Thankfulness

I am thankful for people. I am thankful for my family. I am thankful for the few friends who have stayed friends with me- as difficult as that may be- over the years. And, although I miss my friends more than I can possibly express, I am thankful that most of them are just an email away when I need to reach out- even if I usually decide to not bother them. I am thankful for those who have loved me in the past.

I am thankful for the people who have made me expand my horizons in ways I never imagined I could. I am thankful for those who encouraged me to put myself into uncomfortable situations where I felt like I was totally out of place- but then stood by me while I got comfortable enough to enjoy the experience.

I am thankful for those who comment on my blog posts, my Facebook dribblings, and those who share my writings with others. Those who read what I write, and then take action on it, make me feel I am not wasting my time. And that is a great feeling. I am thankful for the people who choose to voluntarily support and encourage my writing habit with actual money.

There are other, maybe trivial, things I am thankful for.

I am thankful that I can eat just about anytime I want to. And that there is a variety of things I can choose from. Not to knock the "buy local" notion, but I'm very happy I am not trapped into eating only what is grown locally, when it happens to be in season. I am thankful that I have heat in the winter- and even more incredibly, that I have cool air in my house in the summer. I am thankful I don't usually sleep on rocks or roots, and that I don't wake up with my head having been buried while I slept by an industrious gopher. Until it has happened to you, you may not realize you should be thankful when it doesn't happen. I am thankful I can make fire (or heat) without having to actually make fire.

I am thankful that I can get on this electronic wonder box and interact with people all over the planet- although I am thankful I can also choose not to interact with Nigerian princes and Ghanaian lonely-hearts with the push of a button.

I am thankful that I can still go most days without being forced to interact with government employees. I am thankful that in most cases, even ignoring their "laws" comes without immediate consequences.

I am thankful for the experiences I have had and the memories I keep inside my head. I am thankful I can still imagine a better future.

.

Does Liberty require bravery? Is statism for cowards?

Do you do the right thing, knowing there will be unfortunate consequences?

Do you respect the property rights of others even if you know they may well use their property against you in the future?

Do you support the right of humans to travel anywhere they want to go, with the permission of property owners, even knowing some bad guys are among them?

Do you defend the rights of others to make their own mistakes, knowing some innocent could still be harmed?

If not, why not?

.

Free society can survive just fine

Free society can survive just fine

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 24, 2014)

"But who will build the roads?"

Not only does this question come up anytime someone discusses eliminating government altogether; it comes up when anyone discusses cutting it back- as an example of "essential" minimal government.

What is it about roads that they can't exist without government?

Governments don't build roads. They hire contractors to do the work. So "who would build the roads?" The same people who build them now.

Governments don't even pay those contractors- they coercively extract, from the people, the money paid to the contractors. So, "Who would pay?" The same people who pay now: those who benefit from the road.

Bureaucracy makes everything more expensive, and stifles or prevents innovation, which decreases quality. Roads freed of government would have an automatic advantage in both areas.

When individuals profit or otherwise benefit from a road touching their property, the act of "eminent domain" loses justification.

People who object to privately owned roads complain about paying tolls, falsely believing the roads are "free" now, and believing private roads would be too expensive. You get what you pay for, but government always comes at a premium. Tolls are not the only way roads might be financed. Businesses eager for your patronage could chip in to ensure good roads lead you to their doors.

Not only that, but individuals and companies who owned roads would not be able to duck responsibility for poor road conditions. They could be held personally responsible if they allowed ice or a pothole to damage your car, or a drunk driver to crash into you.

That's right- privately owned roads could still forbid drunk driving. However, they probably couldn't get away with sobriety checkpoints. Their customers might flock to a competitor who didn't hire highwaymen to waylay and molest travelers without cause. People who believe checkpoints increase safety could still choose that route.

I also wonder why people assume a free society would continue to need roads as we know them. Pavement only matters because our cars bounce alone, dependent upon the surface conditions. The flying cars we were promised half a century ago can't seem to get past the various red tape traps erected by governments. The same red tape prevents innovation which could even make future wheeled cars lose the need for a paved ribbon beneath them.

Private vehicles have been a boon for liberty, and governments have- almost from the start- sought ways to infringe this liberty by increasing the cost, inconvenience, and by limiting the allowable benefits. It's time to end this war on travel.

If something is necessary and wanted, a free society will provide it. Better, cheaper, and in more variety than you can possibly imagine.
.

Aggressive non-aggression?

Can you be aggressive without actual aggression being the result?

I think it's possible.

Speaking aggressively, or behaving or pointing in "an aggressive way" still isn't aggression- no force has been initiated- but could be an indication of imminent aggression. A warning to those around to be on guard. Perhaps it is covered under the part of the ZAP which states: "...nor to advocate ... its initiation". It could be taken as a credible threat.

In most cases, acting as if you might soon initiate force could bring self defensive actions into your life- and most people wouldn't blame the person you were focused on.

It's probably better to remain calm and not behave in ways that will probably be seen as "aggressive" unless the situation really calls for you to use violence in defense of person or property. Just to make sure to stay on the right side.

And wearing gang colors- excuse me, uniforms- could well step over that line. 

.

Happy slaves and happy statists

Would it be better to be a happy slave or an unhappy free human? It depends on your definition of "better" I suppose, but I think happiness is preferable. I almost envy those who can be happy slaves. I couldn't be- not without having large portions of my brain removed or destroyed.

And, I'm not sure I could be happy even if I were totally free, if certain things remained lacking in my personal life. Would real freedom make those things more likely to find? I guess that depends on what keeps me from finding them- if it's just personal flaws, then freedom probably wouldn't help much.

That doesn't mean it's better to be a happy statist than an unhappy voluntaryist, though.

A slave isn't harming others by his enslavement. The fault isn't really his, but his enslaver's.

A statist, however, would be hard pressed to remain harmless to those around him, just by virtue (or lack thereof) of his belief in the legitimacy of theft and aggression. And if his "happiness" depended on him coercing and stealing, then his happiness is a terrible thing. Everyone else would be better off if he were miserably unhappy.

So, although it is tragic to be free, and non-aggressive, and yet still not happy, to me it seems much more tragic to be enslaved and unhappy. And there just isn't any good to be found in being a statist, happy or not.

.

Attracted to aggressors

So, a woman thinks she wants to marry Charles Manson. That's bizarre, but it's her business.

It's also no more bizarre than women who are attracted to cops or those in the military.

So, why do people seem to be shocked by her decision, but not by women who chase uniforms? If you are attracted to aggressive individuals (including, obviously, those who "only" advocate and delegate aggression), what difference does it make how they carry out their evil? Why would it matter that their aggression is "officially sanctioned"?

It really doesn't.

It seems like a psychological problem to me.

.

Patriarchy

I know this will make some people unhappy.

To clarify my point, I'm against any sort of "-archy" except anarchy. That would include patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, or whatever else you might come up with.

