It's elementary. Once you eliminate the impossible...

(Previously published on my Patreon page*)

Understanding liberty comes somewhat naturally to me because it is who I am. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. But I want to be better. I want to always be improving. So I read what others have written concerning liberty, and then once it gets into my brain, I digest it, take it apart, and see what makes it tick. Without even really trying- it's automatic. Then I try to make it part of me, and share it with you when it is ripe. That's where this blog comes from.

I want to be able to dig to the very foundation of liberty in every situation. I want to recognize it from every angle under any condition. I'll pull out a magnifying glass and look at all it's nooks and crannies and warts and worn spots. I want to be the Sherlock Holmes of liberty- without the bad personality parts (some of which I may share with the character anyway).

I think that will make me a better person- or at least minimize any bad. And everything I have learned has shown me that respecting liberty in others is necessary to being a decent human being.

But, I have to put more work into the other aspects of my life. And some of those come much less naturally to me. I know I can be unemotional. I also know I can be overly emotional once triggered by something I deeply care about. I know I can be too quiet in person, and I know I can overshare. I know I can be too cold, and I can be too passionate. Balance is a good thing. Through it all, I know if I keep Rightful Liberty as the goal, I'm heading in the right direction.

-

* I haven't decided how to do this. I will probably have some that stay "subscriber only", and others I will publish here at a later date. As I have mentioned, all Paypal subscribers will also get the "subscriber only" blogs in an email. I feel a little bad holding some things back, and will not let the "quality" of the blog suffer for Patreon. I really do need to increase my income, though. Feel free to chime in with thoughts about this development.

.

Excuses to do nothing

Why do you hesitate to advocate for real Rightful Liberty? Because you see the effects it could have in our current situation?

There will always be some government-manufactured problem which will seem to be an excuse to not solve another government-manufactured problem with the application of copious amounts of Liberty.

You can't get rid of all anti-immigration "laws" because of welfare.

You can't get rid of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs because of the poor economy and lack of jobs.

You can't call for the elimination of "taxation" because too many are dependent upon the "services" it pays for.

You can't get rid of cops because anti-gun "laws" have emboldened aggressors and thieves.

You can't get rid of all anti-gun "laws" because .... well, because I suppose criminals of all stripes are scared of being shot.

You can't abolish kinderprisons because people have forgotten that educating themselves and their children is one of the main responsibilities of humans.

The excuses are seemingly endless.

Those are no reason to keep doing the wrong thing for fear of what might happen as a consequence of doing the right thing. Do the right thing- get rid of the counterfeit rules- and then eliminate each new government-created problem as it crops up.

That's how you get from here to there; not the "strategy" of refusing to ever do anything right because someone has set up a system that means the right thing might cause a problem.

Get over the cowardice. Stand up and do the right thing every time you have a choice.

.

Call a Crackhead?

(Previously posted on Patreon)

I saw the attached picture on "social media". So, apparently, to cop lovers there's no choice other than either inviting cops or calling a crackhead? Nothing in between those extremes? Seems silly to me, but if that were the only choice, calling a crackhead would still probably be the wiser choice.

But, what about this: Why not set up an alternate "emergency number" to compete with 911, but one to be monitored by volunteers. No "tax" money involved, so no coercion or theft required. Since no one would be forced to call them in an emergency, not being the only game in town, they would have incentive to "police" their own ranks and keep out anyone who creates problems (or murders at the drop of a hat), or who seems twitchy and potentially dangerous- you know, opposite of how cops operate.

I think lots of people would love to join such a group. And, instead of the has-been high school bullies attracted to the police department, its shiny trinkets, and gangland opportunities, you'd get people who actually want to help. Not those who want to throw around "authority" and enjoy a license to kill.

When you call this number and someone shows up, if you don't want that person's help because you know the individual and don't trust them, or because they are escalating the situation, send them on their way. They might think you unwise, but if they didn't leave they'd be trespassing and would be liable. And there would be no "qualified immunity" or FOP to hide behind.

Since they would have no "authority" to kidnap ("arrest") beyond what any other person has (you know, the way cops are actually supposed to be) there would be no great risk, and since they would be held accountable for murdering an innocent person, they wouldn't be as trigger-happy or dangerously aggressive. They would have no incentive to meddle and look for "drugs" or weapons which have nothing to do with their business, but would need to limit themselves to the business at hand.

I know I'd feel better calling these guys for help.

No "system" would be perfect, but the only advantage cops have now, as "first responders", is that they have a dispatcher and a standardized phone number. You can't usually call just one number and have immediate response and backup- if you call your friend and he doesn't answer the phone, you may not have time to make a second call. So, most people call the cops even knowing there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the mix. This idea would fix that.

