I admit, I despise ISIS on a couple of different levels. They are religious, and they are a State. They also, because they are a State, use aggression to coerce others. But I am willing to look beyond my prejudices and consider the question more deeply:
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
The logic behind statism
Because poison exists in the world, we must add it to our soup, otherwise we might be poisoned by accident.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
Liberty, literally
I got lectured recently (and not for the first time) by someone who believes the word "liberty" means the opposite of what I mean when I use the word- the negative opposite of what the word should mean.
His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".
This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".
Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.
Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?
.
His definition is the one which means "permission from authority". Such as the military meaning of the word "liberty".
This tendency for enemies of liberty, rights, anarchy and all the positive things in life to assign an opposite, negative meaning to a good word is just like the recent redefinition of the word "literally" to also mean the opposite of "literally"- "figuratively".
Which is why I am pretty careful to constantly harp on what I mean when I use a word. I think it makes misunderstandings less likely, but some people want to misunderstand and argue. There's no stopping them if that's what they want, but they sure look silly.
Of course, this is the same person who believes in his magical incantations, so what do I expect?
.
Monday, March 02, 2015
The Cult of Punishment
A lot of people- even those self-identifying as "mostly libertarian"- are big fans of punishment.
They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.
Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.
With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.
Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.
But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?
Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?
Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.
Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.
What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?
Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.
The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.
So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.
How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)
Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.
Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.
If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.
The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.
I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.
If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.
If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.
I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.
.
They may prefer private punishment over State, "tax"-funded punishment, but just as rape isn't "better" because you aren't wearing a cop uniform when you commit it, punishment doesn't magically become alright just because you don't call yourself The State.
Many people seem to forget that government isn't what makes aggression wrong; aggression is what makes government wrong. Along with theft.
With most violations, punishment actually helps no one. Restitution can make things right- or as right as humanly possible- and the guilty may feel "punished", but with restitution, there is a quantifiable goal and when the debt is paid, it is over. No so with prison, which costs the victim even more ("tax" money to house and feed the aggressor/thief), therefore victimizing the victim again, as well as everyone else who has better uses for their money than maintaining a human farm.
Punishment feeds a psychological desire to see a person who made someone else suffer, also suffer. As much or more than his victim. As with many psychological desires, this one is not healthy, while still being understandable. I think it is somewhat immature (and I have fallen into the same trap, so any fingers pointed at anyone else are also pointed back at myself). Basically, punishment only makes the fans of punishment feel better.
But, many believe punishment is especially "necessary" in order to either force an aggressor to pay back a debt which can't be paid back, or to ensure a reduction in aggression into the future. After all, there can be no restitution for some things, and "what if" the guilty person attacks again?
Does this sort of punishment actually accomplish what its proponents claim?
Does punishment pay the debt for a rape or murder? If something is truly paid for, then the violation ceases to be. If so, then there is no more reason to feel like a victim, or damaged, once punishment has been exacted and the violation is "paid". Things are either back to how they were before the violation took place, or the victim is satisfied with the outcome. I doubt any victim of rape or murder would make that claim, even if the aggressor were tortured to death, slowly, over the course of months. So punishment fails spectacularly in this instance.
Punishment can never "pay" for a rape or murder.
What about ensuring a reduction in the violations into the future?
Apparently, those who are prone to commit aggression don't worry much about consequences. Or, at least those who don't try to veil their acts with the false legitimacy of government don't worry much about consequences. For one thing, they all seem to believe they'll never be caught; that only happens to "the other guy" who isn't as clever.
The one thing which does seem to alter their behavior is the realization that the pool of potential targets has a high percentage of armed people in it. This is an immediate consequence they can actually visualize and adjust their behavior to deal with. Such as, seeking out places which criminalize self defense and the effective tools with which to carry it out.
So, I am very dubious about the claim that harsh punishment carried out on one aggressor will change the behavior of others in a way that will reduce aggression in the long run. Your best bet is to be prepared to defend yourself and those around you from bad guys.
How about the guy you've caught in the act? (And who somehow survived being caught.)
Sure, if you "execute" a murderer, he won't murder again. Most probably wouldn't have anyway, but let's pretend they would have. Unless they went on to commit 2 or more murders you haven't gained anything, since their death- at a time when they were not currently engaged in aggression (otherwise it isn't an "execution". it is self defense) and were under control (because unless they are under your total control how could you perform your death healing ritual on them?) is one more death than existed before you committed the act. Sure, you could say that his potential future victims were innocent, and he is a murderer, so his death doesn't count for as much. But, again, if he is not currently committing aggression or theft at the time you kill him, he is- at that moment- innocent of anything worthy of death.
Most murders are a "one-off" event. No, that doesn't help the victim, but it also makes it silly to kill the murderer to prevent more murders in the future. The exception is the person who goes on a murder spree- and they are much less likely to survive long enough for punishment to be an issue, unless the pool of targets has been "legally" primed (disarmed) for their convenience.
If you execute someone who wasn't caught in the act, your chance of murdering an innocent person is too great for me to support in any way. And if you use "tax" money to carry out any form of punishment, you are heaping evil on top of evil.
The ONLY legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Period. You can sort out any details beyond that later.
I don't "believe in" imprisonment, either, but at least this act is subject to restitution of sorts if it is discovered you are accusing the wrong person. A death penalty isn't.
If a person deserves (by your account) to be in a cage, he probably deserves to be killed by his next target. Or by a witness to his next act of theft or aggression. Yes, some will escape to violate again. Nothing will ever prevent that- not even if we are all kept in cages with round-the-clock surveillance. The dangers associated with "too much liberty" are preferable to those associated with too little. If you disagree, you can establish your own parallel "system"- just leave me out of it.
If you believe in punishment, and actually act on that belief, I may judge you to be the bad guy. If you still believe you are right, then my opinion shouldn't matter. Do what you are going to do with a clear conscience. If you find your conscience nagging you, though, perhaps you should examine your premises a little more deeply.
I truly believe a desire to see punishment carried out hurts you as much- or worse- than those you believe you are using it against. I have seen it over and over again. Choose to believe me or not.
.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
It's that Old White Magic again
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.
I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.
Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.
I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...
.
I have said several times that I am not a believer in magical incantations. Those who think they have discovered the obscure things to say to government employees, to get those parasites to slink away in shame, are (I believe) sincere, but deluded.
I shared the link to my recent post, Liberty- I don't, on Facebook and got slammed by one of "those guys". Mostly I pity him. But I really didn't appreciate his attitude.
Don't get me wrong- I think it would be great if there were words you could recite to send govthugs scurrying never to molest you again. From what I've seen, the attempt doesn't usually work too well for those who depend on it.
I really don't know what to say to people who believe this- especially those who get hysterical because I don't buy what they are selling. I wish them luck in pursuing their beliefs, and if it ever starts working, I may change my mind. Until then...
.
Liberty- I don't!*
I don't want to tax anyone.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.
And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.
*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".
.
I don't want to criminalize anything.
I don't support any State or government.
I am not "for" any politician.
I don't want anyone punished- especially not by "law".
I give no weight to permits, licenses, papers, or whatever statists believe legitimize things.
I don't believe in the Cult of The State in any way, shape, or form, nor for any reason.
And I have a difficult time understanding those who do.
-
*A play on "Freedom- I won't" from "And Then There Were None".
.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Governing- always without authority
The biggest problem with "the left" and "the right" is that they just don't understand that government has no authority. They cheer when The State does something they like; they scream and wail when government does something they hate. They never seem to figure out "government" is just bad people with control issues gathering together under one label to do things to you that you'd recognize as evil if someone did them without first calling themselves "government".
Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.
Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).
Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.
If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.
Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.
Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).
Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.
If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.
.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
A snake in the grass
I hate to give this guy more views on his rather unpopular video, but when he says "Nutball 'Patriots' accuse Dave of being an undercover federal agent bent on the destruction of the 'Patriot Movement'" (in the video's description), he is talking about me.
I am not a "patriot", and I never mentioned "The Patriot Movement" in the discussion he is referring to (which I have preserved in its entirety by screen cap, for posterity). I also never sent him any private message- and suggested (in a public comment on the video) he post screen caps of any I supposedly sent him.
.
I am not a "patriot", and I never mentioned "The Patriot Movement" in the discussion he is referring to (which I have preserved in its entirety by screen cap, for posterity). I also never sent him any private message- and suggested (in a public comment on the video) he post screen caps of any I supposedly sent him.
He is a liar on these points, so if you are listening to his advice in regards to anything else, be very careful.
I can't believe people actually recommended him to me in the past. No thanks. With "friends" like him, I don't need any aggressors.
Added- Here are the screencaps, in case you are interested and can't see them on Facebook. As usual, click to embiggen:
Added- Here are the screencaps, in case you are interested and can't see them on Facebook. As usual, click to embiggen:
Let's get this underground railroad moving
So, UPS and FedEx refuse to ship the Ghost Gunner. That's within their rights*- or the rights of the owners, anyway. (*I'm slightly dubious on the basis that they got in bed with The State by incorporating and basically becoming part of The State, but I'll ignore that objection for the moment.)
So, how to get Ghost Gunners to those who bought them? I am willing to be a station on the Ghost Gunner underground railroad. Maybe "the Ghost Railroad" would be a more appropriate name. And I offer this service without charge, simply because I think it is in my best interest to get as many of these as possible to the people who will use them.
This is something concrete I can do for liberty.
Maybe this isn't a good idea- and yes, I see potential problems. Maybe Defense Distributed doesn't need my help. I offer it anyway.
So, I am writing to Defense Distributed, offering my services. I hope lots of people are willing to join me.
(H/T to War on Guns.)
.
So, how to get Ghost Gunners to those who bought them? I am willing to be a station on the Ghost Gunner underground railroad. Maybe "the Ghost Railroad" would be a more appropriate name. And I offer this service without charge, simply because I think it is in my best interest to get as many of these as possible to the people who will use them.
This is something concrete I can do for liberty.
Maybe this isn't a good idea- and yes, I see potential problems. Maybe Defense Distributed doesn't need my help. I offer it anyway.
So, I am writing to Defense Distributed, offering my services. I hope lots of people are willing to join me.
(H/T to War on Guns.)
.
Don't waste your worry
I always hear people saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about".
I have my doubts, due to the fact I have actually learned from history.
But how about this: If you are going to worry anyway, why not go ahead and do the things you are afraid you'll be accused of? At least then you can worry with good reason.
Of course, those who usually say the parroted police state mantra I quoted at the beginning won't worry about anything until they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Jackboot's gun. And then they'll be so surprised and convince themselves that it's one of those rare "bad apples"*.
.
I have my doubts, due to the fact I have actually learned from history.
But how about this: If you are going to worry anyway, why not go ahead and do the things you are afraid you'll be accused of? At least then you can worry with good reason.
Of course, those who usually say the parroted police state mantra I quoted at the beginning won't worry about anything until they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Jackboot's gun. And then they'll be so surprised and convince themselves that it's one of those rare "bad apples"*.
-
*The "bad apples" give the other 0% of cops a bad name..
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Abolish the FCC for TRUE net neutrality
So, since it seems inevitable that the State will vote to give itself power and false authority to destroy the internet (if not now, soon, since they can never be content to live with it when they lose a vote, but keep trying until they get their way- which they always, eventually do), how can "we" route around the damage? I'm sure someone can, even if it shuts me out due to not being technical enough.
Sure, I lived without the internet until about 2002, and although I have enjoyed it (mostly), I can live without it again.
I swiped this pic from Claire's blog, but I have seen it a couple other places over the past few days:
I have no doubt that any damage to the internet will be temporary, since freedom will find a way around it- either through the internet or through the next thing. It does seem a shame to allow stupid and controlling puppeticians and bureaucraps to push their idea of "neutrality" on everyone else.
Net "neutrality"? Nope. Not "neutrality" at all. They intend to neuter it, instead, because it is too dangerous to their other plans and wishes. Vermin.
.
Sure, I lived without the internet until about 2002, and although I have enjoyed it (mostly), I can live without it again.
I swiped this pic from Claire's blog, but I have seen it a couple other places over the past few days:
I have no doubt that any damage to the internet will be temporary, since freedom will find a way around it- either through the internet or through the next thing. It does seem a shame to allow stupid and controlling puppeticians and bureaucraps to push their idea of "neutrality" on everyone else.
Net "neutrality"? Nope. Not "neutrality" at all. They intend to neuter it, instead, because it is too dangerous to their other plans and wishes. Vermin.
.
A taste of his own medicine!
Don't let it be said I can't enjoy good news!