But, when I see people targeting patriarchy specifically- as seems to be the hot new trend- I feel like they are saying that because patriarchy has violated them, now that they have the political power to pull it off, they'll use The State to make sure I get violated for a while to balance things out. That would be aggression.

I'm not claiming that is the real intent, but it sure feels like it.

It feels evil.

I don't want any "laws" to enforce patriarchy, nor to forbid it. It's not within any State's authority either way. Rules made up by Rulers that focus on one group of people, to benefit them or to harm them, are wrong. They are counterfeit rules.

Let individuals choose whether to associate with those who single out "groups". Let the power of  shunning and ostracism work its magic. Let people make foolish choices and suffer the consequences. And stop playing into the politics of division. The ZAP is universal, and theft is wrong no matter who you are. Nothing else is really needed, but just serves to drive a wedge where it can do the most harm. Please stop helping those who want to divide us.

.

Ethan Nadelmann: "Why we need to end the war on drugs".

Even considering the things he's gotten wrong, this is a very good talk.

First of all, "we" don't need to do anything- other than withdraw consent, perhaps. I did end my own war on politically incorrect drugs. Decades ago. I came to realize how ridiculous supporting prohibition was- or is. How hypocritical, since everyone uses "drugs". I haven't used any "illegal" drugs in years, nor have I used any "legal" drugs in "illegal" ways recently (that I can think of). Not because those things are "illegal", but because I haven't wanted to. "Laws" mean about as much to me as the opinions of a drooling idiot- because that's exactly what they are: idiotic opinions, backed up by bullies with guns, which you and I were forced to buy for them to use against us.

There should be no "policy" regarding drugs, beyond "if you don't like them, don't use them" or "if I catch you coming to work stoned, you're fired". It is no government's business. I don't want drugs "taxed" or "regulated" like alcohol (which I also know shouldn't be "taxed" or "regulated"). Those things are just new, sick facets of prohibition. They empower and finance The State, and are just evidence of the troglodytes who are still desperately clinging to the failed experiment of The State.

Drug abuse can be bad. Prohibition is always horrible- much, much worse than any drug abuse can ever be.

Don't do drugs? Don't do prohibition!!

.

David Brown's "The Case of the Cockamamie Killer"

Recently, author David Brown sent me a PDF copy of his book, The Case of the Cockamamie Killer. I'll just say I'm probably not the greatest book reviewer, but I enjoyed reading it.

The tale made me hate the bad guys even worse than I already normally do (the IRS, which has nothing to love about it, anyway) and cheer their fate, and made me identify with the protagonist, even with him being as different from me as he could be. I'm not sure I would have his determination in the face of such evil- but I hope I would. I'm also not sure I could bounce back from such extreme abuse as quickly as he does. I admired his resiliency, resourcefulness, and attitude.

I'll admit to initially being shocked by the sexual preference and trysts of the main character. It just wasn't what I was expecting. I quickly got over that and got back into the story. I enjoy seeing things from a different perspective anyway.

There were some nice libertarian themes throughout the book, but nothing preachy. And the protagonist wasn't perfect, but he was understandable and likable.

It's not a long book- particularly since I just finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo. If you enjoy detective stories, you might enjoy this one.

.

Liberty doesn’t require you to vote

Liberty doesn’t require you to vote

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 17, 2014)

The great national distraction is approaching. Yes, election day is just around the corner. Campaign signs are popping up in yards and in unclaimed "public" spaces- touting this or that politician or government financing scheme.

People mistake this fervor for "doing something".

I am told to choose between Fascistic Socialist Candidate A or Fascistic Socialist Candidate B. One choice will destroy society and enslave the people, while the other will bring Utopia- or at least delay the decay.

Then, I am told I must choose how my money will be confiscated to pay for government; never is the option to cut off all funding and retain my property placed on the table.

Few would be mature enough, or brave enough, to choose that option, anyway.

It's odd that the only choices I see offered concern who you'll have violating your life, liberty, and property in the near future, depending on which "side" you vote for. Rightful Liberty, empowered by self-ownership and self responsibility, free of official violation, is never offered as an option. It's antimatter to politics.

If you see the game is rigged and refuse to keep playing, you are told you have "lost" your right to complain. This seems backwards to me, since if I refuse to play Russian Roulette, I am not forced to risk my life based on the results of the game, while those who choose to play are explicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome. If you choose to jump off a bridge, don't get upset that I won't hold your hand on your way to oblivion.

If you still believe voting can change things, but insist on voting for the best candidate rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, nationally famous loudmouths, such as Ann Coulter, might threaten to drown you for daring to reject the anointed choices. As if you are obligated to the two "mainstream parties", and not voting for one or the other is stealing votes from them.

Remember: no matter how you vote, government wins every election.

Fortunately, you never need to vote for liberty. Liberty just is. You simply claim it and live it. Rights are never subject to a vote, nor to majority opinion or the law. All those other things can violate your rights by making liberty "illegal". What else would you expect? There will always be those who waylay others for their twisted purposes. You may as well accept it and learn to deal with them.

Participate in the pageant of politics if you enjoy it, but don't expect your participation to really improve anything. You might as well vote to change the colors of the rainbow.

.

"Capitalism" can't be the problem

People who "go off" about capitalism amuse me. Generally, what they are upset about isn't capitalism, but "crony capitalism"/corporatism. Fascism.

It's just easier to whine about capitalism, I suppose. Or trendier. As long as you can hang on to your ignorance, anyway.

• capitalism noun 1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I just can't see what anyone could object to there unless they subscribe to the bizarre notions that private property is evil or "no one can own property". And if that's the case... well, it's hard to debate self-contradictory craziness.

I also don't see any capitalism happening around me.

Even corporations aren't allowed to own the "means of production", control distribution, or exchange wealth without massive State interference- and these corporations are the ones supposedly controlling the government (according to the capitalism haters). You and I both know corporations embrace the meddling (and even promote it to The State) because they already have teams of lawyers, and lots of money, to comply with the new red tape, while upstart competitors find each new requirement makes it harder to get started,

I have some sympathy for the ignorant anti-capitalists. At least until the facts are explained to them. After that, ignorance is no longer an excuse. Pure stupidity or evil are all that remain.

.

"Argumentum ad Hitlerum"

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who try to prevent you from speaking honestly of history hope to repeat it- from the "winning" side.

It's why comparing people who share characteristics with Hitler to Hitler is greatly frowned upon.

If they can make you feel guilty for noticing the similarities, they can shame you into silence. Until it's too late.

Obviously, few politicians alive today have approached the body count of Hitler or other dead tyrants, but it's a matter of scale, not character. Given the opportunity and popular support do you doubt any US president (or "serious" presidential contender) of the past 50 years would have had the principles to not become a Hitler? Do you honestly believe the next president- whoever it might be- would have the character and principles to reject that kind of death and destruction if "the people" became convinced it would make them "safer"? If so, I don't think you have learned from history.