Yes, I realize cops and those who worship them would object to this idea- and fight you with every "law" they could dream up. After all, something like this would expose just what a bad idea cops are, and how dangerous and worthless they have become. "We" can't have that, now, can we?

Added: Someone found this, which sounds like a very similar idea. I have no personal experience or knowledge of them, but it might be a good thing to look into: Peacekeeper

Added later: Here is another option to check out: Cell 411

.

Bigfoot and "good cops"

Just having some fun. Feel free to "steal" and share any you like.

So, which is it?

Libertarianism is often criticized as only being for "rich white guys".

Of course, in the next breath it will be said to only be for losers who live in their mom's basement.

It's for people who think too much... or is it for people who don't think things through?

It is said it can't work in the "real world" by people who support Statism- which has failed to accomplish the supposed reason for its imposition every single time it has been imposed- for thousands of years.

But, statists have never been accused of being rational or consistent. Just "pragmatic" and "normal".

.

The reason for "speed limits"

Speed limits have got to be one of the silliest and most pointless expressions of the control-freak State.

Very few people drive dangerously fast. And those who do aren't slowed down by arbitrary speed limits.

Yet, speed limits are usually set just a hair below the speed everyone feels like driving. That's not for safety, since the speed limit could safely be set at the speed just about everyone drives anyway, but that would deprive the thieves of the State a revenue stream, and would give their highwaymen nothing to do.

Theft- that is really all there is to speed limits.

.

Cops and body cameras

I'm all about solving problems.

That's why I keep repeating that police NEED to be abolished.

I also think, until then, cops need to be followed everywhere they go by people with video cameras- so that they can't pick their nose without it being put on Youtube.

But, I also want cops to be wired for video so their actions can incriminate themselves. However, we all see how "conveniently" body cams malfunction when cops decide (premeditate) to molest or murder. The excuse is "battery life" or "I forgot".

So, how about this:
Cameras which are automatically activated anytime a gun or Taser leaves the holster, and can't be shut off until the weapon is back in the holster. That wouldn't have done anything for Eric Garner, of course- his murder was on video, and his murderer didn't use a weapon. I'm not sure about cameras which are triggered by the sleeve being pressed against a neck, but anything that hobbles or inconveniences enforcers is a win for the rest of us.

I also realize that until murdering cops are held accountable, all the evidence in the world won't change anything. But, maybe my idea would help that, too, by changing "public perception".

.

Patreon

Yes, I signed up because "everyone's doing it".

I guess I am susceptible to the bandwagon effect, after all.

Here's my page: KentForLiberty on Patreon

And, notice my "milestone goal". Is it a threat, or a promise? You decide. ;)

Those of you subscribing through Paypal (or anyone who'd like to start doing so), don't switch (because I like the convenience)- just let me know if you'd also like to get a reward like those my Patreon supporters will enjoy.

Thanks!

.

Abolish the boot heel of tyranny

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the face of the people. Your turn is coming, no matter how "law abiding" you believe yourself to be.

Unless policing is put to an end.

I am sick to death of cops molesting, beating, robbing, murdering, waylaying, raping, and causing general harm and mayhem- and idiots still fawning over them as if they are HEROES or something.

Get a clue: they are not heroes, they are the enemy of everything decent and good. Yes, they may also be the enemy of some bad people too, but don't make the fatal error of thinking that makes them your buddy. The Crips and Bloods and MS-13 are enemies (I guess- I have no real knowledge of pathetic gangs of any sort), but they are not your friends, either.

"Officer Friendly" was probably always a myth- even he committed acts of enforcement justified by counterfeit "laws" and lived on stolen money. You don't thank (or worship) a mugger just because he gets a kitten out of a tree occasionally.

You can't be a cop, performing "your duties" which go along with the "job", and be a decent or "good" person. It's impossible and self-contradictory. Yes, you may be "nice" to people you aren't enforcing on- or threatening with enforcement. No one can survive without being nice to most people most of the time- not even the worst monster imaginable.

Face the reality. Cops are bad, and are a destabilizing, dehumanizing, force for evil. They are not now, and have never been, "necessary".

Abolish the police. And in the meantime, shun them to death and let them starve in the cold, without selling them anything they need to survive, and without excusing those who continue to support these worthless tax junkies.

Yes, abolish the police and replace them with Rightful Liberty and a universally armed population. You and your descendants will be glad you did.

.

People don't realize what it's like...