A verminous tax junkie got a small taste of karma: Sheriff that Laughed about Flash Banging a Toddler, Was Just Shot By Murderous Rogue Cop*
*Maybe that's what a "good cop" would look like
A verminous tax junkie got a small taste of karma: Sheriff that Laughed about Flash Banging a Toddler, Was Just Shot By Murderous Rogue Cop*
*Maybe that's what a "good cop" would look like
Ritual "Healings"
Can murder be healed through mystic ritual? That seems to be part of what I hear from supporters of the State's death penalty.
Burying someone up to their shoulders to be stoned, strapping them onto a gurney, or into an electric chair; it's just a ritual murder to supposedly heal society of the previous murder. To say it ensures that murderer won't kill again is just an excuse.
I'll have more to say about the Cult of Punishment later.
.
Burying someone up to their shoulders to be stoned, strapping them onto a gurney, or into an electric chair; it's just a ritual murder to supposedly heal society of the previous murder. To say it ensures that murderer won't kill again is just an excuse.
I'll have more to say about the Cult of Punishment later.
.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Libertarians are superior
(Previously posted to Patreon)
This is not polite or "nice", but it is true. I'm sure I'm not the first to point this put- I have even touched on it in the past- but it needs to be pointed out frequently. Maybe not so emphatically if you want to be listened to, I admit. I'll assume you already know this, and may just be afraid of saying it out loud. So I'll do it for you.
Liberty lovers are simply superior people. Better than statists. More intelligent. More ethical. More moral.
Anarchists/Voluntaryists/Abolitionists/libertarians ("AVAL")- whatever you want to call them- are better people to the extent they are consistent. This is contrasted by statists who are only decent when they are inconsistent and act like AVAL. And, no, it isn't humanly possible to be totally consistent- although it is a worthy goal.
When an AVAL is inconsistent they take on statist characteristics and fall short. When a statist is inconsistent (to statism as a whole, not necessarily to only his favored form of statism) and acts in an AVAL manner, he is a better person at that moment.
The same goes for those who follow a religion. As far as the religion parallels AVAL, it is good. Where it diverts it is bad. Every single time- no matter what excuse is used. While I don't understand the desire to believe in the supernatural, I do appreciate that there are a lot of religious AVAL who are reasonably consistent.
The social behavior advocated by AVAL works so much better, too. But, like a person who invents a car among cavemen, I don't expect the statists around me to do anything but hit my ideas with clubs. It's all they can do. The cavemen can't seriously be expected to hop behind the wheel and drive off into the sunset as if they've been driving all their lives. And statists can't wrap their tiny little brains around the fact that aggression and theft is a pathetic way to "organize" a society. It's all they know. So, they aggressively attack. They can't show their way is better- thousands of years of failure after failure show the holes in that silly claim.
AVAL are able to explain economics, politics, human nature, etc. with reason and logic. Statists are only able to cry that AVAL "don't understand reality" without giving a logical alternative explanation that is better and more explanatory. That's because there is none. Their argument is empty, and they can't accept it.
Statism falls again and again into how something "feels", and what government action "might" make statists feel better. Real world results mean nothing. Borders, anti-gun "laws", prohibition and all the rest of the sacred statist superstitions collapse under examination- but the "feelings" remain and to a statist, that's all that matters. If that's not an inferior mindset, I don't know what is.
I have plenty of flaws, but I always want to be better in every way. Why disadvantage myself by clinging to a flawed, irrational "philosophy" like statism unless I was satisfied with being less than I could be? There are enough hard things to improve about myself. This was an easy one.
.
This is not polite or "nice", but it is true. I'm sure I'm not the first to point this put- I have even touched on it in the past- but it needs to be pointed out frequently. Maybe not so emphatically if you want to be listened to, I admit. I'll assume you already know this, and may just be afraid of saying it out loud. So I'll do it for you.
Liberty lovers are simply superior people. Better than statists. More intelligent. More ethical. More moral.
Anarchists/Voluntaryists/Abolitionists/libertarians ("AVAL")- whatever you want to call them- are better people to the extent they are consistent. This is contrasted by statists who are only decent when they are inconsistent and act like AVAL. And, no, it isn't humanly possible to be totally consistent- although it is a worthy goal.
When an AVAL is inconsistent they take on statist characteristics and fall short. When a statist is inconsistent (to statism as a whole, not necessarily to only his favored form of statism) and acts in an AVAL manner, he is a better person at that moment.
The same goes for those who follow a religion. As far as the religion parallels AVAL, it is good. Where it diverts it is bad. Every single time- no matter what excuse is used. While I don't understand the desire to believe in the supernatural, I do appreciate that there are a lot of religious AVAL who are reasonably consistent.
The social behavior advocated by AVAL works so much better, too. But, like a person who invents a car among cavemen, I don't expect the statists around me to do anything but hit my ideas with clubs. It's all they can do. The cavemen can't seriously be expected to hop behind the wheel and drive off into the sunset as if they've been driving all their lives. And statists can't wrap their tiny little brains around the fact that aggression and theft is a pathetic way to "organize" a society. It's all they know. So, they aggressively attack. They can't show their way is better- thousands of years of failure after failure show the holes in that silly claim.
AVAL are able to explain economics, politics, human nature, etc. with reason and logic. Statists are only able to cry that AVAL "don't understand reality" without giving a logical alternative explanation that is better and more explanatory. That's because there is none. Their argument is empty, and they can't accept it.
Statism falls again and again into how something "feels", and what government action "might" make statists feel better. Real world results mean nothing. Borders, anti-gun "laws", prohibition and all the rest of the sacred statist superstitions collapse under examination- but the "feelings" remain and to a statist, that's all that matters. If that's not an inferior mindset, I don't know what is.
I have plenty of flaws, but I always want to be better in every way. Why disadvantage myself by clinging to a flawed, irrational "philosophy" like statism unless I was satisfied with being less than I could be? There are enough hard things to improve about myself. This was an easy one.
.
I hope I'm wrong, and they are, too
I hope I'm wrong, and they are, too
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 23, 2015.)
Doom and gloom. It comes at you from every direction, but relax: the doomsayers are probably wrong about almost everything.
I don't believe primitive barbarians will take over the world in the name of their religion. Sure, they want to; they just can't.
I don't believe Anthropogenic Global Climate Change- even if it's real- will destroy the world, or more specifically, civilization. Even if real and actually harmful, I don't believe giving more power to the planet's worst polluters and despoilers- governments- is a reasonable response. "Here, Br'er Fox, watch this hen house while I sleep."
I don't believe immigrants will, or even can, destroy America. The internal rot of socialism doesn't need their help since the majority of Americans absolutely love socialism as long as they can call it something else. Most Americans are also quite happy to vote to give the State more power over their own lives as long as they believe it affects someone else worse. Don't blame newcomers until you've straightened up your own house.
I don't believe energy is scarce, if governments can be prevented from withholding, regulating, rationing, and taxing it. When there's a problem, that's where it lies.
I don't believe getting governments out of the prohibition racket will result in disaster and runaway drug abuse.
The doomsayers are wrong, but I doubt they'll ever admit it.
On the other hand, there are some things I think are real threats. I hope I'm wrong.
I hope I'm wrong that the US police state will get much worse before people finally get fed up enough to get off the couch and push back to put an end to it. It's never too late, but waiting too long can make it harder to prevail and can raise the price considerably.
On a similar note, I hope I'm wrong that the majority of people will continue to eagerly give up essential liberty for false security. I hope I'm wrong and they'll turn things around before they are personally hurt.
I hope I'm wrong that a water pipeline from Ute Lake is the multi-million dollar equivalent of having your water shut off and believing you can rely on the water in your water heater and toilet tanks as a long-term solution.
I hope I'm wrong that the dollar is headed toward an inevitable collapse due to the Federal Reserve's decades-old counterfeiting scheme, and when it does collapse, people will be caught by surprise and will panic; having done nothing to prepare while living in comfortable denial about where things are headed.
If I'm wrong about those looming disasters, I'll be the first to celebrate my wrongness. Prove me wrong!
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 23, 2015.)
Doom and gloom. It comes at you from every direction, but relax: the doomsayers are probably wrong about almost everything.
I don't believe primitive barbarians will take over the world in the name of their religion. Sure, they want to; they just can't.
I don't believe Anthropogenic Global Climate Change- even if it's real- will destroy the world, or more specifically, civilization. Even if real and actually harmful, I don't believe giving more power to the planet's worst polluters and despoilers- governments- is a reasonable response. "Here, Br'er Fox, watch this hen house while I sleep."
I don't believe immigrants will, or even can, destroy America. The internal rot of socialism doesn't need their help since the majority of Americans absolutely love socialism as long as they can call it something else. Most Americans are also quite happy to vote to give the State more power over their own lives as long as they believe it affects someone else worse. Don't blame newcomers until you've straightened up your own house.
I don't believe energy is scarce, if governments can be prevented from withholding, regulating, rationing, and taxing it. When there's a problem, that's where it lies.
I don't believe getting governments out of the prohibition racket will result in disaster and runaway drug abuse.
The doomsayers are wrong, but I doubt they'll ever admit it.
On the other hand, there are some things I think are real threats. I hope I'm wrong.
I hope I'm wrong that the US police state will get much worse before people finally get fed up enough to get off the couch and push back to put an end to it. It's never too late, but waiting too long can make it harder to prevail and can raise the price considerably.
On a similar note, I hope I'm wrong that the majority of people will continue to eagerly give up essential liberty for false security. I hope I'm wrong and they'll turn things around before they are personally hurt.
I hope I'm wrong that a water pipeline from Ute Lake is the multi-million dollar equivalent of having your water shut off and believing you can rely on the water in your water heater and toilet tanks as a long-term solution.
I hope I'm wrong that the dollar is headed toward an inevitable collapse due to the Federal Reserve's decades-old counterfeiting scheme, and when it does collapse, people will be caught by surprise and will panic; having done nothing to prepare while living in comfortable denial about where things are headed.
If I'm wrong about those looming disasters, I'll be the first to celebrate my wrongness. Prove me wrong!
.
Pain-inspired thoughts
My recent hospitalization drove something into my head, more deeply than before, during some extreme discomfort:
You can't have prohibition without hurting the innocent.
You can't have liberty without some people hurting themselves.
Which of those is evil?
.
You can't have prohibition without hurting the innocent.
You can't have liberty without some people hurting themselves.
Which of those is evil?
.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Civilization's chronic disease
Civilization is an emergent property. Spontaneous order.
Government is a disease of civilization which damages that emergence and disrupts the order.
When the inevitable happens and that disease results in bad things like destruction and death, supporters of government blame anarchy- lack of the disease- and say more government is needed as the cure.
This is like saying that because a person got sick, they need more cancer.
.
Government is a disease of civilization which damages that emergence and disrupts the order.
When the inevitable happens and that disease results in bad things like destruction and death, supporters of government blame anarchy- lack of the disease- and say more government is needed as the cure.
This is like saying that because a person got sick, they need more cancer.
.
News from the right perspective
If you are into News, there is a new News site you should check out: Rightful Liberty Report
I have added it to the links on the right.
As you know, I don't focus much on News- I see it mostly as re-runs of the same things, with different names.
However, I do believe it can be important to know what is going on in the world. As long as you don't let it discourage and distract you. Remember: you are on the winning side- or at least the right one. So check it out.
.
I have added it to the links on the right.
As you know, I don't focus much on News- I see it mostly as re-runs of the same things, with different names.
However, I do believe it can be important to know what is going on in the world. As long as you don't let it discourage and distract you. Remember: you are on the winning side- or at least the right one. So check it out.
.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
A good sniper
The "news" reports of the various ISIS-assigned murders make me feel the desire to be a freelance sniper with principles (unlike certain bad guys) watching the heads of the would-be murderers explode right before they can harm their victim kneeling in front of them. No "collateral damage"; no "well, he was armed and might have wanted to kill one of 'our guys'", no financing with stolen money.
Just pure defense.
But, the same goes for wherever I happen to be; no need to travel to distant lands.
If I see one person trying to behead, burn, or otherwise torture or kill another person (including waterboarding, electrocution, lethal injection, hanging, etc.), I am going to try to stop the one who is doing the beheading, burning, torturing, murdering. Whether that means yelling "Stop! Move away!" or a head shot.
The context, or what happened before, is of no consequence. I wouldn't have time to interview both parties to see who is the actual bad guy.
That they commit their act openly, in front of witnesses, in a way their "culture" approves of, in accordance with their "laws" makes no difference.
It's just the whole "capital punishment" thing all over again.