.

Who's on the right side?

Cops should like me. I am on the side cops pretend to be on. I am against theft and aggression. I advocate stepping up and defending people who become victims of either one. Isn't this what cops are supposedly in favor of? Isn't this why many of them claim they took the job?

If a cop opposes me it exposes that he isn't on the side he pretends. It shows he's on the side of the bad guys. Yes, it is as simple as that.

If you are on the side of Rightful Liberty, and opposed to counterfeit "laws" (which, by definition, violate Rightful Liberty) and the enforcement of those "laws", then you are on the right side. Those who oppose you are simply exposing themselves as the bad guys they truly are.

They'll never be honest about it, so I'll continue to point at them and draw attention to what they are.

.

You are only responsible for your own actions

It's the hardest thing to let people make what you believe to be mistakes- by living a life of dependency or entitlement, or working for the State- when it isn't your business to stop them.

The State is a trap. It may look good in the short term. "Free stuff" or a theft-financed paycheck. It's easier than doing the work required to get it by mutual consent. But too many of our loved ones- or people we are thrust into association with- don't see it that way.

It's normal for decent people to want to warn someone they see stepping into a trap- to save them from themselves. But, if you warn them and they insist on stepping in it anyway, it's not your fault. For them to then be angry at you for your concern is absurd. And, for other observers to somehow blame you for "allowing" it to happen is just as ridiculous.

And, when it goes badly for them it's not your fault.

You can even be justified in saying "I told you so". Because, it's the State; what do you expect? Such comments will not be appreciated, but the truth is often unpopular.

.

If possible, please donate or subscribe

OK. Sorry to interrupt and do this again, but I'm in need of some extra funds. The things I have been doing to try to get extra money aren't paying off, and I hate to ask.... but I'm asking.

So, if you can and you want to, please donate or subscribe at the buttons to the right. At this moment, Paypal is more immediately helpful than Bitcoin- although I won't complain about Bitcoin.

Thank you, and I'm very sorry to be asking.

.

Net "Neutrality"?

"Net neutrality" isn't neutral. It is pro-State in the extreme. Pro-tyranny.

It is to internet access what Soylent Green is to food. I guess that makes Soylent Green "Food Neutrality".

Yeah, no thank you. I don't want some bureaucrat or puppetician's ideas of "net neutrality" screwing up the internet and making it less of a threat to their plans.

Keep your filthy State- and its legal excrement- off the internet and all forms of communication.

.

Killing cops?

I don't advocate for anyone to go out and kill cops.

I DO advocate for everyone to defend themselves and their property from aggression and theft with whatever amount of force they have to. Including deadly force.

If cops (or copsuckers) see that as calling for cops to be killed, then, obviously, they are admitting that what cops do- or are likely to do- could be seen to qualify as aggression and theft.

That means someone does need to change their ways, but it isn't me.

.

Health crises work themselves out

Health crises work themselves out

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 10, 2014.)

Sometimes it takes me a while to realize when people are seriously concerned over something like the current Ebola scare.

I've seen enough of these well-publicized health crises fizzle to know they generally work themselves out before much happens. As an American you are nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by terrorists, and you are much more likely to die of something boring, like heart disease, than Ebola. It's just not as dramatic and newsworthy.

We see how government is handling the Ebola scare- either as well as can be expected, or on par with the average preschooler, depending on who you believe. Everyone has their own ideas of what government should be doing, but how could a free society deal with such a terrible disease in the absence of The State?

Since a free society would have no borders of the kind you have become accustomed to, but private property lines instead, there would be no such issue as "immigration". People would either be trespassing or not, and property owners, not government, would be making that determination. So immigration is irrelevant for this discussion.

Airlines (and other transportation providers) would be free to set any rules they see fit for passengers, including cutting off service to places with dangerous epidemics or even requiring on-site medical tests before allowing anyone to board. Failure to take sufficient precautions could scare people away from using their service, could cause liability problems and restitution owed, and might drive them out of business.

At home, a free society wouldn't be confiscating money through "taxation", but experience shows people will chip in when they know it's in their interest to do so. Since it would be in just about everyone's best interest to treat and cure epidemic diseases, charitable hospitals and research facilities would probably be common, well-funded, and would cover the medical bills of those unable to afford even the vastly less expensive and more advanced medical care which will have been freed from the burden of government rationing and regulation.

A sick person who chooses to expose people to his communicable disease, actively infecting others, is just as guilty of aggression as someone shooting into a crowd. This could mean forcible quarantine if he didn't voluntarily cooperate and permit treatment. As a last resort, a contagious person could even be subject to self defensive violence of a more direct nature.

No one can predict exactly how a free society would approach such a problem without violating any innocent individual, but judging by history, and by what is happening now, government's supporters have no better answers.
.

Thank you for your service

To the girl who I watched sweeping the floor of the fast food place, smiling even as she did a job I knew she probably didn't love, Thank you for your service.

To the guy at the register of the store where I ran in to buy a couple of things, Thank you for your service.

To the person who delivered my daughter's favorite chips to the convenience store, Thank you for your service.

To the person who recently helped me at the tire store, Thank you for your service.

To Jillian at Amagi Metals, Thank you for your service.

To those who keep civilization running in spite of the best efforts of government, Thank you for your service.

You make my life immeasurably better, and I am completely serious when I say Thank you for your service. No one else's "service" even comes close. Especially not those whose "service" only helps the bad guys gain and retain power. That's a "service" I would prefer to do without.

.

Choices and consequences

If you choose the life of a test pilot, you greatly increase your odds of dying in a crash. Sure, you could be minding your own business and have a test flight crash on top of you, but it's unlikely.

 If you immerse yourself in the company of aggressors, you greatly increase the odds of being a victim of aggression- even if you are completely innocent.

 It turns out that the girl murdered on the trail here yesterday made that particular bad choice.

Her fiance is in jail for murdering another guy back in 2013, and was already a career thug when he got arrested for that death. Even if he is innocent of everything he has been accused of, it would still be unwise to stay close to him if you value your own safety or the safety of your kids. He was obviously immersed in the local aggressor culture, which she then became a part of by willingly choosing to associate with him. Why would anyone willingly choose to make themselves a part of that company?

 No, I am not saying "she deserved it". She didn't. But choices have consequences, even if they aren't "fair". If you surround yourself with people who employ aggression or who hang around with people who do, don't be too surprised when some of it spills over onto you or your loved ones. You can love someone and still understand that, for your sake and the sake of your kids, you have got to drop them like a radioactive diseased skunk.

In a perfect world you would only face consequences for the actions you take. As long as you weren't the aggressor, no harm would come to you. You could love, live with, and hang around with Hitler, a gangbanger, or a cop, and no matter what they were involved in, nothing would rub off on you. We all know the world is not perfect, and you can't just do whatever you want and expect no negative consequences will come of it. It's not fair; it's reality. Go into it with your eyes wide open, and think about whether it is really worth it.