One of the most astonishingly ignorant (or stupid) comments I saw in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision was this:

Ppl don't realize what it's really like being a police officer and facing death just to do your job.

The same could be said about an armed robber or a rapist. They face death just to do their "job", too. and their "job" is no more disgusting than that of a cop. I do "realize" a lot about cops, from peaceable interactions with some.

And the "job" of committing acts of enforcement isn't even that dangerous. Unless you're a coward, Copsuckers don't realize that a safe "job" which shouldn't be done, and which violates everyone it touches, is going to inspire some backlash and hatred.

If cops have a problem with facing death for "just" doing their "job", why don't they quit and get honest jobs? It's a simple solution.

.

Another invigorating Facebook debate. No, seriously.

If you have Facebook and the ability to see this post, I highly recommend it.

This is one of those debates with a statist that leaves me feeling re-charged and invigorated.

.

Fictional good guys, real life villains

Sometimes I have a little trouble swallowing fiction that portrays government as the good guys.

I have to remind myself it's just fiction. Like friendly pirates on kids' shows. Or shows where the plot revolves around the existence of magic. Fiction, nothing more.

Yet, dishonestly portraying government employees as "good guys" seems somewhat more damaging than those other sorts of fiction. After all, few of us will ever run into pirates (other than those of the IRS or the highway patrol), nor would we mistake them for the friendly characters from fiction if we did, and Harry Potter isn't our next door neighbor.

Government employees, and the "laws" they enforce against us, are all around. It is guaranteed they will shove their way into our lives at some point. Fooling people into believing they are "good guys" can cause real, lasting damage.

No, I don't call for "laws" requiring the media to portray them honestly- as the monstrously aggressive tax-junkies they truly are. I just remind you to keep straight the difference between reality and fiction in your own mind.

.

Statism no way to deal with people

Statism no way to deal with people

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

Walking down a lonely trail, with no one else around, do your politics matter? Even to yourself?

When shipwrecked on a deserted island, or sitting alone in your house, it doesn't matter how you believe you should relate to other people. Politics is hypothetical in isolation. Once you add one other person- or an entire society of individuals- to the mix, how you interact with them becomes critically important and displays your character in vivid detail for all to see.

There are healthy ways to deal with other people and there are unhealthy ways. Trying to find the pragmatic way to control others and their property is the unhealthy way. The belief that governing others is a legitimate way to relate to people is called statism, and The State is how the unhealthy method manifests itself on a large scale. Crime- real crime, such as theft and aggression- is nothing but statism on an individual scale; stripped bare of the veil of legitimacy a government may appear to give it.

Respecting the rights of everyone to live as they see fit, as long as they aren't violating the person or property of any other individual- while maintaining your absolute human right to defend your life, liberty, and property against all violators- is the only healthy way to deal with other people. It's the opposite of statism: libertarianism.

I can't begin to tell you how many times I have seen the argument that liberty only works in desert island scenarios, but as soon as you add more people you must find a way to control each other "for the good of your society"; a euphemism for finding an excuse to violate each other in some way, and usually appoint someone to do it on your behalf in order to maintain the illusion that you are still civilized. This is exactly backwards.

Like any principle lubricating the gears between yourself and others, libertarianism only matters when you are around another person. Unfortunately, it seems to require more thought and effort than simply passing arbitrary and harmful laws, and letting someone else- paid by taxation taken from you and your victims- enforce those laws against anyone who may annoy you.

Alone, you could be a homicidal dictator, and no one would be harmed. When around other people you had better drop that childishness and start respecting everyone's rights if you want to live an ethical life.

It's unfortunate that statism tends to shield violators from their victims, but this still doesn't make the violators right, nor does it make their victims wrong when one defends himself from the violations.

.

Wilson vs Brown, or cops vs everyone else?

The thing that bothers me most about the thuggish enforcer Darren Wilson vs freelance thug Michael Brown deadly encounter is that I don't for one second believe that if you or I (or any non-enforcer) had been in Wilson's place we would have been treated the same and given the same deference and courtesy.

We would have probably been arrested (even if not "officially") and put through suspected-criminal treatment even if we ultimately didn't end up being charged with any sort of crime. We wouldn't have been allowed to remain free, but would have been subjected to tests and forced to immediately explain our actions without the benefit of a political gang like that which was allowed to to insulate and protect Wilson from scrutiny until he had time to come up with a story.

I am in support of self defense even if you are a cop. And, maybe this really was a case of self defense. But enforcers are not entitled to special treatment. I want everyone who claims self defense to be treated the same by the "authorities" as Wilson was. If that means they all "get away with it", then too bad.

