to the editor in the State Line Tribune. Be sure to read the letter first, if you haven't yet. This response is way too long to be a Liberty Lines column, so I will put it here. That's what happens when there are a lot of things to address, and you end up needing to quote parts of the original for clarity. I apologize for the length. Here we go:

"The problem is the longer the virus [libertarianism] is allowed to fester and spread, the patient begins to lose sense of reality"

Really? Let's look at that contention.

"Utopian lawless world..."

Now that's hilarious. The most delusional Utopian dream man ever fell for was the belief that because some men are bad you should give some men authority over everyone else. What has been clearly demonstrated by doing that is that the least trustworthy are drawn to those positions of power like kids to candy being tossed from a parade float. Then they always attempt to replace Law with made up rules.

Libertarianism is a rejection of Utopianism and a recognition of the reality of human nature. People will do what they feel is best for themselves. Even if they are wrong. Even at the expense of others. To set up a system that gives them power over others leads to the same result over and over again, as demonstrated by history. Statism is the most Utopian wish ever foisted on humanity- and it still keeps reeling them in even after failing to deliver as promised every single time it has been tried, in every single incarnation, throughout thousands of years of history. Talk about a blindness to reality!

Libertarians don't reject law; we reject counterfeit "law". Real law- known as "Natural Law"- is limited to "Don't attack anyone", "Do what you say you'll do", and "Don't take or damage other people's stuff". Counterfeit "law" is written by flawed humans and generally carves out exceptions to Natural Law for "select people". Natural Law doesn't need to be written or enforced; counterfeit "law", when written or enforced, makes you the bad guy.

"...Utopian lawless world where all bad behaviors are kept in check by the threat of 'restitution'".

Nope. You missed that one by a mile. Self defense has always been the best way to keep bad behaviors in check. Regardless of your "laws" and enforcers. Restitution only gets put into play when the bad guys survive. Our current "system" protects bad guys from the real-world consequences their behavior should bring.

"Then, and only then, will any law of punishment or repayment to society come into force."

First of all, "society" can't be a victim. If there is not a specific, individual victim, then no one is subject to self defense nor owes any restitution. Secondly, when would you propose to punish people? Before they have harmed anyone? Quick, call the Department of Pre-Crime!

"Reality says the human population is not very good at making behavioral decisions."

I agree, otherwise government would long ago have been relegated to a festering corpse on the garbage heap of history. However, other people's poor decisions aren't your business. Sorry. You can take measures to protect yourself and your property, but no one can ever have the authority to make other people's decisions for them, no matter how bad you believe them to be.

"Unfortunately, there IS a need for a minimum amount of laws to govern a functioning and prosperous society."

Already got that covered, as above. Anything beyond Natural Law is excessive, not "minimum" by any means, and only harms the functioning and prosperity of your society.

"Having law, and people being aware of it does help inform of where the boundaries are."

And that is part of the reason anything beyond Natural Law is harmful to all law. It dilutes it with worthlessness. When the boundaries are arbitrary and based upon things other than aggression or theft, no one really knows what the "law" is or where the boundaries may be. Counterfeit "laws" are the opposite of Law, and confuse people about what is actually right and wrong. They are not "holy" nor "just" nor "good". Counterfeit Law" damages society because it damages individuals.

"... the debate is where can we find a balance?"

Maybe, if you are desperate to find justification for running the lives of your neighbors, you can debate that. What is just the "perfect amount of rape" you'd like to permit? I am under no such disability to feel the need to debate such things. There is no balance between Rightful Liberty and counterfeit "laws". It's like trying to find a balance between poison and food- how much poison is the right amount to add to the food? Poison always wins that contest.

"...as Libertarians advocate where drugs and prostitution are freely consumed, DWI laws and traffic control signs are non-existent, leads us to the other problem."

You, maybe. I'm amused to know the only thing keeping you from being a drug-addicted sampler of "the oldest profession" are government's "laws". Funny, but those "laws" don't seem to stop most people who really want those things. If a person drives drunk and causes harm, he is in the wrong. Just as he is if he drives sober and causes harm. And, the funny thing is that the places around the world which have gotten rid of the anti-drug "laws", anti-prostitution "laws", and yes, even the traffic control signals, have discovered that the vast majority of the problems the naysayers feared never materialized. In fact, much of the bad effects of those things went away after the "laws" got out of the way. There was no "other problem" like the statists kept fearing there would be. Unless it really is liberty, peace, and cooperation they fear and consider a "problem".