.

"Sovereign citizens"

Besides some of the consistency problems the "sovereign citizen" folk have in other areas, such as philosophically, the very name they call themselves is completely self-contradictory. "Sovereign"? "Citizen"? Pick one or the other- you can't be both.

"Sovereign" individuals own their own life and the products of that life. It doesn't mean they are immune to being robbed by thieves, but anyone can be robbed.

"Citizens" are owned by a State. They are said, by definition, to "owe allegiance" to that State. That's the opposite of self ownership.

They are basically claiming to be "self-owning property"- a "self-owning slave". That term would make just as much sense. Which is none.

I understand the sentiment- or at least some of it. They want to express their independence, while celebrating what they think of as "their country" or "patriotic heritage". But, really, there must be a more sensible way to express that sentiment. Or, just drop all the contradictions and come to the free side. We have... well, everything worth having.

.

Dangerous cops, and those who don't grovel before them

Anytime a cop is suspected (or actually caught) threatening or murdering an innocent person, the incident has to be interminably "investigated" by the cop's own gang, while the cop remains free to repeat his behavior. Even if he is placed on "administrative leave" he is still walking among us; probably emboldened by the lack of consequences.

Anytime a non-cop (you know: a person) is accused, often without a shred of evidence, of "threatening" a cop by not bowing down and grovelling sufficiently, the person is "arrested", and locked up, as a "public danger".

It's as if we are supposed to think "we" are better off with even a psychopathically aggressive cop among us than "we" would be if he were not on the streets... and that "we" can't afford to have people among us who don't immediately roll over for any demand that psychopathically aggressive cops may squeal at them.

Sorry, but I can't twist my mind sufficiently for that to make any sense to me.

.

Don't be a jerk

I may not be powerful, but even so, some things are still within my power.

It is within my power to make just about anyone I run into miserable. Maybe even ruin their day. Maybe by not paying attention and running them off the road. Maybe by ignoring them in the grocery store if they say something to me. Maybe by a snarky comment online.

I try very hard not to do this to anyone- without a good reason. I know I often fail.

If I'm going to make someone miserable, I want there to at least be a real, good reason- like they are a person who simply refuses to stop initiating force or violating the property of others. In that case, my actions which make them miserable (if they actually do) aren't really coming from me, they are a reaction I take to protect myself and others.

But as long as I don't "catch you in the act", and I honestly believe you mean well, and may eventually come around and reject being a thug, I'll do my best to not make your day worse for having encountered me. Yes, even enforcers.

.

Wouldn't see the truth if he stepped right in a big steaming heap of it

I just got this email a while back:

Dear Mr. Obama:

I’m planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.

We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements.

We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.

I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, the President of Mexico , that I’m on my way over?

Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking Government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

3. Please print all Mexican Government forms in English.

4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.

5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.

7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.

8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.

9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my housetop, put U.S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.

13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.

14. I want to receive free food stamps.

15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.

16. I’ll need income tax credits so that although I don’t pay Mexican taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.

17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Government pays $4,500.00 to help me buy a new car.

18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all of his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that the President of Mexico won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Do you see how stupid this looks when you put it in writing???

Yes, it surely does look stupid, but not for the reason the original author may have thought. Obviously he wouldn't see the truth, no matter how plainly it presented itself.

Being an obvious State worshiper (as long as it's a flavor he likes) he'd never see how all those complaints go away when you eliminate the fundamental problem: The State.

No government ("public") kinderprisons; no welfare; no government "licenses", bureaucraps, or paperwork; no "taxation". If these things- or the way they are administered- are really upsetting you, eliminate the fundamental problem.

Yeah, the solution really is that simple, yet getting people to demand it- and expect- it is the hardest job there is.

.

More "good cops"- or at least normal ones

Another reason to oppose "laws" forbidding "texting and driving".

Those "laws" are used as a pretext to demand access to your cell phone, and cops have been caught stealing and sharing nude selfies from women's phones.

Sure, you could say you shouldn't take "those kind of pictures", but it's your body and your phone. And besides, where's the fun in that?

.

Time to stop hiding, take control

Time to stop hiding, take control

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

Most people are more libertarian they they'll admit.

After all, they buy things from the store rather than steal. They ask instead of demand. They try to avoid resorting to violence as long as they are given any choice. And most people are in favor of self defense when faced with someone who refuses to live by the same rules.

For that matter, most people actually live in a condition of anarchy in their daily lives. No one tells them who they are allowed to fall in love with, what they will eat, where they must shop, whether they are allowed to use the bathroom, where they can work, or what to think or believe. Regardless of what you have been told, that is anarchy: living without being ruled by someone else. It isn't the same as "chaos", which isn't necessarily the horror you've been let to believe, either.

Anarchy, what some call "voluntaryism", is liberty. It means doing whatever doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. It means recognizing that since humans are flawed, the worst possible thing anyone could do is to put some of these flawed people in charge of everyone else. Such a system attracts those who want power over others, but fear facing the consequences of wielding it without belonging to a large and powerful gang.

It shouldn't surprise you to realize you've been indoctrinated against anarchy by government schools and other institutions which depend on you fearing liberty. People who want to have power to control you need you to believe their control is better than the alternative of you controlling, and being responsible for, your own life. If they can keep you fearful, you'll allow them to do things to you which you'd never otherwise permit.

They also depend on pitting you against your neighbors. If they can get you to beg someone else to control your neighbor, through limiting his choices of what to do with his own body or his own property, they gain power. And never forget they are encouraging your neighbor to seek protection from you, too. It's a sad and silly circle I refuse to be a part of.

Since you do just fine without being ruled in almost all of your daily life, what makes you believe you need to be ruled in any of it? Almost no one believes they need to be ruled; it's those "others" who need to be controlled. What makes you fear others and feel so inadequate when facing them that you want to hide behind someone else's skirt? It's time to stop hiding and take the wheel. You'll be glad you did.

.

Government employees pay zero "taxes"

It was suggested I blog about the fact that no "government" employee ever pays "taxes".

I thought I had written about that before- and I had.

Perpetual motion and "taxation"

Recently I again ran into the erroneous belief that government employees pay "taxes". This is a myth that just keeps on walking around, undead and looking for brains to munch. 

The fact of the matter: Government employees pay no taxes. Ever. Zero. Period. 

The pretense that they do is the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion device that keeps the economically ignorant among us (more) content with the status quo. 

All government employee pay comes from government-confiscated "taxes", and all the "taxes" they pay go "back" to government. (The money never actually left the government's bloody hands in the first place.) Plus some money is always lost in the shuffle between parties. The lost money is equivalent to the waste heat in a mechanical system. 

Put another way: If I paid you $100 dollars, but then demanded you pay a "tax" of 20% back to me, did I just give you $100 or did I give you only $80? Contrast it with this scenario: If I paid you $100 but you immediately paid a third party $20, I have actually, in fact, paid you $100 even if you passed some of it along to someone else. There is a difference.