It's why revenge is dangerous to the vengeful person. The reason you would appear to a passerby to be an aggressor is that you ARE an aggressor. Even if the person you are aggressing against is a really bad person, with a history of aggression. In that moment, you have become what you claim to be opposed to.
If you don't want to be mistaken for a bad guy, don't act like a bad guy. Claiming what you are doing is "legal" and State-approved, or wearing the silly hat (or uniform) of government, makes zero real difference.
.
Just pure defense.
But, the same goes for wherever I happen to be; no need to travel to distant lands.
If I see one person trying to behead, burn, or otherwise torture or kill another person (including waterboarding, electrocution, lethal injection, hanging, etc.), I am going to try to stop the one who is doing the beheading, burning, torturing, murdering. Whether that means yelling "Stop! Move away!" or a head shot.
The context, or what happened before, is of no consequence. I wouldn't have time to interview both parties to see who is the actual bad guy.
That they commit their act openly, in front of witnesses, in a way their "culture" approves of, in accordance with their "laws" makes no difference.
It's just the whole "capital punishment" thing all over again.
It's why revenge is dangerous to the vengeful person. The reason you would appear to a passerby to be an aggressor is that you ARE an aggressor. Even if the person you are aggressing against is a really bad person, with a history of aggression. In that moment, you have become what you claim to be opposed to.
If you don't want to be mistaken for a bad guy, don't act like a bad guy. Claiming what you are doing is "legal" and State-approved, or wearing the silly hat (or uniform) of government, makes zero real difference.
.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
When a child is not childish
Sometimes my daughter makes me smile.
Recently we were out and about on a day which experienced a rapid 40 degree temperature drop. I already felt a little guilty because since it was still warm when we had left the house, she had only grabbed a light jacket against the wind.
Well, before long it was no longer 80 degrees with wind, but 40 degrees- and still dropping- with wind. While hopping in and out of the car running errands, she took her jacket off and tied it around her waist- and she was wearing only a short sleeved T-shirt. I felt like a bad parent- or I was afraid "people" would think that of me. (I sometimes forget to trust her to know when she's hot or cold, just as my parents forgot to trust me in the same situation. And I know she's very hot natured.)
I told her I wished she would choose to put her jacket on, because I didn't want to force her.
Her simple reply was priceless: "It's not right to force people."
I admitted she was right, and then she qualified it a little by adding "...unless they are trying to hit you".
Yeah, she still needs to do a little fine tuning, but she's going in the right direction.
.
Recently we were out and about on a day which experienced a rapid 40 degree temperature drop. I already felt a little guilty because since it was still warm when we had left the house, she had only grabbed a light jacket against the wind.
Well, before long it was no longer 80 degrees with wind, but 40 degrees- and still dropping- with wind. While hopping in and out of the car running errands, she took her jacket off and tied it around her waist- and she was wearing only a short sleeved T-shirt. I felt like a bad parent- or I was afraid "people" would think that of me. (I sometimes forget to trust her to know when she's hot or cold, just as my parents forgot to trust me in the same situation. And I know she's very hot natured.)
I told her I wished she would choose to put her jacket on, because I didn't want to force her.
Her simple reply was priceless: "It's not right to force people."
I admitted she was right, and then she qualified it a little by adding "...unless they are trying to hit you".
Yeah, she still needs to do a little fine tuning, but she's going in the right direction.
.
Friday, February 20, 2015
"Moms"
Every time some astroturf group of shrill, whiny women who fear Rightful Liberty and want Daddy State to save them from having to act like adults, take on a new target, they brand themselves as "Moms" or "Mothers"
Well, in that spirit I suggest that in those instances, "Moms" stands for "Mouth Open, Mind Shuttered".
Individually, "Mom" could mean:
"Mildly Obnoxious Moron"
"Moron On [a] Mission"
Thinking of them in this more honest and accurate way is better for my peace of mind.
Well, in that spirit I suggest that in those instances, "Moms" stands for "Mouth Open, Mind Shuttered".
Individually, "Mom" could mean:
"Mildly Obnoxious Moron"
"Moron On [a] Mission"
Thinking of them in this more honest and accurate way is better for my peace of mind.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Apologies and explanations
You may not have noticed- especially since I had a couple of entries already set to post- but I was in the hospital for a few days. It was unexpected. So, no Clovis News Journal column this week.
I have a few things almost ready to publish, so I may not miss more days, but give me a little while to get back up to speed.
It began with a trip to the emergency room at about 3:30 am Monday, after a couple hours of writhing on the floor. It was nothing too serious- just a kidney stone (4mm x 6mm), and it actually is still there. More doc visits in the coming days.
If I seem a little out of it in my posts (or comments or replies) for a few days I'll blame the pain meds.
.
I have a few things almost ready to publish, so I may not miss more days, but give me a little while to get back up to speed.
It began with a trip to the emergency room at about 3:30 am Monday, after a couple hours of writhing on the floor. It was nothing too serious- just a kidney stone (4mm x 6mm), and it actually is still there. More doc visits in the coming days.
If I seem a little out of it in my posts (or comments or replies) for a few days I'll blame the pain meds.
.
"Right to control" a powerful delusion
"Right to control" a powerful delusion
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 16, 2015)
Almost all areas of political contention are invented and imaginary. Those areas of life shouldn't be subjected to laws, majority opinion, or anyone's control.
There are only two things subject to control: aggression and violations of private property. Those don't need any response beyond self defense. No one needs to give you permission to protect yourself and your property, and no one can take away your right to self defense.
Beyond that, just look at all the areas which have been perverted by politics:
There is no such thing as "illegal immigration"- there is only trespassing on private property or not, and where a person was born or what government papers they hold has no bearing on the matter.
There is no right to tell others what they can ingest, inject, smoke, buy or sell- and that includes the size of soft drinks or the fat content of food.
There is no right for the State to ration or regulate marriage. The State can record the marriage if the participants want, but there its involvement must end.
There is no right to forbid the ownership or carrying of weapons, what weapons someone chooses to carry, where they carry them with property owner permission, nor how those weapons are carried.
There is no right to control how someone uses their own property, nor whether they run a business.
There is no right to force people to buy any product or service, such as health insurance.
There is no right to require permits or licenses, nor to charge the associated fees.
Where there is no right, no authority can exist. You can't delegate authority for something you have no right to do as an individual.
There is not even any such thing as taxation- there is either respect for private property, or the opposite: theft. There is no right to be provided things, services, or a salary financed by taking money from others.
To pretend you- or some imaginary "we"- have the right to dictate to others how they can live their lives is the source of the vast majority of political strife. To pretend the authority exists to decide what percentage of other people's property can be taken for "the common good" causes almost all the rest.
It's a powerful delusion, perpetuated through most of recorded history, over most of the planet's populated surface. It's still wrong.
There is almost nothing in life legitimately subject to a vote or any other form of imposed control. Anytime a vote is taken, unless you allow the losing side to opt out- without penalty- your vote is a sham. Imposing the results is aggression or theft and makes you the problem.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 16, 2015)
Almost all areas of political contention are invented and imaginary. Those areas of life shouldn't be subjected to laws, majority opinion, or anyone's control.
There are only two things subject to control: aggression and violations of private property. Those don't need any response beyond self defense. No one needs to give you permission to protect yourself and your property, and no one can take away your right to self defense.
Beyond that, just look at all the areas which have been perverted by politics:
There is no such thing as "illegal immigration"- there is only trespassing on private property or not, and where a person was born or what government papers they hold has no bearing on the matter.
There is no right to tell others what they can ingest, inject, smoke, buy or sell- and that includes the size of soft drinks or the fat content of food.
There is no right for the State to ration or regulate marriage. The State can record the marriage if the participants want, but there its involvement must end.
There is no right to forbid the ownership or carrying of weapons, what weapons someone chooses to carry, where they carry them with property owner permission, nor how those weapons are carried.
There is no right to control how someone uses their own property, nor whether they run a business.
There is no right to force people to buy any product or service, such as health insurance.
There is no right to require permits or licenses, nor to charge the associated fees.
Where there is no right, no authority can exist. You can't delegate authority for something you have no right to do as an individual.
There is not even any such thing as taxation- there is either respect for private property, or the opposite: theft. There is no right to be provided things, services, or a salary financed by taking money from others.
To pretend you- or some imaginary "we"- have the right to dictate to others how they can live their lives is the source of the vast majority of political strife. To pretend the authority exists to decide what percentage of other people's property can be taken for "the common good" causes almost all the rest.
It's a powerful delusion, perpetuated through most of recorded history, over most of the planet's populated surface. It's still wrong.
There is almost nothing in life legitimately subject to a vote or any other form of imposed control. Anytime a vote is taken, unless you allow the losing side to opt out- without penalty- your vote is a sham. Imposing the results is aggression or theft and makes you the problem.
.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Open carry vs concealed carry
Here's why I prefer open carry- or at least why I wish coproaches wouldn't murder me for open carrying here in the "surprisingly" anti-gun state of Texas:
Concealed carry is uncomfortable. I have never been able to find a CC holster that is the slightest bit comfortable- and by that I mean one which doesn't actually constantly hurt. I have tried several styles and even created my own. They all suck- with the cheapest actually sucking slightly less. I have adopted unconventional methods for the time being, but am always adjusting and experimenting.
When I lived in more free areas I open carried most of the time. I would still CC when the situation called for it (often doing both), but having options is always better.
I understand the tactical advantage CC gives me. I also understand the deterrent effect of seeing lots of people OCing all around you.
But I like wearing a holster on my hip. It just feels right- natural. And I have a lot more options of what to carry that way, too. As I say, I like options. If I ever could find a CC system/holster that doesn't cause agony I'd like that in the meantime.
This means one of the few "political" issues I tend to follow is that of Texas puppeticians considering the possibility of ending their criminal behavior and re-legalizing open carry.
Constitutional carry is a good start, Diplomatic Carry is better. After all, you and I are in foreign, enemy territory here at home.
If you have found a CC system you like, and that doesn't hurt, let me know. If it is something I haven't tried yet (and I can afford the holster) I'll give it a try. And I realize part of my problem may be the large size of my CC weapon.
.
Concealed carry is uncomfortable. I have never been able to find a CC holster that is the slightest bit comfortable- and by that I mean one which doesn't actually constantly hurt. I have tried several styles and even created my own. They all suck- with the cheapest actually sucking slightly less. I have adopted unconventional methods for the time being, but am always adjusting and experimenting.
When I lived in more free areas I open carried most of the time. I would still CC when the situation called for it (often doing both), but having options is always better.
I understand the tactical advantage CC gives me. I also understand the deterrent effect of seeing lots of people OCing all around you.
But I like wearing a holster on my hip. It just feels right- natural. And I have a lot more options of what to carry that way, too. As I say, I like options. If I ever could find a CC system/holster that doesn't cause agony I'd like that in the meantime.
This means one of the few "political" issues I tend to follow is that of Texas puppeticians considering the possibility of ending their criminal behavior and re-legalizing open carry.
Constitutional carry is a good start, Diplomatic Carry is better. After all, you and I are in foreign, enemy territory here at home.
If you have found a CC system you like, and that doesn't hurt, let me know. If it is something I haven't tried yet (and I can afford the holster) I'll give it a try. And I realize part of my problem may be the large size of my CC weapon.
.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Voting is bad, Mmm-kay?
Elections are to choosing as rape is to sex.
It's not that I oppose voting- it's that I oppose voting on the things elections put to a vote.
There is almost nothing in life that is legitimately subject to a vote- and your Rightful Liberty is NEVER one of those things.
.
It's not that I oppose voting- it's that I oppose voting on the things elections put to a vote.
There is almost nothing in life that is legitimately subject to a vote- and your Rightful Liberty is NEVER one of those things.
.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
More "science": cosmological speculation- the expanding Universe
My last cosmological idea was pretty quickly shown (with the proper search) to be an idea others have already had years ago. I hate when that happens (but it usually does, since an original thought which has never been thought before is probably extremely rare). I expect the same from this one, but I'll post it before I research it.
Red shift shows the expansion of the Universe. Unless such ideas as "tired light" have any validity (which seems highly doubtful to me) every point in the Universe (beyond local gravitational "groups") seems to be moving away from every other point. And, the farther away two points are from each other the faster they are moving apart.
This can be viewed like raisins in a rising loaf of bread- as the whole loaf expands, each raisin gets farther from all other raisins, but the effect is greatest (taking into account the rigid nature of the bread pan) for a raisin touching the bottom of the pan and one poking out the top of the loaf. Two adjacent raisins might not move apart noticeably, and if two are stuck together- like galaxies gravitationally bound together- the expansion won't affect their relative positioning at all.