"Humans making bad decisions result in bad consequences. Namely, the loss of innocent life."

Yeah, and we've all seen that "laws" prevent that. Right?
Bad decisions should bring bad consequences. And the innocent should never be under the illusion that "laws" will protect them or remove some of their own responsibility for watching out for themselves. Reliance on "laws" has been disastrous, and has made people weak and careless.

"It is government's God-given authority to punish evil and reward good."

You have grossly misread Romans 13 if you believe that is what it is saying. But, even if that were the message, no government in the entire history of the world has ever done that. Not one. Instead, all governments have done the opposite. And, the government authority referred to in Romans 13 is not what you seem to think it is. In America, there is no government authority besides the Constitution. When "laws" or "authorities" do things which violate the Constitution, they are not the rulers or governors spoken of in Romans or 1 Peter because they are "a terror to good works" and fully on the side of evil; they are not your authority and obeying them is disobeying Romans 13. Notice that anti-drug "laws", DWI "laws", anti-prostitution "laws", traffic control "laws" are not in any way permitted by the Constitution. Not one of them. I never remember reading about Jesus advocating making even one thing "illegal" according to the state. There is a vast difference between what you should morally do, and what should be subject to state punishment. Don't soil your faith by stitching it together with the state.

"...the intention of protecting the innocent before they are injured."

Yes, you should when you can. But remember that a person who hasn't yet harmed anyone is also innocent. You can protect both, but not with laws" which violate both instead. So, how can you protect the innocent before they are injured? The best, most sure way is by teaching them self responsibility; not dependence. There is only one person you can always count on to be there when danger comes: you. By bubble-wrapping the whole world with "laws" you get the illusion of safety, but instead remove any incentive to be accountable for your own life and safety. Would I rather have "checkpoints" molesting drivers in the name of DWI reduction, or would I rather teach my kids that while driving or walking, anything can happen and they need to stay alert and pay attention to their surroundings? Would I rather have DWI "checkpoints" with draconian punishments that cause people to take bigger risks because it's just too dangerous to admit you may need to pull over and sleep it off or ask someone for a ride? Either completely responsible and reasonable action brings swift and vicious punishment today, if "law enforcement" happens to find out. That doesn't make things safer for anyone.

"In a civil society, those who engage in 'evil' can be expected to be preempted hopefully before their destruction (or aggression) is allowed to come to fruition."

So, since I consider your advocacy of "laws" against Rightful Liberty to be evil I should preempt you before you can cause harm to me or anyone else who isn't harming anyone with their consensual actions? That's good to know, since I expect you'll be OK with it when I defend myself against your stated intentions. No whining, now!

"...see where a full-blown case of Viral Libertarian-itis is a world of anarchy and chaos."

"Anarchy" doesn't mean what you seem to believe. It means "no king", not "no rules". It means no one else has the right to run your life for you, it doesn't mean you do what you want with no consequences. Anarchy is the only peaceable way to live- everything else is rooted in violence and theft. We all live the vast majority of our lives in anarchy- unless you allowed someone else to dictate who you fell in love with, what you eat for every meal, where you shop, what you wear to bed, who you befriend, what you think about. Anarchy works, in the real world, every single day, for YOU. It doesn't bring chaos- that's what the State brings. "Laws" are not based upon a foundation of Natural Law, and the consequences are out of proportion to the effects of violating those "laws", and this brings chaos into society. You can have government or you can have a society- they are mutually exclusive so you can't have both.

"Where stupid behaviors unabated main, injure, and kill."

What makes you believe- against all evidence to the contrary- that "laws" abate stupid behaviors?
Very often they mandate them. Contrary to your beliefs, and your mischaracterization of libertarians, there is no Utopia- not under liberty and not under your "minimum government". Humans will always do stupid things (like support "laws" and governments, apparently) and innocent people will always be getting maimed, injured, and killed. That's just reality. (You should check it out sometime- it's pretty amazing!)