It's an important fact to understand, so I hope you don't mind my posting it again.

.

Religion vs Rightful Liberty

My political/social opinions on religion pretty much begin and end with whether that religion- put into practice- violates Rightful Liberty.

All religions may have good points and bad points- I'm not familiar with all religions, or everything any of them teach in every instance. I suppose if there were no positives, no one would have ever began following it. I could be wrong.

The ancient texts may advocate horrendous things that the modern followers mostly ignore. In that case, the religion is worse than it's modern followers.

Or, the ancient texts may show a path of rightful liberty and neighborliness the modern followers ignore in order to push an agenda they prefer. In that case the modern followers are worse than their religion.

Both circumstances can even happen simultaneously in the same religion, depending on what part is being focused on.

Or, a religion can be vile, and it's modern followers may follow the vile precepts to the letter while adding their own abominations to it. I think we can all see this happening quite a bit today.

In all my readings of the Bible, I never remember even one instance of Jesus saying "There ought to be a law."

Nor "Vote ye, therefore, for the lesser of two evils so that the laws of the world can be changed in order to bring Heaven on Earth."

Didn't happen, and goes against everything else he is quoted as saying.

If, as a Christian, you try to enshrine your religion as "law", you spit on your religion and on Rightful Liberty.

If, as a Muslim, you try to enforce your religion as "law", you may be following the rules of your religion, but you are still trampling Rightful Liberty- which trumps any religion. Sorry.

In both cases, I will defy you.

.

Vanishing statists

Months ago I had someone "friend" me on Facebook. A "conservative" statist, I would guess, from the things I read on his page.

He added me and then warned me that libertarians and anarchists always ended up running away and "unfriending" him when they couldn't counter his arguments or get past his logic.

I accepted the challenge without comment.

After he responded to one or two things I wrote in the first week or so, he has slipped off into the sunset of silence. He's still on my "friend list", but I haven't seen hide nor hair of him in any comments. I wonder what happened to his self-assurance?

Then again, I tend to wonder if the guy is a sort of troll, making "conservative" statists look ridiculous by the things he promotes. It's possible.

.

"I would shoot somebody!"

Very often, when the subject of guns comes up with someone I am just meeting, they will make the comment that they "could never carry a gun", because they would "get mad and shoot someone".

That's disturbing to know.

If someone doesn't trust themselves with a gun, how can I trust them? At all?

Could part of their problem be that they don't demand responsibility of themselves, but feel it's OK to go through life like a spoiled child who could strike out anytime they get offended? Maybe a gun would force them to grow up; to take control of their impulses.

I do know it had that effect on me.

.

Good job, PA State Police!

Your overwrought, expensive, and childish vendetta has done something I have been trying to do for years: shown some diehard statists that the only ones you truly "protect and serve" are your own gang members. 

I call that a "win"!

.

Happy Halloween!

For your Halloween reading pleasure (?), here are two of my creepy stories from the past:

Melissa's Ghost (With help from Claire Wolfe)

The Werewolf

The Ghoul of Oasis

.

After these messages...

If anyone has been considering making a donation to me, this would be a nice time. It's been a while since I asked. Clickable donation buttons to the right.

Or, you can help me out in other ways.

Thanks!

.

Which package would you subscribe to?

When you sign up for cable TV service, or a satellite dish TV service, you can choose between a few "packages" they offer. You pay a set price for a lot of channels you don't want in order to get the few you do want.

That's exactly like "taxes" and The State.

You may be under the belief that you want government to tax everyone so you can have roads and "safetyness". But you can't choose to only pay for those items; you must also pay for the salaries of congressvermin, and for welfare (but I repeat myself). You pay for blatant violations of your right to own and to carry weapons to be committed against you, and for government kinderprisons. You are forced to pay for a lot of crap you don't want- and which you may even despise- to get the few things you do want.

How does this make sense to anyone?

If each of us were allowed to pay for only those things we want, I wouldn't waste my breath speaking out against "taxation"... but then it wouldn't BE "taxation", since it would be completely voluntary.

And, even if I want to pay for a particular service, I want options. I may want to buy the service from someone else who gives me more of what I want and less of what I don't. I can choose to opt out altogether. In the case of TV, that means I don't get to watch their offerings, but that's a "price" I willingly pay if I don't think the money spent is worth what I get in return.

Which illustrates a huge difference between The State and TV subscriptions: the consensual nature of the cable and satellite TV providers' services.

I haven't had TV in years (I do have Netflix streaming), and no cable company has shown up at my door to force me to choose a package they, or their satellite competitors, offer. Try refusing to pay your subscription fees for The State and see if they are as consensual as TV providers.

.

Selling reminder

Just a reminder- I still have some things for sale on eBay, and also I'm still selling patches.

"Believing in" Liberty

As much as we don't like to face it, our beliefs come first and our reasons we use to justify our beliefs follow. The smarter a person is, the better they are at finding justifications for what they already believe.

Long ago, I was a statist. Sure, I didn't trust or want much government standing in my way, but I "knew" government of some sort was necessary. And, even though I really didn't spend much time thinking about it, I could have found lots of ways to justify my beliefs- and would have even argued that the reasons I found were why I believed the way I did, rather than the other way around.

But, those subconscious reasons kept coming up against hard facts and cold reality.

At some point I did start actually thinking about it- oops.

Finally my beliefs began to change. A process that is still ongoing. (Funny, though, it has always moved in the same direction all my life- toward fewer and fewer exceptions justifying external control of others and toward a deeper respect for Rightful Liberty.)

Now I believe liberty is the only reasonable way to approach life. And I am very good at finding reasons I would say cause me to hold that belief.

.

Many confused about libertarians

Many confused about libertarians

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 26, 2014.)

Very often, in the national media, I see items which show just how confused most people are over what is "libertarian" and what isn't. Liberals confuse libertarians for conservatives; especially of the "Tea Party" variety. Conservatives confuse libertarians for liberals. No one seems to understand why those are both wrong.

It even happens locally. Recently, during some admittedly heated discussion over a local event which attracted negative international attention, someone took issue with what I consider a case of "calling a spade a spade". He thought my behavior was not very libertarian, which he mischaracterized as "do no harm".

Now libertarians are confused for doctors, too? Although only libertarianism can really heal any sick society, "do no harm" isn't a part of libertarianism.

Perhaps he was confused by our adherence to the Zero Aggression Principle, which shows our recognition of having no right to initiate force, in person or by proxy, against any other human being.

Anything less only provides refuge for the bad guys.

Libertarians fully support doing harm, through the use of physical force, to those who are caught in the act of violating any person or property. It's called "self defense" and can cause real damage to the aggressor. Personally, I am against using physical force against someone who is only caught after the fact, seeing this as vengeance rather than self defense. Vengeance is the opposite of justice, which is why government "justice systems" are so fond of it- when wielded through "official channels", at least.