The double standard illustrated by this case (and every case of a shooting by enforcer) is what really infuriates me.

.

American and US laws and the Ten Commandments

Are "our laws" based on the Ten Commandments? (I say "our laws", in quotes, because that's a silly way to phrase it. "Laws" belong to that mental illness called "The State", not to you or me.)

I see people claiming all the time that the biblical Ten Commandments form the foundation of "American Law". I sure hope not!

Actually, the first four commandments are strictly religious in nature and have no business being imposed by "law". In fact, the First Amendment forbids it (as does decency). That, of course, didn't stop Christian Sharia from being imposed.

Adultery and coveting might be bad ideas, personally, but they have no business being made "law" either. Adultery could be a contractual violation- or it might not be. Depending on your specific contract, and whether the other party violated it first. Making it a universal "law" is silly.

Coveting is a purely mental condition and, as long as you didn't act on it and steal (which is covered later), can't hurt anyone but yourself. Self-damaging thoughts are not within anyone's authority to forbid. Only a tyrant would pretend to have the authority to tell you what you are allowed to think- and I don't see how this could ever be expected to be enforced.

Honoring your parents might generally be nice (but certainly not universally a good thing) but would make a lousy "law".

Only the commandments against murder, theft, and bearing false witness have any business being defended against (notice I don't say they should be made law, since all laws are either unnecessary or harmful- you don't need "laws" forbidding aggression or theft to be right to defend yourself from them). These are secular commandments that aren't unique to Judeo-Christian morality. Natural Law covers them quite nicely without the baggage.

So, how many "laws" in the US Police State are really based upon the Ten Commandments? A small minority of them. And many of the ones which are, shouldn't be "laws" at all.

How many exceptions to the principles of the three remaining secular commandments are granted to vicious monsters as long as they commit their violations under the veil of "government"? More than it is possible to count.

So, US "laws" are founded upon the Ten Commandments? Don't be ridiculous!

.

Drug "offenses"? Set 'em free!

As you probably know, I don't "believe in" imprisonment. I would rather aggressors and thieves be shot and killed by their intended victims (or a rescuer) at the time and place of the violation, and I realize that imprisonment doesn't result in restitution or justice.

But, I'll ignore all that for a moment.

Even if someone has done something bad, if they are caged for something else that isn't bad, but only "illegal", they should be let out.

That means even if a person attacked an innocent person, but got "arrested" for (or convicted of) drug possession instead, he should be set free. Force the State's goons to focus on the actual wrong, instead of the easy (and lazy) mala prohibita crap that they usually use.

That would result in fewer innocent people in the State's cages; propping up the State's prison industry.

Yes, that also means more bad guys on the streets (temporarily). It's a necessary trade-off until a free society evolves. And, if actual bad guys attack, "shoot, shovel, and shut up".

.

Painkiller equality

If it's wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to take aspirin.
The two things are ethically identical. Although aspirin is probably more dangerous to your health, and easier to overdose on.

If it is wrong to smoke pot, it is also wrong to drink coffee.

If it is wrong to use one substance to relieve stress, alleviate pain, relax, or feel pleasure, it is wrong to do the same using any other substance or technique. The substance or technique is irrelevant.

Making up (or supporting) "laws" in denial of this fact is wrong. Supporting those who enforce those "laws" is heinous.

.

"Support your local LEOs"

Those who sport a "support the police" sticker- or similar government extremist sentiment stickers- on their vehicle bumpers disturb me.

I assume a certain percentage display those stickers as a talisman (I've known some who admitted as much), hoping that by showing loyalty to the State they won't be targeted for victimization. But most probably really mean it. And that's sick.

They might as well have "I love genocide" bumper stickers.

Or "Give cannibalism a try!"
"Bring back slavery!"
"Burn all witches"
"Support Rapists"
"Child Sacrifice to ensure the harvest!"

Yeah, it really is that bad.

Few of them would ever be able to recognize what it really is they are supporting, but you know.

.

TOLFA for the holidays

I could find out how long it has been since I reminded you to attend TOLFA- The On Line Freedom Academy- but I won't because it doesn't matter. A reminder is never out of line.

The holidays are a busy time. The second harvest festival and that old approaching Solstice give people a good excuse to celebrate before winter bears down. But the holidays also apparently give people a lot of time to spare, since they tend to watch a lot of televised games. And, sometimes hide in a spare room to catch a breath from all the relatives. Or is that just me?

Why not use some of that time to start going through the TOLFA course? Consider it a gift you are giving yourself- and one you'll probably want to share with others.

.

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. You are sovereign; act like it.

"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.

.