"Reality says you can't expect people under the influence of mind-altering substances to know where personal space ends and another's begins."

Just like those under the influence of statism, it seems, judging by this letter to the editor which is calling for "laws" to trample all over everyone else's personal space. But, would I advocate making statism "illegal"? Of course not. I will never criticize anyone who defends themselves from it, though.

"Reality says a community full of porn and prostitution breeds broken homes and sexual assaults."

Actually, reality (and observation) has shown the polar opposite where sexual assault is concerned. Study up on it. As far as the broken homes- if they succumb to porn and prostitution they were already broken anyway. You may not "like" it, but it is only your business where your personal life is concerned. You are advocating Sharia Law. It doesn't matter if it is supposedly "Christian" Sharia, it is still wrong.

"Reality says traffic laws, including requiring insurance, protects the responsible drivers from thefoolish."

Oh, good. I guess I can text and drive without paying attention just like cops do. What with all the "laws" and insurance out there protecting me. No?
I think it's a great idea to have liability insurance. Do I want it mandated? Of course not. I'm not an insane control freak. Mandating it is no different than mandating ObamaCare. Do I assume a stop sign will really make the other driver stop? No. I know it has no magical power to force anyone to do anything. I watch people run stop signs responsibly and safely every single day. Including almost every cop car that passes the one by my house. And I don't care. It's not about safety, it's about compliance. Don't molest others on my behalf just because you are frightened of the big old, scary world.

"Reality says basic laws of commerce protect the little old lady from the unscrupulous company."

Wishful thinking. What reality does show is that "basic laws of commerce" aren't basic anymore. That ended when the first "law" that said anything beyond "don't lie about what you are trading, and deliver the goods as promised without coercion" was imposed. The truth is the "basic laws of commerce" were mostly written by giant corporations to hobble their upstart competition. MegaCorp has lots of money and teams of lawyers to allow them to comply with the "laws" they help write- they know their new would-be competitor doesn't.

"But advocating for total unregulated behavior in the substance abuse and traffic world..."

Who advocated that? Just because you don't have legislation doesn't mean there is no way to "regulate" something. Don't like drug users? Don't hire them. (And if you can't tell if they are a drug user without a chemistry set, then you are simply looking for a way to "legally" rape them and steal their fluids.)
As for traffic, the phenomenon of spontaneous order makes traffic flow much smoother once the silly rules get tossed aside. Look at the cases of cities where all traffic controls have been discarded. It didn't result in chaos and death- it actually resulted in shorter commute times, and fewer accidents and injuries. Liberty always works.

"disrupts real dialog and political reforms that could be made."

What do you consider "real dialog"? Making up justification for "laws" that have no basis in reality, while claiming the other side is ignoring reality? What kind of "political reforms" would you advocate? Voting out one corrupt politician and replacing him with an interchangeable corrupt politician? Or getting rid of all the vile "liberal" anti-liberty "laws" and replacing them with equally vile "conservative" anti-liberty "laws"? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results... well, it's not sane.

The depth of the brainwashing astounds me. When you have been trained to see a government "solution" to everything it becomes impossible to think outside that particular, confining box. When your only (mental) tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Even when beating it hurts you.

I've been around long enough to see that any and every justification for "law" or The State is flawed. Even those I was at one time most reluctant to turn loose.

Now, I have tried to be "nice" in this response, but why am I reminded of this?

.

Fear and Ignorance

Those are the only two "tactics" I have ever seen whipped out as a defense against liberty.

And, boy, did my most recent Liberty Lines column bring both fear and ignorance out of people!

I will reply to this letter to the editor from poor Brandon (whoever he is...), but I haven't decided yet whether to do it in next month's Liberty Lines, or to just do it here on the blog. (added: here's my response) Either way I wanted y'all to see what I'm up against locally.

So, here ya go (from the State Line Tribune- April 17, 2014):

(Click to enlargenize)

Thomas Jefferson against the Constitution

Still think there's a "social contract" and the Constitution is binding on people who didn't sign it and were born long after its signers were all dead?

Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Maj. John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 (source)

Of course, I adamantly disagree with his assertion that "a generation may bind itself", since that authority belongs only to individuals, not "the collective", but he can't be right about everything.

.

How much evidence do you need?

Bad guys and thugs are going to act like the vermin they are. Don't be surprised, but don't excuse them, either.

Recently I have shown many examples of this truth. Like this, and this, and this. Honestly, the list would be endless if I didn't limit myself to things I have written recently.

How can anyone really still believe these are the "good guys" and are better than any alternative?

So, in my opinion, you shouldn't expect them to treat you with respect- it'll only happen if it's to their advantage. Don't let their evil shock you, and don't let it ruin your day. They are what they are- remember that and act accordingly.

.

Ancestral property theft

Going back to the question of figuring out who stole what from whom generations ago, and who the stolen property should be "returned" to...

I hereby renounce any claim on any property that may or may not have been stolen from one of my ancestors by one of your ancestors, or later obtained in good faith by one of your ancestors, anywhere in the world before my parents were born. Use it in peace.

There, I feel better.

.

Politics is Stockholm Syndrome

Politics is Stockholm Syndrome

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

I confess: I'm not very interested in politics. Who is campaigning; who holds which office; "laws" being proposed or passed. It all feels like chasing my tail.

So I'm not going to waste much time or effort petitioning government's representatives and enforcers to respect my life, liberty, and property.

Perhaps it's necessary, as self preservation, to know what politicians are up to. It would also be necessary to know what a wild boar was up to after you let him in your living room. But why would you ever tolerate either situation? Why believe replacing one wild boar with an interchangeable wild boar could solve anything?

If I moved into your neighborhood, dictating how you were permitted to live, earn money, and use your property- enforcing my will at the point of a gun- would you put up with it? I sincerely hope not!

To pacify you I might schedule an election- give my permission to poll a sample of your neighbors in an attempt to change the way I use your life and property as you might prefer. What if I ignored your requests? You could elect others, who promise to use your life and property in a way which makes you less uncomfortable, to replace me. How is that different?

Would you instead laugh at my attempts at control and invite me to do a nosedive off a windmill? Rather than trying to decide how much of your property I am entitled to take, would you fight to keep it? When I send my hired guns- hired from among your family and neighbors for a percentage of the take- to collect on my behalf, how would you respond?

Imagine I survived my insolence, and three hundred years from now the system through which the torch of control had been passed was still operating. I never had any business running your life, nor do those who came after me have any legitimate authority over the lives of your descendants, no matter how long it has been going on. Nothing changes that.

Would your descendants defend the legitimacy of "their system", saying it is the best one possible? Would they believe "we" are the government; embracing rulers and bureaucrats and relinquishing essential liberty by holding elections to choose who gets to violate them for the next few years.

"We are the government"? Try to do things government employees do with people's lives, liberties, and property and see how long you get away with it. Those who are permitted, under their own rules, to do those things don't tolerate competition, and Stockholm Syndrome keeps their captives complacent.

That, in a nutshell, is politics.
.

"Death to the IRS and its employees"

Wishing they would all die isn't the same as actively making it happen. No, I am not suggesting you go out and start hunting IRS employees. But doing so is no more wrong than defending yourself from any other violator of your property, so it doesn't bring my condemnation, either.

The IRS has the "authority" of the mugger: "Your money or your life!" uttered at gunpoint. So anyone who kills an IRS agent who has made "official" contact is no more guilty than anyone who manages to "get the drop" on a mugger in a back alley.

Unfortunately, the IRS agent has a huge and violent gang, along with the idiotic and ignorant support of our neighbors. Or, if not "support", at least the ignorant belief that the IRS employee is doing something that doesn't deserve death. But theft is theft- it isn't "better" or less evil if it is committed by a person with an office.

And, even if you have the right to do something, it isn't always the smartest thing to do. In the current statist climate, defending your life, liberty, and property from these thieves would probably be suicide.

IRS employees could make it right in an instant by walking away from the "job" and by never stealing again. In that case they should be left alone unless they break their word. I'm willing to forgive.

But, I will never condemn any person who defends his life, liberty, or property from violators of any sort.

-

And here's a related post from Libertopia.

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.

.