Libertarians also support exposing people caught committing aggression or theft to social pressure to change their ways through shunning and ostracism. This means advertising their wrongdoing publicly, so others know and can decide whether or not to associate and do business with them. This can be seen as "calling names" by supporters of the aggressor or thief, who would rather the incident be swept under the rug and ignored.

If publicity can be considered "doing harm", so be it. Thieves and aggressors choose their path, and their complaints about what happens as a consequence don't break my heart.

On the other hand, self defense and public exposure of anti-social behavior isn't really the causing of "harm"; but the repairing of harm. Sure, from the perspective of the bad guy and his supporters, this might be harmful, but from the perspective of the rest of the individuals in society, it is what is needed to make up for harm done, and to prevent future harm by alerting everyone around to the probable danger of dealing with someone who has shown a willingness to violate person and property in the past. It's justice.

.

Everywhere, yet nowhere

The state is pervasive. Everyone seems to be wrapped up in its tentacles in some way.

Either they have a government job or their job depends on government contracts, their kid is enslaved by the military, they depend on welfare, or they feel loyal to the local government kinderprison.

And the sick people like it that way.

This entanglement makes it harder for them to face the harsh reality.

And, yet, The State only exists in the minds of those addicted to obsessing over it- either loving it or hating it.

.

Pride in shameful things

I just had a horrifying realization!

Some people- maybe most people- have some sort of psychological need to feel proud of "their" government!

Why would anyone be that pathetic?

Do they also need to feel proud of the other robbers and molesters who surround them?

Yeah, I know: Stockholm Syndrome and all that. But still... it's just bizarre!

.

Old, made up, "news" is good news to Prohibitionists

A couple of weeks ago, the local weekly paper, in the column written by the owner/publisher, was gleefully reporting the newest anti-marijuana study by Professor Wayne Hall. The paper's owner has long had a bee in his bonnet about marijuana, believing it to be a good thing to prohibit, and apparently, cage and kill people over. This "news" was exactly the sort he loves to find and pass along.

The thing is, this professor's "findings" are exactly the same sort of things the prohibitionists have been saying for decades.

And, the professor doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not causation, which means he isn't doing science, but only propping up propaganda.

His assertion "it could double the risk of severe psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia" seems to ignore the fact that people with psychiatric disorders are more likely to self-medicate, with whatever they can find, to relieve their discomfort. Even I can figure this out.

According to Hall, "those who try to stop taking the drug can often suffer anxiety, lower appetite, depression and insomnia, and less than half of people who stop taking it can stay off it for six months". And, he says "The important point I am trying to make is that people can get into difficulties with cannabis use, particularly if they get into daily use over a long period."

OK. Anything you get into a habit of doing on a daily basis can get in the way of life, and can be extremely hard to stop doing.

And, there was more bad "science" of the same kind all through his findings. Almost everything he "discovered" as a researcher working as an advisor to a Big Government group (the World Health Organization of the United Nations) is what prohibitionists want to be discovered.

And, guess what: even if everything he claims were absolutely true, it STILL wouldn't invent a right to tell other people what they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. It's totally irrelevant. That "right" doesn't exist, can't exist, and can't be invented. It doesn't matter if it's Nanny Bloomypants trying to forbid you from enjoying salt or a super-sized soft drink, or some dogwhistle trying to kill you so you can't inject heroin. No one has that right, so no one can delegate that nonexistent right. To attempt to do so is evil.

.

Good post by K on living your Rightful Liberty

Sometimes, someone else's blog post will speak to me in such a way that I just keep returning to it and reading it again and again. This is one such post: Rightful Liberty: Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock

I can't even tell you for certain why it struck such a chord in me. Maybe because it's sort of how I live. Anyway, after reading it for the fifth time or so, I decided I needed to share it.

Enjoy!

.

"Revisionist history"

One accusation that has always bewildered me is when someone gets upset and cries "Revisionist history!"

It's as if new information- if it chips away at the official story- is automatically bad.

That's the height of stupidity.

It's like refusing to accept the news that you were adopted. Or that you were born, the product of sex, if you had always been told the stork brought you.

History isn't the same as what really happened. Sometimes it's similar, but it is filtered by those relating the tales, and is often more what they want you to know than how it really went. And, there is a ridiculous focus on States and politicians and other nasty characters, while mostly ignoring the main important things of what normal people did in their normal boring lives. "Boring"- that's the problem.

Disasters, death, and disease are exciting, and nothing can bring those things about like States and bad guys acting on "behalf" of States, so they get the attention, while being extreme cases rather than normal. I mean, how many times has a president actually come into your life and affected you, personally? Me, never. Yet presidents are considered history, while the people who actually affected me (and you and everyone else, except for a tiny sample of people in the world), for good or bad, are ignored.

And, since those bad guys and people who think like them are the ones who relate the tales of the past to the new generation, they don't like it when new information leaks out showing they have cherry picked- or lied about- things that happened in the past.

Especially when it disrupts the narrative they want to push on you.

So, they need you to think that the new information is somehow revising history- by which I guess they mean "changing" the past- rather than what it is actually doing: wiping away lies and misconceptions that protect some people's "legacy" at the expense of others.

And, often, at the expense of the present and future. After all, if you don't understand where you came from, it is often hard to see where you are going.

History- the story of what happened in the past- will never (without a scope that peers through time without disrupting anything) be known with 100% accuracy, but new information will keep coming to light, and shouldn't be tossed aside simply because it doesn't fit with what you wish to believe. History will always need to keep being revised unless you love ignorance.

Of course, I have noticed the same people get upset and think that because the process of science discovers new things that sometimes modify what was previously believed to be the facts, science is unreliable and based upon whims because it doesn't remain chiseled in stone, like religion does.

.

Flint and steel kits for sale

Sven from Hunchback Ironworks has forged some nice fire strikers as a collaborative venture for the two of us, which I have put into "strike-a-light" kits to sell.

I'm going to offer them here, to give regular readers the first shot, before I list them on Dullhawk.com.

All kits come in a tin. The tins can be burned or sanded to remove the paint, for a more primitive look, if you care about that. All, that is, except for kit #5- for reasons which will be apparent.

The kits all include a small piece of flint, some char cloth to catch the spark and make a coal, and a little juniper bark tinder to make the coal become a flame. The rest is up to you.

As of now, I have 5 kits to sell. (UPDATE: I now have only kit #5 available)

• Kit #5

Kit #5 is another special kit. The striker was too large to fit inside an Altoids tin, so it got an International Coffee tin. This one comes with a plastic lid. I made cardboard partitions to keep things inside #5 organized, and to keep the char cloth a little safer- it's fragile stuff. This kit also comes with a few extra pieces of char cloth. Kit #5 costs $25.00

• Kit #1 (Sold)

This is a special kit. The striker has been polished and etched. It says "LIBERTY" on one side, and "STRIKES BACK" on the other. Kit #1 costs $25.00

• Kit #2 (sold)

Kit #2 costs $20.00

• Kit #3 (sold)

Kit #3 costs $20.00

• Kit #4 (sold)

Kit #4 costs $20.00

As a freebie, and to help those who buy the kits, here is a video I made explaining how to make more char cloth when you use up the bit that comes in the kit, and also some hints on preparing tinder.