You can read up on it to see how this shifts absorption lines toward the red end of the spectrum, if you care to learn more.
Back to the expanding Universe... Run this measurable expansion backwards and you reach a time about 13.8 billion years ago to see when the entire Universe would have occupied a single point. The "explosion" of this point is what is called the Big Bang and causes all sorts of speculation about what might have caused it. Lots of ideas- some plausible- but none confirmed or even universally accepted (and I mean by scientists who study such things, not Creationists).
But, maybe there's another answer that would explain the observations. Could the Universe be always expanding, but not actually getting larger? Might this do away with the need of "What made it Bang?"
Maybe, sorta.
Spacetime is curved- and this has been experimentally observed many times. This means the shortest distance between two points, on a cosmological scale, is a curve. And here I am speaking of a spacetime (4-dimensional) curve, not a 2- or 3- dimensional curve of the sort you can probably picture in your head. If the Universe is curved enough (which it doesn't seem to be), going in a straight line far enough would bring you back to the place you began.
So, here's my thought: What if the red shift actually does show the Universe/spacetime to be expanding, but the curvature of spacetime is always bringing the "outer" edge back to the "center"?
A lower-dimensional visual aid would be a fountain where the water flowing out the top is sucked in at the bottom to be sent back out the top again- ad infinitum. Well, try to visualize the Universe as a 4-dimensional fountain.
It would solve the problem of "what happened before the beginning" ("What is north of the North Pole?"), and put to rest the problem of what made it all begin.
It should one day be possible to test this hypothesis, since it is falsifiable. For that matter, it may have already been falsified.
.
Red shift shows the expansion of the Universe. Unless such ideas as "tired light" have any validity (which seems highly doubtful to me) every point in the Universe (beyond local gravitational "groups") seems to be moving away from every other point. And, the farther away two points are from each other the faster they are moving apart.
This can be viewed like raisins in a rising loaf of bread- as the whole loaf expands, each raisin gets farther from all other raisins, but the effect is greatest (taking into account the rigid nature of the bread pan) for a raisin touching the bottom of the pan and one poking out the top of the loaf. Two adjacent raisins might not move apart noticeably, and if two are stuck together- like galaxies gravitationally bound together- the expansion won't affect their relative positioning at all.
You can read up on it to see how this shifts absorption lines toward the red end of the spectrum, if you care to learn more.
Back to the expanding Universe... Run this measurable expansion backwards and you reach a time about 13.8 billion years ago to see when the entire Universe would have occupied a single point. The "explosion" of this point is what is called the Big Bang and causes all sorts of speculation about what might have caused it. Lots of ideas- some plausible- but none confirmed or even universally accepted (and I mean by scientists who study such things, not Creationists).
But, maybe there's another answer that would explain the observations. Could the Universe be always expanding, but not actually getting larger? Might this do away with the need of "What made it Bang?"
Maybe, sorta.
Spacetime is curved- and this has been experimentally observed many times. This means the shortest distance between two points, on a cosmological scale, is a curve. And here I am speaking of a spacetime (4-dimensional) curve, not a 2- or 3- dimensional curve of the sort you can probably picture in your head. If the Universe is curved enough (which it doesn't seem to be), going in a straight line far enough would bring you back to the place you began.
So, here's my thought: What if the red shift actually does show the Universe/spacetime to be expanding, but the curvature of spacetime is always bringing the "outer" edge back to the "center"?
A lower-dimensional visual aid would be a fountain where the water flowing out the top is sucked in at the bottom to be sent back out the top again- ad infinitum. Well, try to visualize the Universe as a 4-dimensional fountain.
It would solve the problem of "what happened before the beginning" ("What is north of the North Pole?"), and put to rest the problem of what made it all begin.
It should one day be possible to test this hypothesis, since it is falsifiable. For that matter, it may have already been falsified.
.
The honest results of government
Government regularly delivers the opposite of what it promises. That's just the nature of the thing.
When people say "safety would be compromised" by getting rid of the goons of the DHS, point out that DHS makes America (meaning you and me, if we are assumed to be "Americans") less safe. Because it honestly does.
Government schooling destroys education.
Government roads impair travel.
Government's anti-gun "laws" put you in danger and help the aggressive thugs.
And so on.
You could rightly respond to statist propaganda with shocked exclamations like these:
It is more consistent and makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous claims made by statists.
.
When people say "safety would be compromised" by getting rid of the goons of the DHS, point out that DHS makes America (meaning you and me, if we are assumed to be "Americans") less safe. Because it honestly does.
Government schooling destroys education.
Government roads impair travel.
Government's anti-gun "laws" put you in danger and help the aggressive thugs.
And so on.
You could rightly respond to statist propaganda with shocked exclamations like these:
"You support the military? What, you don't care about our freedom? You hate America?"
"You support anti-gun 'laws'? You want everyone to be murdered?"
"You don't want to abolish public schools? Don't you value education?!"
It is more consistent and makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous claims made by statists.
.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
States against one of their own kind
(Previously posted to Patreon and shared with subscribers)
The problem other States have with the Islamic State isn't really the evil behavior its followers display. It's that they are breaking the rules of "civilized war" openly.
They have violated the rules the other massive murder engines called "nations" have agreed to follow when they participate in that State ritual called "war".
They openly use their superstitions as justification and motivation for killing, rather than hiding the superstitious nature of why they do what they do.
They murder their targets "hands on", up close in front of cameras, instead of at a distance, behind cover. It's not polite to display your murders so openly.
They behead and burn instead of bomb and shoot.
Evil is evil, and the Islamic State is evil because it is a State and also because it is Islamic. But to somehow conclude it is worse than other States, because it is open about what States are and what they do, is ridiculous.
.
The problem other States have with the Islamic State isn't really the evil behavior its followers display. It's that they are breaking the rules of "civilized war" openly.
They have violated the rules the other massive murder engines called "nations" have agreed to follow when they participate in that State ritual called "war".
They openly use their superstitions as justification and motivation for killing, rather than hiding the superstitious nature of why they do what they do.
They murder their targets "hands on", up close in front of cameras, instead of at a distance, behind cover. It's not polite to display your murders so openly.
They behead and burn instead of bomb and shoot.
Evil is evil, and the Islamic State is evil because it is a State and also because it is Islamic. But to somehow conclude it is worse than other States, because it is open about what States are and what they do, is ridiculous.
.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Whiny badgefluffers
Cops- they are just like any other thieves and molesters, except for how exceptionally whiny their fans are.
Don't let them occupy your life and mind any more than the other thieves and molesters do. They are out there. Try to avoid them when you can, but don't structure your life around their existence or avoiding them.
.
Don't let them occupy your life and mind any more than the other thieves and molesters do. They are out there. Try to avoid them when you can, but don't structure your life around their existence or avoiding them.
.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Islam would only be an issue in one part of the globe....
I was waiting to see if anyone brought up a point I made in the most recent "Liberty Lines", but I guess no one will (unless someone does in the paper).
The part I'm talking about: "Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe."
What? Am I saying a problem doesn't matter if it only affects one place?
Not at all.
The people affected have every right to fight back. They have a right to ask for support. You have an individual right to go try to help. You don't have a right to force me or anyone else to pay your way. You don't have a right to kill non-aggressors based on where they live or what you believe they might be thinking or planning.
If you want to go there to defend the residents who are being violated by Islam and Muslims, go ahead. Pay your own way, don't say you are doing it on my behalf, and live with the consequences. If you get blown up, shot, beheaded, or burned to death it is a foreseeable outcome. You should recognize that when you go.
.
The part I'm talking about: "Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe."
What? Am I saying a problem doesn't matter if it only affects one place?
Not at all.
The people affected have every right to fight back. They have a right to ask for support. You have an individual right to go try to help. You don't have a right to force me or anyone else to pay your way. You don't have a right to kill non-aggressors based on where they live or what you believe they might be thinking or planning.
If you want to go there to defend the residents who are being violated by Islam and Muslims, go ahead. Pay your own way, don't say you are doing it on my behalf, and live with the consequences. If you get blown up, shot, beheaded, or burned to death it is a foreseeable outcome. You should recognize that when you go.
.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Push through the pain for liberty
Push through the pain for liberty
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 9, 2015)
There is a balance to life. I love when my son comes to visit, even though it means I'll feel sadness when he has to head home again. The joy of his presence is worth the pain of his departure.
All of life is a trade-off like this. Don't allow your desire to avoid pain or sadness rob you of opportunities for joy.
A free society would also bring some pain, but just like a short visit from a loved one, the pain would be worth the gains. To enjoy the benefits of liberty you have to take the initiative to push through the pain. It won't be as bad as you have built it up to be in your imagination.
You might miss your secure government job, until you realize having more options brings more real security in the long run. And more wealth.
You might miss your entitlements and those government benefits you believe you have earned, until you realize how insignificant and inadequate those are compared to what you could provide for yourself without the barriers erected all around you "for your own good".
You might feel insecure without tax-financed protection rackets, until you discover how those actually propped up the very things you feared, and how much better you can provide for your own protection when self-defense is no longer criminalized. No one is as motivated to protect you and your property as you are; hired protection can always be bought off and will always have divided loyalties- at best. That's natural. It's a poor substitute for taking responsibility for your own safety.
Liberty would require some adjustments and they wouldn't be instant or without discomfort.
Any temporary discomfort caused by the loss of your chains would be quickly overshadowed by the opportunities liberty presents. Don't let the fear or pain hold you back. That's like refusing to let your son come visit because you don't want to be sad when the time comes for him to leave.
Thomas Jefferson observed: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." What has happened to 21st Century Americans to make us so frightened of "what ifs" and imagined inconveniences that we flee from precious liberty and trade it for false security? As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And, I'll add, they'll have neither.
Be up to the challenge. Push through any pain to get to the good things on the other side. Deserve liberty and take it. It's up to you.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 9, 2015)
There is a balance to life. I love when my son comes to visit, even though it means I'll feel sadness when he has to head home again. The joy of his presence is worth the pain of his departure.
All of life is a trade-off like this. Don't allow your desire to avoid pain or sadness rob you of opportunities for joy.
A free society would also bring some pain, but just like a short visit from a loved one, the pain would be worth the gains. To enjoy the benefits of liberty you have to take the initiative to push through the pain. It won't be as bad as you have built it up to be in your imagination.
You might miss your secure government job, until you realize having more options brings more real security in the long run. And more wealth.
You might miss your entitlements and those government benefits you believe you have earned, until you realize how insignificant and inadequate those are compared to what you could provide for yourself without the barriers erected all around you "for your own good".
You might feel insecure without tax-financed protection rackets, until you discover how those actually propped up the very things you feared, and how much better you can provide for your own protection when self-defense is no longer criminalized. No one is as motivated to protect you and your property as you are; hired protection can always be bought off and will always have divided loyalties- at best. That's natural. It's a poor substitute for taking responsibility for your own safety.
Liberty would require some adjustments and they wouldn't be instant or without discomfort.
Any temporary discomfort caused by the loss of your chains would be quickly overshadowed by the opportunities liberty presents. Don't let the fear or pain hold you back. That's like refusing to let your son come visit because you don't want to be sad when the time comes for him to leave.
Thomas Jefferson observed: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." What has happened to 21st Century Americans to make us so frightened of "what ifs" and imagined inconveniences that we flee from precious liberty and trade it for false security? As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And, I'll add, they'll have neither.
Be up to the challenge. Push through any pain to get to the good things on the other side. Deserve liberty and take it. It's up to you.
.
"Get a real job"
Government bureaucrats, puppeticians, and enforcers are happy to see people with a job- as long as they do it the government-approved way. Go to college, go in debt, get a job where taxes can be easily calculated and confiscated. Then get licensed, get your permits, pay your fees, obey the zoning "laws" and codes.
What those government goons don't like is if you make money some other way.
If you don't fit the mold you are marginalized. Suspected. You might just be thinking too much- or too well. You are not helping prop up the silly notion of how helpful and useful The State is. You might not be "contributing your fair share"- through "taxation"- to the selfless thugs in the "public sector".
I've witnessed this phenomenon my entire life- and it has only gotten worse over time.
So, if you want to be appreciated by society, do it the normal way. Even better, get a government "job".
But if you'd rather be an actual good and productive person, take the other path. Funny, either path can lead to you performing the same tasks for your money, but the second path will probably make an ethical person feel better about themselves than the other would.
.
What those government goons don't like is if you make money some other way.
If you don't fit the mold you are marginalized. Suspected. You might just be thinking too much- or too well. You are not helping prop up the silly notion of how helpful and useful The State is. You might not be "contributing your fair share"- through "taxation"- to the selfless thugs in the "public sector".
I've witnessed this phenomenon my entire life- and it has only gotten worse over time.
So, if you want to be appreciated by society, do it the normal way. Even better, get a government "job".
But if you'd rather be an actual good and productive person, take the other path. Funny, either path can lead to you performing the same tasks for your money, but the second path will probably make an ethical person feel better about themselves than the other would.
.
Monday, February 09, 2015
"Resisting arrest"
(Previously posted to Patreon)
The fake "crime" of "resisting arrest" is in the news because of the Don of Police in NYC wanting to make it a "felony" rather than a lesser "offense".
This is just one example why I don't want "laws" forbidding "felons" from owning guns. Too many silly "laws" have been dreamed up to make completely ethical acts "felonies".
Resisting arrest is your right. Even if you actually did something wrong. Nothing can change that.
The reality is that "resisting arrest" is usually used against people the molesting cop KNOWS didn't actually do anything wrong, to have an excuse to punish him anyway. To show him he should have simply complied with the evil (and illegal) demands of the cop.
Copsuckers normally claim you should just allow yourself to be kidnapped, and then sort it all out in court. That's as stupid as saying you should allow yourself to be raped and then take the rapist to court- a court run by rapists just like him, who are members of the same gang as your rapist.
You have an absolute human right to resist a kidnapping- even if it is called "arrest". You have the absolute human right to kill your kidnapper if he doesn't stop his attempt.
I admit, once the cop decides to molest you, you have lost. You are not coming out undamaged. No one can tell you how to act at that point. You have to decide for yourself whether you want to put yourself under the power of someone you know is a dangerous threat, so he can deliver you to his gang, or whether you want to get it over with and die on your feet while resisting his molestation.
Either way, I will remember that the cop is the true bad guy- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- even if you are also at fault.
.
The fake "crime" of "resisting arrest" is in the news because of the Don of Police in NYC wanting to make it a "felony" rather than a lesser "offense".
This is just one example why I don't want "laws" forbidding "felons" from owning guns. Too many silly "laws" have been dreamed up to make completely ethical acts "felonies".
Resisting arrest is your right. Even if you actually did something wrong. Nothing can change that.
The reality is that "resisting arrest" is usually used against people the molesting cop KNOWS didn't actually do anything wrong, to have an excuse to punish him anyway. To show him he should have simply complied with the evil (and illegal) demands of the cop.
Copsuckers normally claim you should just allow yourself to be kidnapped, and then sort it all out in court. That's as stupid as saying you should allow yourself to be raped and then take the rapist to court- a court run by rapists just like him, who are members of the same gang as your rapist.
You have an absolute human right to resist a kidnapping- even if it is called "arrest". You have the absolute human right to kill your kidnapper if he doesn't stop his attempt.
I admit, once the cop decides to molest you, you have lost. You are not coming out undamaged. No one can tell you how to act at that point. You have to decide for yourself whether you want to put yourself under the power of someone you know is a dangerous threat, so he can deliver you to his gang, or whether you want to get it over with and die on your feet while resisting his molestation.
Either way, I will remember that the cop is the true bad guy- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- even if you are also at fault.
.
Is "society" a real thing?
I believe it is, but maybe not the way the term is often used.
I see "society" as a useful term for describing a large system made up of the aggregate action of many interacting, individual parts. An emergent property.
Sort of the way "weather" is. Or "The market".
If a raindrop hits you, you might not say it is "raining" if that was the only drop. And, even if it is raining, not every potential raindrop will fall.
A "society" isn't guilty just because one individual is guilty. If "everyone" is guilty, you can still find individuals who are not.
It's why I still use the word "society" in some contexts. It doesn't replace individuals, but it can describe the general weather. The "system" that results from the actions of each individual part.
.
I see "society" as a useful term for describing a large system made up of the aggregate action of many interacting, individual parts. An emergent property.
Sort of the way "weather" is. Or "The market".
If a raindrop hits you, you might not say it is "raining" if that was the only drop. And, even if it is raining, not every potential raindrop will fall.
A "society" isn't guilty just because one individual is guilty. If "everyone" is guilty, you can still find individuals who are not.
It's why I still use the word "society" in some contexts. It doesn't replace individuals, but it can describe the general weather. The "system" that results from the actions of each individual part.
.
Sunday, February 08, 2015
Abdul, the sniper
Things have gone badly for the people living in Alternate America.
The bombing of the Middle Eastern country's nuclear plant by rogue "democracy" extremists from Canada was blamed on America, or at least taken out on Americans because the US government "supports" Canada- by which I suppose they mean the two governments are not at war with each other.
Armies from several Middle East countries have invaded the cities and towns of America, destroying the infrastructure and fouling the water supply and electrical grid beyond repair.
The invaders show how compassionate they are by rescuing the orphans and injured their actions have created; treating them in hospitals, and giving them some bottled water and dolls. The people back home lap it up, but Americans see the propaganda for what it is.
Americans are fighting back in every way they can manage- sabotage, becoming more radical about their American beliefs, spying, and recruiting fighters... and for those willing to kill- personal firearms for most; garage-made bombs for the so-inclined. Everyone agrees: extreme threats require extreme measures.
A guy named Abdul is hiding on a roof top in Wichita, using a scoped rifle to shoot people he believes are intending to kill other members of his army of invaders. If the person in his scope looks American- in other words, if the person obviously isn't one of his guys- and is armed, he shoots. Man, woman, child- it makes no difference. After all, he tell himself, these dogs deserve it because they are all the same, and they want to kill him and his guys.
This goes on for years.
After a great many kills, but fewer than he'll claim, Abdul goes home.
Abdul is proud of his service, and brags that killing terrorists was the most fun he's ever had. He'd love to go back and do it again. He is praised as a hero, and the notion that he saved his country is pushed by all good patriots. If it weren't for him, they would all be speaking English and living under Christian Law, and "democracy". Shudder!!
Abdul is a serial murderer. Abdul claims he was killing terrorists, but he was the true terrorist. Sure, doing what he did took courage. Cowards don't go into someone else's house, knowing the resident is armed and willing to defend his life and property. But, bravery is irrelevant in this case. His actions were still evil.
Reversing the roles changes nothing.
Added: Also published on LewRockwell.com, 2-10-2015
.
The bombing of the Middle Eastern country's nuclear plant by rogue "democracy" extremists from Canada was blamed on America, or at least taken out on Americans because the US government "supports" Canada- by which I suppose they mean the two governments are not at war with each other.
Armies from several Middle East countries have invaded the cities and towns of America, destroying the infrastructure and fouling the water supply and electrical grid beyond repair.
The invaders show how compassionate they are by rescuing the orphans and injured their actions have created; treating them in hospitals, and giving them some bottled water and dolls. The people back home lap it up, but Americans see the propaganda for what it is.
Americans are fighting back in every way they can manage- sabotage, becoming more radical about their American beliefs, spying, and recruiting fighters... and for those willing to kill- personal firearms for most; garage-made bombs for the so-inclined. Everyone agrees: extreme threats require extreme measures.
A guy named Abdul is hiding on a roof top in Wichita, using a scoped rifle to shoot people he believes are intending to kill other members of his army of invaders. If the person in his scope looks American- in other words, if the person obviously isn't one of his guys- and is armed, he shoots. Man, woman, child- it makes no difference. After all, he tell himself, these dogs deserve it because they are all the same, and they want to kill him and his guys.
This goes on for years.
After a great many kills, but fewer than he'll claim, Abdul goes home.
Abdul is proud of his service, and brags that killing terrorists was the most fun he's ever had. He'd love to go back and do it again. He is praised as a hero, and the notion that he saved his country is pushed by all good patriots. If it weren't for him, they would all be speaking English and living under Christian Law, and "democracy". Shudder!!
Abdul is a serial murderer. Abdul claims he was killing terrorists, but he was the true terrorist. Sure, doing what he did took courage. Cowards don't go into someone else's house, knowing the resident is armed and willing to defend his life and property. But, bravery is irrelevant in this case. His actions were still evil.
Reversing the roles changes nothing.
-
Added: Also published on LewRockwell.com, 2-10-2015
.
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Embrace the degradation?
I really pity anyone who could lower themselves enough to become a cop.
I have also observed that those who are the most degraded are often the most haughty. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.
Even more bizarre is how many rabid ("statid") supporters those degraded thugs have- and just how devoted they are to defending the indefensible actions of the cops they support.
The clear fact that there are no good cops, by definition, won't change their minds, because it isn't about facts. It is about feelings- a sort of religion.
I have also observed that those who are the most degraded are often the most haughty. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.
Even more bizarre is how many rabid ("statid") supporters those degraded thugs have- and just how devoted they are to defending the indefensible actions of the cops they support.
The clear fact that there are no good cops, by definition, won't change their minds, because it isn't about facts. It is about feelings- a sort of religion.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Liberty Lines follow-up
Thinking about possible reactions and objections to my Liberty Lines column, which I wasn't able to address in the paper due to space limitations:
Maybe "convert or die" is a winning strategy. People could say that history shows the "convert or die" methods of the New World's newcomers was pretty effective. The indigenous peoples did "convert or die"- and a lot died even after converting.
Perhaps Muslims could also defeat the rest of the world in the same way.
Indigenous Americans lost due to the invaders' superior weapons and because of imported disease. Both a result, in large part, of a lack of science in the New World culture.
Muslims attacking America is like what would have happened if indigenous Americans had tried to raid Spain. The results would have probably been much the same as happened.
Remember, Islam claims earthquakes are due to female immodesty. Not a culture with a firm grasp on how things actually are. Yes, there was a time long ago when Islam was the scientific leader of the world; when Muslims invented algebra and were the advocates of science.
That time is not now.
Imported diseases aren't going to be much of a threat- not an extinction-level threat by any means. We have modern medicine and understand basic hygiene. They don't have superior weapons or technology. All they have going for them is religious fervor and a willingness to kill and die. Yes, that can be very dangerous to individuals who get in the way, but not to the "culture" as a whole. Unless you would just roll over and submit. I won't do that, will you? I didn't think so.
Maybe you'd better get in the habit of refusing to submit to aggressive extremists now. For practice.
.
Maybe "convert or die" is a winning strategy. People could say that history shows the "convert or die" methods of the New World's newcomers was pretty effective. The indigenous peoples did "convert or die"- and a lot died even after converting.
Perhaps Muslims could also defeat the rest of the world in the same way.
Indigenous Americans lost due to the invaders' superior weapons and because of imported disease. Both a result, in large part, of a lack of science in the New World culture.
Muslims attacking America is like what would have happened if indigenous Americans had tried to raid Spain. The results would have probably been much the same as happened.
Remember, Islam claims earthquakes are due to female immodesty. Not a culture with a firm grasp on how things actually are. Yes, there was a time long ago when Islam was the scientific leader of the world; when Muslims invented algebra and were the advocates of science.
That time is not now.
Imported diseases aren't going to be much of a threat- not an extinction-level threat by any means. We have modern medicine and understand basic hygiene. They don't have superior weapons or technology. All they have going for them is religious fervor and a willingness to kill and die. Yes, that can be very dangerous to individuals who get in the way, but not to the "culture" as a whole. Unless you would just roll over and submit. I won't do that, will you? I didn't think so.
Maybe you'd better get in the habit of refusing to submit to aggressive extremists now. For practice.
.
Liberty Lines Feb 5, 2015
(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM, State Line Tribune- Feb. 5, 2015)
I have some good news that you may not like hearing: Islam won't take over the world. Its fanatical adherents would like to; they just can't. Not without some civilization-ending catastrophe to pave the way- such as a major asteroid strike, a plague wiping out most of humanity, or some other "science fiction" scenario. Sure, those things could happen, but they're not likely, and not something you can control, so you shouldn't obsess over it. Besides, at that point Islam would be the least of your worries.
Still, it is completely self-defeating to support policies which empower the fundamentalist Muslims- such as the modern secular Crusade led by the US government. This does nothing but recruit more to their cause, and give them more reasons to emigrate from the war-torn region.
It's like kicking a hornet nest and being surprised at the results. But these are humans we are talking about. You can't annihilate the entire nest without killing more innocent people than guilty ones. That would be just as evil as what the aggressive Muslim fundamentalists are doing.