All kits are offered on a first come, first served, basis (email me, don't rely on commenting here to get the message to me). If this goes over well, there will be more next month. And, of course, you can also contact Hunchback Ironworks directly if there's something else you need forged. Tell Sven I sent you!

And, get your preps in order.

.

See the gun aimed at you

Just think about it: all speed limit signs might as well come with a gun attached. 

They are a threat to rob you- just looking for justification by making up an arbitrary rule you'll probably break. And, make no mistake, it is an armed robbery. You will be murdered if you resist long enough. I'd like to add stickers to those vile signs to make them more honest.

Kinderprison

Yeah, that's a new word I may have just invented (or more likely, applied in a new way).

To me, a kinderprison is any school- government or "private"- based on the Prussian system of behavior modification destruction for the purpose of enforcing conformity and obedience- with a possible accidental amount of actual, useful education occurring despite the best efforts of the control freaks in charge.

Abolish the kinderprisons!

.

Trying to talk to statists

I've noticed a very consistent pattern when trying to discuss things with rabid statists. This imaginary discussion illustrates what I'm talking about.

Statist: "What's the 2nd letter of the alphabet?
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "Well, then, what letter comes after 'A'?"
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "OK, but what letter comes before 'C'?"
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "Why do you keep going in circles?"
Libertarian: "Sigh..."

Yep. That's how it goes when discussing liberty or rights with a statist. They rephrase their objections, and then complain when they get the same answers over and over.

Liberty is the answer, regardless of how badly they don't want it to be.

.

Government stops real solutions

Government stops real solutions

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 19, 2014.)

It is said "No man is an island". This seems undeniable, yet libertarians are frequently accused of believing individuals are islands. As if we see humans as isolated and alone, unable to join with others to fix problems which are beyond one person's ability, unless they form that most persistent of Utopian ideas: a government.

People coming together in a completely voluntary and consensual manner, to accomplish something they are in unanimous agreement on, is a wonderful thing to be a part of.

What we do oppose is anyone being forced to join projects they would rather not, and being forced to pay for things they either don't want, or believe they are getting a bad deal on.

Government is currently the main barrier preventing individuals from working together and finding voluntary solutions which don't violate any individuals. Its employees say they must approve, license, regulate, or coordinate every big project, and most small ones as well. Which means, in essence, "no private solutions allowed". Everything must be shoved through the meat grinder of bureaucracy and coercion before being implemented- which destroys any chance of a rational solution being put into action.

Let's say a group of individuals- perhaps ranchers, dairy owners, farmers, and any other concerned people- came together to take on some hypothetical area's ongoing water problems.

The only limitations are that no one may violate the private property of another- which means, in part, no one can be forced to pay for it against their will through taxation- and no force can be used against those who opt out of the plan. It doesn't mean those who opt out can still get the full benefits of any solution without chipping in, though.

Would I trust those individuals to find the best chance at a real, lasting solution for this crisis? If government were not allowed to interfere in any way whatsoever- yes, I would.

Could a solution actually be found? I don't know for certain.

What I do know with certainty is that government solutions to this problem have never worked. They can't. Most are analogous to having the water shut off to your house, so you decide to use the water in your water heater and toilet tanks while pretending it's a permanent solution. And buying, with your neighbor's bank account, a solid gold dipper to serve it with.

Some problems have no real solution, no matter how you treat others. But, if you commit to respecting the rights and property of all concerned, at least you haven't added to the pain. or done the wrong thing for supposedly noble reasons.

It's the mature and ethical way to approach problems.

.

The foundation of civilization

Guess what, every bad guy you have ever met or heard of has some "libertarian" leanings or qualities. Every single one. And that doesn't negate libertarianism in any way.

Everyone has some libertarian positions.

Society would collapse if that weren't true. No one would be able to work together to accomplish anything, because the first disagreement would bring out the baseball bats, brass knuckles, and guns to force everyone else to do it "my way". Any price that was "too high" would result in theft- every time- unless the seller held the buyer at gun point as long as he was shopping.

Every civilized action is libertarian by nature.

Statism is only supportable as a minority, limited condition practiced in very limited ways, and not by too many people too much of the time in too many situations. It turns on itself otherwise.

It's utterly bizarre that some people get this truth exactly backwards.

.

Hooked on being abused

It seems like so many people support the State because they enjoy doing things they believe they can only do through The State.

I'm not just talking about cops and military who want that "job" so they can use aggression without consequence- I'm talking about people with otherwise harmless hobbies and interests, who fall into a government-funded niche they don't want to give up.

The researcher who believes her job can only be supported by "tax" money.

The librarian who believes only government can fund libraries.

The "ham radio" enthusiast who loves getting the permits that validate and authorize his hobby.

The machine gun owner who chills at the thought that anyone else might have a gun like his without having to jump through the hoops he is proud to have gotten entangled in.

I am odd in that if government thugs have violated me in some way, I am not in favor of everyone else being violated in the same way, and if I love a job or hobby, I invariably want to see it freed of State control, so that it can thrive.

Why is that so hard?

.

Rigged games

I recently had some more self-awareness sneak up on me.

I realized I have a very low tolerance for rigged games. No only the political game, but in every area of life.

Once I figure out it's rigged I stop playing. I won't do what's expected. I may ignore the game altogether, or if prevented from doing that, I may refuse to abide by the rules invented by the players, and imposed on me, the one who doesn't want to play at all.

And, those who rigged the game, or insist everyone keep playing anyway, don't like it when their plot fails to trap someone. Good. Upsetting them seems a low price to pay for more liberty.

.

The predictability of statism

Statists of all sorts get very upset by the truth and reality. Those who support cops are probably the worst.

They don't wanna hear it. They'll deny. They'll dream up objections, look for exceptions. They'll look for the hard cases that nothing can fix.

As if any of that props up their superstition.

Then, when all this doesn't convince you to embrace their ways, they'll call you names, say you have to be pragmatic, tell you to "move to Somalia", or threaten aggression.

Because, since they can't handle the truth, that's all they've got on their side.

It's predictable, and sad, really.

.

The Religion of Aggression

Statism is the real "religion of violence"- and not just violence, but aggression. It's what the believers always fall back on when their tactics don't make you yield to their wishes.

ISIS is aggressive mostly because it is following the path of being a State. Without trying to be a State the aggression would be much less dangerous, and easier to counter.

Israel is aggressive because it is a State.

The US is aggressive because it is a State.

All States are aggressive by the very nature of being States.