If it weren't for the US government constantly going to the Middle East (with money stolen from you, to the cheers of fans of never-ending war) and repeatedly poking Islam with a sharp stick- giving it energy, motivation, and justification with each poke- Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe.
I realize Islam has a nasty "convert or die" outlook. This is the Islamic year 1436; their 15th Century. You wouldn't happen to remember what was happening in the New World beginning in the Christian 15th Century and beyond, would you? Does the word "Conquistador" ring any bells? How about Pizarro? "Manifest Destiny"?
"Convert or die" is always wrong, always barbaric, but it isn't exclusively Muslim.
The only real danger is the danger which always lies in politics. Until people get over the sick idea that it's OK to govern others, and that a majority can vote their will on a minority "for their own good", there is always a risk that someone will outvote you and impose their silly or destructive rules to govern you in a way which violates your Rightful Liberty, and which you object to. Nothing can make that right. It's long past time to stop repeating this destructive pattern.
(Also, check out the next post for a little follow-up I didn't have room to put in the paper.)
I have some good news that you may not like hearing: Islam won't take over the world. Its fanatical adherents would like to; they just can't. Not without some civilization-ending catastrophe to pave the way- such as a major asteroid strike, a plague wiping out most of humanity, or some other "science fiction" scenario. Sure, those things could happen, but they're not likely, and not something you can control, so you shouldn't obsess over it. Besides, at that point Islam would be the least of your worries.
Still, it is completely self-defeating to support policies which empower the fundamentalist Muslims- such as the modern secular Crusade led by the US government. This does nothing but recruit more to their cause, and give them more reasons to emigrate from the war-torn region.
It's like kicking a hornet nest and being surprised at the results. But these are humans we are talking about. You can't annihilate the entire nest without killing more innocent people than guilty ones. That would be just as evil as what the aggressive Muslim fundamentalists are doing.
If it weren't for the US government constantly going to the Middle East (with money stolen from you, to the cheers of fans of never-ending war) and repeatedly poking Islam with a sharp stick- giving it energy, motivation, and justification with each poke- Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe.
I realize Islam has a nasty "convert or die" outlook. This is the Islamic year 1436; their 15th Century. You wouldn't happen to remember what was happening in the New World beginning in the Christian 15th Century and beyond, would you? Does the word "Conquistador" ring any bells? How about Pizarro? "Manifest Destiny"?
"Convert or die" is always wrong, always barbaric, but it isn't exclusively Muslim.
The only real danger is the danger which always lies in politics. Until people get over the sick idea that it's OK to govern others, and that a majority can vote their will on a minority "for their own good", there is always a risk that someone will outvote you and impose their silly or destructive rules to govern you in a way which violates your Rightful Liberty, and which you object to. Nothing can make that right. It's long past time to stop repeating this destructive pattern.
(Also, check out the next post for a little follow-up I didn't have room to put in the paper.)
.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
She's growing
My daughter is beginning to understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective".
She will sometimes say "That color is ugly!" or something like that. I mentioned a few times that her opinion about that was subjective; that other people might think it was beautiful and neither person would be wrong.
Then I mention that things such as hitting someone who simply makes you mad, or taking something that belongs to someone else, isn't subjective- it's wrong. I have explained that's the difference between "subjective" and "objective". She does seem to be starting to catch on.
It would be (subjectively?) nice if more adults understood that difference.
.
She will sometimes say "That color is ugly!" or something like that. I mentioned a few times that her opinion about that was subjective; that other people might think it was beautiful and neither person would be wrong.
Then I mention that things such as hitting someone who simply makes you mad, or taking something that belongs to someone else, isn't subjective- it's wrong. I have explained that's the difference between "subjective" and "objective". She does seem to be starting to catch on.
It would be (subjectively?) nice if more adults understood that difference.
.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Control is in government’s nature
Control is in government’s nature
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 2, 2015)
“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.”
— Robert LeFevre, libertarian businessman
One common argument for government is that people are evil, greedy, and cruel, so government is necessary to protect people from each other.
— Robert LeFevre, libertarian businessman
One common argument for government is that people are evil, greedy, and cruel, so government is necessary to protect people from each other.
This seems to ignore the fact government is made up of those same people. How giving some of those evil, greedy, and cruel people authority over the rest is supposed to solve the problem has always mystified me, and asking how this is imagined to work goes unanswered. It's a justification devoid of reason.
Human qualities run the gamut. Humans are selfish and selfless. We are greedy and generous. We fight and we cooperate. We are cruel and we are loving. We like having leaders and we often fall for Rulers.
History shows the negatives tend to be much more additive than are the positives. It is easier to commit evil if you can spread the blame to a group, rather than doing it on your own.
I'm not saying groups can't do good things- they often do- but true evil on a monumental scale usually takes a political "movement". Leaders convince followers to do all sorts of things they'd never dare doing on their own. This can either mean reaching for greatness which otherwise would never have been accomplished, or it can mean participating in genocide or democide. Charismatic leaders can convince people to reject their own principles for "patriotism" and for "the common good". Since humans do have some negative qualities, the worst thing you can do is give them justifications for putting those qualities into practice.
Some of the negatives aren't really negative. Selfishness often causes people to do nice things, because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that. Greed inspires people to give customers what they want in order to gain more in the long run. At least it's how it works in the free market where truly harmful behavior has consequences.
It seems funny that those who distrust human nature the most are under the impression that giving those flawed humans power and authority over others, and shielding them from the consequences of their actions by allowing them to hide within a group, will make them turn from their negative nature and bring out the best in them. The very nature of political power selects for people who have a desire to control the lives of others- in other words, the very sort of person who should never be permitted to hold power.
Keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. I'm sure it will happen this time.
Human qualities run the gamut. Humans are selfish and selfless. We are greedy and generous. We fight and we cooperate. We are cruel and we are loving. We like having leaders and we often fall for Rulers.
History shows the negatives tend to be much more additive than are the positives. It is easier to commit evil if you can spread the blame to a group, rather than doing it on your own.
I'm not saying groups can't do good things- they often do- but true evil on a monumental scale usually takes a political "movement". Leaders convince followers to do all sorts of things they'd never dare doing on their own. This can either mean reaching for greatness which otherwise would never have been accomplished, or it can mean participating in genocide or democide. Charismatic leaders can convince people to reject their own principles for "patriotism" and for "the common good". Since humans do have some negative qualities, the worst thing you can do is give them justifications for putting those qualities into practice.
Some of the negatives aren't really negative. Selfishness often causes people to do nice things, because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that. Greed inspires people to give customers what they want in order to gain more in the long run. At least it's how it works in the free market where truly harmful behavior has consequences.
It seems funny that those who distrust human nature the most are under the impression that giving those flawed humans power and authority over others, and shielding them from the consequences of their actions by allowing them to hide within a group, will make them turn from their negative nature and bring out the best in them. The very nature of political power selects for people who have a desire to control the lives of others- in other words, the very sort of person who should never be permitted to hold power.
Keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. I'm sure it will happen this time.
.
Giving your attention to Washington state's most worthless parasites
About the liberty activists planning to go break some anti-gun "laws" in the state of Washington:
Go for it if that's what makes you happy, but think about this... by acting as though the "laws" have any legitimacy- especially enough legitimacy to motivate you to go into the hive- you just prop them up.
A better way to live- as I see it- is to simply ignore the fools who dream up "laws". Don't go protest, because that makes them think their opinions have weight. They only have weight if you give them weight. By protesting you make the law polluters feel important. You are giving them some of your life and energy. You are revolving around them and wasting time you could be spending on other things.
I know there are a lot of people who feel the need to do "political" things. I understand that desire to a point. I also hope your activism gets the result you want, and that no innocent people get hurt or killed.
But, seriously, do those clowns matter so much to you, personally, that you'll arrange your life around them? Why?
.
Go for it if that's what makes you happy, but think about this... by acting as though the "laws" have any legitimacy- especially enough legitimacy to motivate you to go into the hive- you just prop them up.
A better way to live- as I see it- is to simply ignore the fools who dream up "laws". Don't go protest, because that makes them think their opinions have weight. They only have weight if you give them weight. By protesting you make the law polluters feel important. You are giving them some of your life and energy. You are revolving around them and wasting time you could be spending on other things.
I know there are a lot of people who feel the need to do "political" things. I understand that desire to a point. I also hope your activism gets the result you want, and that no innocent people get hurt or killed.
But, seriously, do those clowns matter so much to you, personally, that you'll arrange your life around them? Why?
.
"Former libertarian"?
Saying "former libertarian" is like saying "authentic replica". A "real counterfeit". A "genuine fake".
.
.
Monday, February 02, 2015
Prepping- just do it.
It amazes me how people can ridicule those who prepare- coming up with justifications for not doing so themselves. It's always that someone else can help them, or that the store is just a block or two away, or "that will never happen".
Well, "that" can always happen, and does to someone every day.
Then when their lack of preps comes back to bite them, they still refuse to see how much better it would have been for them to have been ready. "Oh well, I survived and it's too late to worry about it now."
And they still never do anything about it to be ready for next time.
Next time may be worse.
I gain nothing by convincing you to prepare. I make no money from it. I probably don't even know you in person and might not notice if you were no longer there. I doubt you are close enough that I would feel guilty if I didn't share my preps with you- cutting into my own preparations- in case of disaster, and I wouldn't be at risk of you coming to take my preps if you were "that sort" of person, simply because of geography. But I try to get people to prepare because I care.
I can only tell you how important it is, and how many times my preps have helped me, even in the absence of any major disaster. Your decision at that point is yours alone. But, please, just do it. Do something. Today. Even if you don't have everything ready, anything you do is better than nothing.
.
Well, "that" can always happen, and does to someone every day.
Then when their lack of preps comes back to bite them, they still refuse to see how much better it would have been for them to have been ready. "Oh well, I survived and it's too late to worry about it now."
And they still never do anything about it to be ready for next time.
Next time may be worse.
I gain nothing by convincing you to prepare. I make no money from it. I probably don't even know you in person and might not notice if you were no longer there. I doubt you are close enough that I would feel guilty if I didn't share my preps with you- cutting into my own preparations- in case of disaster, and I wouldn't be at risk of you coming to take my preps if you were "that sort" of person, simply because of geography. But I try to get people to prepare because I care.
I can only tell you how important it is, and how many times my preps have helped me, even in the absence of any major disaster. Your decision at that point is yours alone. But, please, just do it. Do something. Today. Even if you don't have everything ready, anything you do is better than nothing.
.
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Cosmos and "Climate Change"
(Previously posted to Patreon and my subscribers)
Last night I watched the "Climate Change" episode of Cosmos.
Last night I watched the "Climate Change" episode of Cosmos.
It was heavy on ideology, and all the science in the show was presented to prop up that ideology- and there were holes. There always are.
I have enjoyed the series, and I even enjoyed this episode. It was interesting and informative- and I think I am able to tell which is science and which is ideology.
They probably could have kept the show more credible by leaving out the bit with Dr. Mole People, Dr. Frank Baxter- an English professor, not a scientist, by the way- warning his audience decades ago of human-induced climate change.
I still don't *know* if any change in the climate is due to human activity- and neither do the scientists who are so concerned. Show me a time in earth's history when climate wasn't changing, and I'll know you are cherry picking data to prove something that you and I both know isn't true. Even if the climate is changing, and it is due to fossil fuel use, we don't know it will be harmful on the whole. Yes, some species might have to migrate; some will die off. But some which would have otherwise gone extinct will probably survive due to any change. As we all find out through life- trying to avert one problem usually creates other problems. It's not something you can foresee or prevent, you just have to be ready for unintended consequences.
Much is made of the fact that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching levels not seen in 3 million years. So? Life was doing pretty well 3 million years ago. For a show which keeps presenting the long view, 3 million years is awfully narrow.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for solar power and wind power. But, there are downsides- environmental downsides- to both of these which will be used as an excuse to demonize them once enough people and industries are dependent on them. I am reminded of the campaign to promote fructose as a healthier alternative to sucrose/sugar- until fructose became ubiquitous, when the tide shifted and fructose syrup became Satan's ooze. It's all about demonizing things that taste sweet.
Solar cell production has toxic byproducts, and wind generators kill migrating birds- and that's just for starters.
There are probably even better solutions out there, but they will all have consequences, and none will make everyone happy.
Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) pushers will become something else at that time. I don't think they will ever be against technology for themselves, but the rest of us need to accept that we harm Mother Earth too much when we have it. Just let them be the High Priests of Technology and dole out crumbs to the rest of us as they see fit. Just the way anti-gun bigots would like to do with guns.
The truth is that there are people out there who simply can't tolerate seeing people happy and comfortable, and they'll use any excuse to try to prevent it. And this is one example of how this mental problem manifests itself. Maybe it's because they feel bad because not everyone has access to the same things. The solution is to help those who want access, not to cut off access to those who already have it.
In the episode Tyson speaks of the risks of not changing how we live, but ignores the risks of changing. If AGCC is real, it still might not even kill as many people as immediately ditching fossil fuels would.
There are an awful lot of "ifs" in this campaign.
And, even if true, handing control to the various governments is the worst possible reaction. But it is what the AGCC promoters always advocate.
"Climate Change" has become a religion, and "Climate Change Denial" has become a competing religion. Like all religions, silly things are said and promoted and facts get pushed aside.
I don't advocate pooping in your own nest. I believe people should be responsible and clean up after themselves and not mess things up unnecessarily. But trying to force (by "law" and taxation) people back to pre-industrial lives is not the solution.
.
I still don't *know* if any change in the climate is due to human activity- and neither do the scientists who are so concerned. Show me a time in earth's history when climate wasn't changing, and I'll know you are cherry picking data to prove something that you and I both know isn't true. Even if the climate is changing, and it is due to fossil fuel use, we don't know it will be harmful on the whole. Yes, some species might have to migrate; some will die off. But some which would have otherwise gone extinct will probably survive due to any change. As we all find out through life- trying to avert one problem usually creates other problems. It's not something you can foresee or prevent, you just have to be ready for unintended consequences.
Much is made of the fact that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching levels not seen in 3 million years. So? Life was doing pretty well 3 million years ago. For a show which keeps presenting the long view, 3 million years is awfully narrow.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for solar power and wind power. But, there are downsides- environmental downsides- to both of these which will be used as an excuse to demonize them once enough people and industries are dependent on them. I am reminded of the campaign to promote fructose as a healthier alternative to sucrose/sugar- until fructose became ubiquitous, when the tide shifted and fructose syrup became Satan's ooze. It's all about demonizing things that taste sweet.
Solar cell production has toxic byproducts, and wind generators kill migrating birds- and that's just for starters.
There are probably even better solutions out there, but they will all have consequences, and none will make everyone happy.
Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) pushers will become something else at that time. I don't think they will ever be against technology for themselves, but the rest of us need to accept that we harm Mother Earth too much when we have it. Just let them be the High Priests of Technology and dole out crumbs to the rest of us as they see fit. Just the way anti-gun bigots would like to do with guns.
The truth is that there are people out there who simply can't tolerate seeing people happy and comfortable, and they'll use any excuse to try to prevent it. And this is one example of how this mental problem manifests itself. Maybe it's because they feel bad because not everyone has access to the same things. The solution is to help those who want access, not to cut off access to those who already have it.
In the episode Tyson speaks of the risks of not changing how we live, but ignores the risks of changing. If AGCC is real, it still might not even kill as many people as immediately ditching fossil fuels would.
There are an awful lot of "ifs" in this campaign.
And, even if true, handing control to the various governments is the worst possible reaction. But it is what the AGCC promoters always advocate.
"Climate Change" has become a religion, and "Climate Change Denial" has become a competing religion. Like all religions, silly things are said and promoted and facts get pushed aside.
I don't advocate pooping in your own nest. I believe people should be responsible and clean up after themselves and not mess things up unnecessarily. But trying to force (by "law" and taxation) people back to pre-industrial lives is not the solution.
.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Check out the WLGCLAJ
Hey, here's something that looks like it's worth a look! The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
And, the first post dovetails nicely with what I've been trying to say.
.
And, the first post dovetails nicely with what I've been trying to say.
.
Your flawed system may defeat your goal of gun liberty
Those who have conniptions about "illegal immigrants" ganging up with American anti-gun bigots to vote away my liberty are, again, missing a big part of the picture.
Just as their behavior is creating new "Democrats" (as if "Republicans" respect liberty any better), they are driving them to be anti-gun.
If you were to move into an area where people are gnashing their teeth about your presence, and you were given the (illegitimate) opportunity to vote to take those people's guns away from them, you'd need to have a very solid foundation in absolute human rights to pass up that chance.
I could do it- as my lack of support for "borders", anti-gun "laws", and assorted State actions that might "benefit" me in some way should demonstrate. But most people, especially coming from a place where government and freelance aggressors were constantly shooting the "legally" disarmed innocent, need some better experiences to learn from.
Hating them, telling them they must go through an illegal "legal" process to live where they want, and then acting like a threat to them, isn't going to accomplish what you claim to be your goal. You have adopted a really bad system to get where you claim to want to be, and the result will be inevitable if you don't change tactics.
.
Just as their behavior is creating new "Democrats" (as if "Republicans" respect liberty any better), they are driving them to be anti-gun.
If you were to move into an area where people are gnashing their teeth about your presence, and you were given the (illegitimate) opportunity to vote to take those people's guns away from them, you'd need to have a very solid foundation in absolute human rights to pass up that chance.
I could do it- as my lack of support for "borders", anti-gun "laws", and assorted State actions that might "benefit" me in some way should demonstrate. But most people, especially coming from a place where government and freelance aggressors were constantly shooting the "legally" disarmed innocent, need some better experiences to learn from.
Hating them, telling them they must go through an illegal "legal" process to live where they want, and then acting like a threat to them, isn't going to accomplish what you claim to be your goal. You have adopted a really bad system to get where you claim to want to be, and the result will be inevitable if you don't change tactics.
.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Shocked!
I'm shocked when I discover an otherwise intelligent person is "conservative" or "liberal".
That's like discovering an astronomer who believes in horoscopes.
Or a neurosurgeon who believes headaches can be relieved by letting the evil spirits out of the sufferer's skull by drilling holes in it.
Or a biologist who believes flies spontaneously spring from rotting meat.
Or an astronaut who believes the Earth is flat.
It simply makes no sense whatsoever.
.
That's like discovering an astronomer who believes in horoscopes.
Or a neurosurgeon who believes headaches can be relieved by letting the evil spirits out of the sufferer's skull by drilling holes in it.
Or a biologist who believes flies spontaneously spring from rotting meat.
Or an astronaut who believes the Earth is flat.
It simply makes no sense whatsoever.
.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
I'm such a slacker
I guess I should sent the State Line Tribune another Liberty Lines soon. Shame on me for slacking.
.
If you're right, what do you care what I think?
Recently I have upset a lot of people ("conservatives") with my opinions on the mass murderer, serial killer Chris Kyle, and "capital punishment".
That is understandable.
I'm still right on both counts.
However, what does it matter? It's "just" my opinion.
Chris Kyle is dead, the movie beatifying his worthless murdering hide is a huge success, and my opinion won't likely talk even one person out of selling their soul to the State, especially if they hunger to murder large numbers of people without "legal" consequence. Those on that path aren't going to be reading my opinion anyway. I wouldn't use The State or its "laws" to stop them even if I could.
And, on the topic of "capital punishment", statists are going to do what they are going to do. I am powerless to stop even one "execution". Sure, if I saw a person in the public square, kneeling to be beheaded, and I were able to take a shot- just like a military sniper- to kill the executioner as he raised the sword, I would do it. Before you compare me to a military sniper, let me remind you this act would be my responsibility; my "fault", individually. Not "just following orders" or "just doing my job". I couldn't justify my actions by the gang I belong to. This would be killing to save a life by stopping a government action, against a person not currently initiating force nor property rights violations, in progress. Not just a potential act, but an imminent one. I would not shoot the same guy if he were simply walking through the square with a sword or firearm, nor if he were going after an obvious armed trespasser (obvious by the gang colors the trespasser wore), there to cause him or others harm. But, unless public executions become a thing in America, I wont be in any position to stop one. I don't trespass uninvited.
So, basically, all the anger over my opinions is silly. People are getting upset over what I think of them, or of people and practices they like. If I'm wrong, what do you care what I think of you? Not enough people read this blog for it to have much impact in how others think of you or those things you support.
If you believe you are right, keep doing or supporting those things and don't worry your conscience. If deep down you suspect I might be right, do some thinking for yourself.
.
That is understandable.
I'm still right on both counts.
However, what does it matter? It's "just" my opinion.
Chris Kyle is dead, the movie beatifying his worthless murdering hide is a huge success, and my opinion won't likely talk even one person out of selling their soul to the State, especially if they hunger to murder large numbers of people without "legal" consequence. Those on that path aren't going to be reading my opinion anyway. I wouldn't use The State or its "laws" to stop them even if I could.
And, on the topic of "capital punishment", statists are going to do what they are going to do. I am powerless to stop even one "execution". Sure, if I saw a person in the public square, kneeling to be beheaded, and I were able to take a shot- just like a military sniper- to kill the executioner as he raised the sword, I would do it. Before you compare me to a military sniper, let me remind you this act would be my responsibility; my "fault", individually. Not "just following orders" or "just doing my job". I couldn't justify my actions by the gang I belong to. This would be killing to save a life by stopping a government action, against a person not currently initiating force nor property rights violations, in progress. Not just a potential act, but an imminent one. I would not shoot the same guy if he were simply walking through the square with a sword or firearm, nor if he were going after an obvious armed trespasser (obvious by the gang colors the trespasser wore), there to cause him or others harm. But, unless public executions become a thing in America, I wont be in any position to stop one. I don't trespass uninvited.
So, basically, all the anger over my opinions is silly. People are getting upset over what I think of them, or of people and practices they like. If I'm wrong, what do you care what I think of you? Not enough people read this blog for it to have much impact in how others think of you or those things you support.
If you believe you are right, keep doing or supporting those things and don't worry your conscience. If deep down you suspect I might be right, do some thinking for yourself.
.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Slavery can be red tape or chains
Slavery can be red tape or chains
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 26, 2014)
Most people think of slavery as an evil from the past, at least in America and other "first world" places. Yet it's still all around us, only in slightly modified form. Libertarians are the modern day abolitionists seeking to change this.
Is slavery OK if you believe the slave would die without being owned and controlled? After all, the slave master feeds, clothes, and houses his human property so they will continue to live and be useful to him. A dead slave is of no use to anyone. And, perhaps, giving a slave his freedom and allowing him to live in Rightful Liberty would result in some tragedies.
That seems a poor justification for slavery.
Liberty is worth the risk every single time.
Does it change anything if the slave doesn't realize he is a slave?
Of course not. I would prefer to point out his condition and encourage him to change it, and offer my help.
Just as I don't want my loved ones to be slaves, even if their master feeds, shelters, and clothes them, I don't want to see things I love- such as parks, zoos, libraries, roads, and education- enslaved by being part of government.
Not only does that mean I don't want them dependent upon money taken from its rightful owner through the act of "taxation", but I don't want them controlled by a bureaucracy which tries to exempt them all from market forces. This only entrenches the status quo and makes real innovation less likely. I want them to be free to be the best they can possibly be, without any red tape whatsoever. Finding a better way to do anything requires the freedom to experiment, risk being wrong, and not be constrained by regulations or any sort of bureaucracy.
It's odd to me how many times I see people comment that if I don't want government providing something I must hate it and not want it to exist at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want the things I love to flourish and spread in every conceivable arrangement.
The year 2014 is wrapping up fast. In many ways it was a good year, but I'd love to see 2015 be even better. My fellow abolitionists and I would love to think 2014 would be the last gasp for slavery of any kind, anywhere in the world. But, as Harriet Tubman is reputed to have said: "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."
Happy New Year, and throw off your chains!
Most people think of slavery as an evil from the past, at least in America and other "first world" places. Yet it's still all around us, only in slightly modified form. Libertarians are the modern day abolitionists seeking to change this.
Is slavery OK if you believe the slave would die without being owned and controlled? After all, the slave master feeds, clothes, and houses his human property so they will continue to live and be useful to him. A dead slave is of no use to anyone. And, perhaps, giving a slave his freedom and allowing him to live in Rightful Liberty would result in some tragedies.
That seems a poor justification for slavery.
Liberty is worth the risk every single time.
Does it change anything if the slave doesn't realize he is a slave?
Of course not. I would prefer to point out his condition and encourage him to change it, and offer my help.
Just as I don't want my loved ones to be slaves, even if their master feeds, shelters, and clothes them, I don't want to see things I love- such as parks, zoos, libraries, roads, and education- enslaved by being part of government.