Yes, there are non-State aggressors out there. But the worst ones often try to gain the appearance of legitimacy by joining (or becoming) a State of some kind.

But States are only dangerous because of their Believers.

.

Cops- the price of legitimacy

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

IF police are to have any legitimacy whatsoever, and that's a mighty big "if", they must be reminded that they have no "authority" that you or I don't have.

They were supposed to be nothing more than the butler who does what you or I didn't feel like doing right now. Just like you have the authority to haul your own trash to the dump, but you hire someone else to do it because you don't want to be bothered. And if trash collectors start acting like they can order you around, use aggression against you if you decide you can no longer afford or risk their "services", they'll become uppity, dangerous goons just like cops have become, and I'll fire them, too. If I am forced to keep paying them, I am being robbed.

That's right- cops are lowly servants, not masters.

They say "jump"; we ask "Why?" If they can't give a reasonable answer, we walk away after firing them.

We say "jump"; they ask nothing until after they jump. Their immediate, grovelling obedience comes as a price of the "job". If they don't like it, they can go get an honest job.

That's the price of legitimacy. If they refuse to pay it they can continue to be nothing more than the thieving, aggressive bad guys more and more people are recognizing them to be.

I have no "need" for servants who have become uppity and abusive and murderous. I take back responsibility for my own life (as if I ever handed it over to such pathetic people).

.

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 12, 2014.)

Contrary to what many seem to believe, libertarians are not against rules. In fact, they are defined by adherence to one rule in particular: the Zero Aggression Principle. It simply states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." This basically means "Don't start violence by throwing the first punch, or by sending someone else to throw the first punch."

Live by that rule and you are a libertarian whether you know it or not; don't live by it and you aren't libertarian no matter what you say.

Natural Law aligns flawlessly with the Zero Aggression Principle, including the necessity of respecting the property rights of others.

Other rules are helpful for self preservation.

Following the dosage rules for medication is smart. Rules for proper food preparation or keeping your water safe to drink are necessary. Following rules for safe gun handling helps you survive. Some people don't obey good rules and suffer the consequences.

Still other rules have evolved concerning customary behavior. Pausing at intersections and driving on the right side of the road (where this is the custom) are examples of this. These would be smart things to do regardless of laws dictating them, simply because everyone has come to expect this, and refusing to cooperate will needlessly endanger your life and the lives of innocent people. Of course, these rules vary from place to place, so don't fall into the trap of believing they are universal like Natural Law. Even when these rules find their way into laws, some people will refuse to follow these rules and will cause harm.

The legitimate rules, which are sometimes reflected in invented, statutory law, are the ones which would survive and be followed by most people without being enforced, or even written down. If you don't follow them, you'll probably suffer.

Most libertarians are fine with these rules, and are simply against arbitrary, unnecessary, or harmful rules.

Bad rules would soon die out without armed enforcement keeping them propped up. Rules like coming to a complete stop at stop signs, when no one really believes it is essential to driving safely; or having a license plate or a drivers license. Or arbitrary speed limits. Speed limits are silly, since even the law tosses them aside on a whim; thus "driving too fast for conditions", even when well below the "speed limit".

Other arbitrary, unnecessary or harmful rules would include those regulating the owning and carrying of weapons, rather than the aggressive use of those weapons. Or rules imposing taxation. Or compulsory school attendance.

Keep the good rules; scrap the rest.

.

Comments on The Crimes of Officer Brent Aguilar- UPDATED

I rarely do this, but you really should go back and read the comments posted on The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers.

It shows just how hard statists will try to justify their superstitious beliefs. I'll admit, the guy is good at it.

Funny, though, how many things I bring up that he conveniently ignores- skipping right over that to try another direction.

And, am I mistaken, or did the sorry little butt nugget just threaten me?

I think you'll enjoy reading through the comments, and keep checking back. He may not be done.

-

UPDATED- He's still at it and digging himself even deeper, and getting more desperate.

.

Can't fight reason? Just nuke 'em.

I just finished reading an excellent book, The Market for Liberty, which came highly recommended by one of the commenters here- I'll probably have more to say about it soon.

But, in reading how the authors say a free society would spread, because the States around the world couldn't compete with it, makes me wonder something inconvenient which the authors seem to have ignored.

Would governments join together in an attempt to attack and destroy a free society which was embarrassing them and attracting "their people" and businesses? Rather than trying to compete, and locking down their "borders" and outlawing emigration, would they simply nuke the free area to "solve" the problem?

I'm afraid I believe they just might do it, since there is no other way they could compete.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily be successful, since a free society would probably be filled to the brim with people who were obsessive about defense and weaponry- which no one would be able to criminalize.

And, in such a scenario, "winning" doesn't mean the aggressors were right and that statism is moral or ethical. It just means they were stronger or lucky. Just like any murderer who manages to kill his victim.

But, it's something I have seen in my own life: when statists can't win with reason, they resort quickly to force, which they always believe they have a right to initiate against anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's why they, while ridiculous, are dangerous and need to be watched.

.

Statists telling me what I want...

From where comes the assumption that if someone harms me, I want the guilty person kidnapped and placed in a cage- that I must finance whether I can afford it or not?

Not only am I expected to want to pay for the cage, the guards, my violator's food and electricity, the upkeep of the cage, his medical bills, and all the bureaucracy to keep him caged "legally", but I am also supposed to want to pay for the cops who "caught" him.

Screw that!

I want justice, not punishment. And justice doesn't come from The State.

Punishing others benefits me in no way, even when you punish the real guilty person, but actually harms me when the punishment is financed by me and others against our will. Heaping violation on top of violation to punish some violators is not a healthy "system".

Yet, I am told all the time that "no victim wants their violator to 'go free'".

Once again, I am "no one".

.

Statism- the self-contradictory superstition

Statism is nothing but a web of contradictory beliefs. It's not internally consistent in any way. You can see an illustration of that anytime you witness a debate between a statist and a non-statist.

People are flawed, so they must be controlled by people. 

"Laws" are good and necessary, even though I disagree with some of them. 

Crime exists, so The State is necessary to stop crime- even though The State has been around for thousands of years and crime still exists.

It's not wrong (theft/"taxation", kidnapping/"arrest") if government does it. 

And on and on it goes.

Sometimes the stupid hurts.

But, I try very hard to have patience with statists. Because I care and I believe their lives will be better if they stop being so stupidly inconsistent and self-contradictory. Some days, though, I think "Are you even listening to yourself?!?"

Without those inherent contradictions, statism simply ceases to be. It evaporates to be replaced by something else. It is replaced by anarchism, voluntaryism, or whatever you wish to call it. It's like a breath of fresh air to those who finally allow themselves to breathe.

.

Understanding; not accepting

I sometimes understand those who initiate force- or want to- while recognizing they have no right to do so.

I am only human and have had the same perverse desires crop up myself.

I admit I was wrong when I wanted to initiate force- why is it so hard for some people to accept the same?

.