Not only does that mean I don't want them dependent upon money taken from its rightful owner through the act of "taxation", but I don't want them controlled by a bureaucracy which tries to exempt them all from market forces. This only entrenches the status quo and makes real innovation less likely. I want them to be free to be the best they can possibly be, without any red tape whatsoever. Finding a better way to do anything requires the freedom to experiment, risk being wrong, and not be constrained by regulations or any sort of bureaucracy.
It's odd to me how many times I see people comment that if I don't want government providing something I must hate it and not want it to exist at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want the things I love to flourish and spread in every conceivable arrangement.
The year 2014 is wrapping up fast. In many ways it was a good year, but I'd love to see 2015 be even better. My fellow abolitionists and I would love to think 2014 would be the last gasp for slavery of any kind, anywhere in the world. But, as Harriet Tubman is reputed to have said: "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."
Happy New Year, and throw off your chains!
.
Living in FoxNewsIstan
OK, honestly, I can't say if they were influenced by any "news" channel.
I overheard some people discussing the mass murderer movie. Salivating to go see it; grieving that it is always "sold out". Propaganda has never been so profitable. The State risks none of the stolen money it controls, lets corporations do it instead, and both reap the rewards.
A nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.
Anyway, they were talking in reverent tones about the movie, unaware of its inaccuracies. And refusing to see the despicable events it portrays as bad in any way. Because, "Muslims!", and "America!"
Then, the talk shifted to an older movie from a few years before "9/11", where the hero spoke of not negotiating with terrorists. They commented that if (Islamic) terrorism had been "nipped in the bud" back then, "we" wouldn't still be dealing with it now.
Ignoring the reality that the terrorists were created, in large part, by the US government or its policies. No, "we" don't negotiate with terrorists- "we" create them, so "we" will have an excuse for never-ending war and tyranny at "home".
But, they were simply parroting the "conservative" mantra, and around here, it is gospel. And, in a very real way, it makes me feel sick.
Recently, I have been upsetting a lot of "conservatives". Not sure why; they should know by now I am not one of "them". I am the opposite of "conservative" and "liberal". Where they adhere to a respect for Rightful Liberty, I am right there beside them. When they veer off course into the swamp of statism, I don't follow them to oblivion. It's just my way. I just wish they would be consistent and choose a side: Liberty or State. But, not my circus; not my monkeys.
.
I overheard some people discussing the mass murderer movie. Salivating to go see it; grieving that it is always "sold out". Propaganda has never been so profitable. The State risks none of the stolen money it controls, lets corporations do it instead, and both reap the rewards.
A nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.
Anyway, they were talking in reverent tones about the movie, unaware of its inaccuracies. And refusing to see the despicable events it portrays as bad in any way. Because, "Muslims!", and "America!"
Then, the talk shifted to an older movie from a few years before "9/11", where the hero spoke of not negotiating with terrorists. They commented that if (Islamic) terrorism had been "nipped in the bud" back then, "we" wouldn't still be dealing with it now.
Ignoring the reality that the terrorists were created, in large part, by the US government or its policies. No, "we" don't negotiate with terrorists- "we" create them, so "we" will have an excuse for never-ending war and tyranny at "home".
But, they were simply parroting the "conservative" mantra, and around here, it is gospel. And, in a very real way, it makes me feel sick.
Recently, I have been upsetting a lot of "conservatives". Not sure why; they should know by now I am not one of "them". I am the opposite of "conservative" and "liberal". Where they adhere to a respect for Rightful Liberty, I am right there beside them. When they veer off course into the swamp of statism, I don't follow them to oblivion. It's just my way. I just wish they would be consistent and choose a side: Liberty or State. But, not my circus; not my monkeys.
.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Disappointment
I am feeling a lot of disappointment.
I am disappointed when someone who knows better does wrong. I put no one on a pedestal, so any individual's actions don't pull the rug out from under me. But I am still disappointed.
That disappointment is magnified exponentially when the response from people who also know better is to start chanting for revenge, punishment, and other evils which form the very foundation of The State and are antithetical to justice. Like a pack of dogs when one falls, they lose their minds and pile on, to tear the fallen dog to shreds, not really caring who else gets hurt in the free for all.
This is the greater tragedy, with the most far-reaching and long lasting repercussions and damage to the most individuals. In the long run, it is much more harmful than the evil actions of one person toward one other person. It shows how bad individuals can behave when herd behavior takes control.
What is the difference between a liberty lover and a statist if they act the same way- even to the point of calling for the exact same response- to a horrible situation?
This kind of "thinking" is why The State still hangs on. It is, as is said, "why we can't have nice things".
It makes me feel alienated. It takes the wind out of my sails. If supposed liberty lovers don't "get it", how can I expect anyone else to?
This disappointment drives home the fact that I can never really "belong". I am me. Alone.
I have said where I stand and what I believe in over 8 years of blog posts- and you can witness through those posts as I have pared away inconsistencies and relinquished the clinging bits of statism I have shed over the years. I have explained how I will behave toward others, however they behave toward me. I am not associated with others beyond where our beliefs, and how we act on those beliefs, are parallel- where we diverge, we diverge.
It makes me just want to post cat pictures.
.
I am disappointed when someone who knows better does wrong. I put no one on a pedestal, so any individual's actions don't pull the rug out from under me. But I am still disappointed.
That disappointment is magnified exponentially when the response from people who also know better is to start chanting for revenge, punishment, and other evils which form the very foundation of The State and are antithetical to justice. Like a pack of dogs when one falls, they lose their minds and pile on, to tear the fallen dog to shreds, not really caring who else gets hurt in the free for all.
This is the greater tragedy, with the most far-reaching and long lasting repercussions and damage to the most individuals. In the long run, it is much more harmful than the evil actions of one person toward one other person. It shows how bad individuals can behave when herd behavior takes control.
What is the difference between a liberty lover and a statist if they act the same way- even to the point of calling for the exact same response- to a horrible situation?
This kind of "thinking" is why The State still hangs on. It is, as is said, "why we can't have nice things".
It makes me feel alienated. It takes the wind out of my sails. If supposed liberty lovers don't "get it", how can I expect anyone else to?
This disappointment drives home the fact that I can never really "belong". I am me. Alone.
I have said where I stand and what I believe in over 8 years of blog posts- and you can witness through those posts as I have pared away inconsistencies and relinquished the clinging bits of statism I have shed over the years. I have explained how I will behave toward others, however they behave toward me. I am not associated with others beyond where our beliefs, and how we act on those beliefs, are parallel- where we diverge, we diverge.
It makes me just want to post cat pictures.
.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Patronizing, anti-gun, gun lovers
From time to time I'll see someone posting online about a cool replica gun they have built. That is fine as far as it goes.
I can appreciate their works of art. I have a nice non-functional replica, myself, although I didn't build it. I also have a lot of toy guns, and cheap sci-fi toys based on Star Trek and Star Wars guns. So, I see nothing wrong with appreciating fake guns, too.
Occasionally, though, I misunderstand and mistake their pictured replica for a real gun, and make a comment based on that misunderstanding. Some will laugh it off and inform me that their gun is a non-functional replica, and we can go from there discussing the nice points of their fake gun.
But, what I don't like is when someone takes that opportunity to get patronizing, telling me that "real guns are too dangerous", and going on a diatribe based upon their beloved anti-gun beliefs. Yeah, that can really irritate me.
Maybe real guns are too dangerous for them. In that case, they are probably too stupid to own fake guns, too. After all, acting stupid with a fake gun can get you just as dead as misusing a real gun.
.
I can appreciate their works of art. I have a nice non-functional replica, myself, although I didn't build it. I also have a lot of toy guns, and cheap sci-fi toys based on Star Trek and Star Wars guns. So, I see nothing wrong with appreciating fake guns, too.
Occasionally, though, I misunderstand and mistake their pictured replica for a real gun, and make a comment based on that misunderstanding. Some will laugh it off and inform me that their gun is a non-functional replica, and we can go from there discussing the nice points of their fake gun.
But, what I don't like is when someone takes that opportunity to get patronizing, telling me that "real guns are too dangerous", and going on a diatribe based upon their beloved anti-gun beliefs. Yeah, that can really irritate me.
Maybe real guns are too dangerous for them. In that case, they are probably too stupid to own fake guns, too. After all, acting stupid with a fake gun can get you just as dead as misusing a real gun.
.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
"Capital punishment" is murder. Here's why
The reason a State death penalty is murder seems to be lost on some people.
Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.
Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.
For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.
Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.
.
Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.
Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.
For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.
Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.
.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Can anything be "made right" with a wrong?
I am not a "believer" in The State. Period.
No matter what someone has done, or to whom, The State is never a good "solution" (if it can be considered a "solution" at all) and I don't support any response which involves the State or any of its tentacles.
I don't believe in imprisonment. No justice can ever come by this path.
I don't believe in revenge or punishment. Once again, these are anti-justice. I also understand that most people are enthusiastic fans of both, so this puts me at odds with seemingly everyone.
I am a big fan of death at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer at the scene of the attack- but anything later is revenge or an attempt to "punish". I can understand the desire for punishment, and have even been guilty of committing it myself in the past, but it is still wrong.
Some things can never be "made right"- but with the knowledge of that fact seems to come a desire to toss everything aside and become a salivating revenge junkie, a crazed punishment pusher, or a situational statist.
And, that's all I have to say on that matter.
.
No matter what someone has done, or to whom, The State is never a good "solution" (if it can be considered a "solution" at all) and I don't support any response which involves the State or any of its tentacles.
I don't believe in imprisonment. No justice can ever come by this path.
I don't believe in revenge or punishment. Once again, these are anti-justice. I also understand that most people are enthusiastic fans of both, so this puts me at odds with seemingly everyone.
I am a big fan of death at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer at the scene of the attack- but anything later is revenge or an attempt to "punish". I can understand the desire for punishment, and have even been guilty of committing it myself in the past, but it is still wrong.
Some things can never be "made right"- but with the knowledge of that fact seems to come a desire to toss everything aside and become a salivating revenge junkie, a crazed punishment pusher, or a situational statist.
And, that's all I have to say on that matter.
.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
C. S. Lewis, liberty, and the evils of statism
Some of you might enjoy this talk by David J. Theroux to the C. S. Lewis Society of California. I listened to the whole thing and I enjoyed it.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Stop aiding your enemies with your inconsistency
I've been observing some meltdowns going on online. Meltdowns driving a wedge into the liberty community. In other words, doing the anti-liberty bigots' work for them. That's sad.
The funny thing is, it's always over compromise with evil- with inconsistency. Some people get their knickers in a bunch when others do it, while doing the exact same thing themselves and not recognizing it.
You look silly throwing a fit over some Second Amendment Rights compromiser who helps write anti-gun "laws" if you also support anti-liberty military mass murderers.
Yeah, it's the same sort of thing. It's support of State over Rightful Liberty in both cases.
Consistency is important. You can be consistently wrong- it is unlikely but possible. But, it is impossible to be inconsistent, yet right. You may be right about some things (by supporting Rightful Liberty) and wrong about others (by rejecting Rightful Liberty for some people in some instances and/or by supporting a particular enemy of liberty you want to support for whatever reason), but the areas where you are wrong damage your credibility where you are right.
I try to remain consistent. If I notice inconsistency in myself (or have it pointed out to me) I know it means I am wrong somewhere. I have worked hard to eliminate those inconsistencies, always toward a deeper respect for Liberty, even when it makes people hate me. I'd rather be right than popular- well, I suppose it would be nice to be both, but that's just not going to happen. Besides, if you are right, it means the people who like you are the good people, and not just those who "like" you for your popularity.
These petty (or not so petty) in-fights could be avoided if people would take consistency seriously and just stop trying to appease the anti-liberty bigots who will never be their friends anyway: those who give lip service to liberty as long as it suits their purposes- advancing their own liberty- and quickly forget it as soon as the State and its "laws" can be used against someone they hate.
When in doubt- and even when sure- always default toward Rightful Liberty. If you choose something over Liberty, own it.
Added: Someone, on the Facebook "share" of this post, commented "Good advice for you, Kent!", to which I replied "Please be specific about any inconsistencies I exhibit so that I can fix them." I'm still waiting for a response. Maybe I misunderstood what she was attempting to communicate.
.
The funny thing is, it's always over compromise with evil- with inconsistency. Some people get their knickers in a bunch when others do it, while doing the exact same thing themselves and not recognizing it.
You look silly throwing a fit over some Second Amendment Rights compromiser who helps write anti-gun "laws" if you also support anti-liberty military mass murderers.
Yeah, it's the same sort of thing. It's support of State over Rightful Liberty in both cases.
Consistency is important. You can be consistently wrong- it is unlikely but possible. But, it is impossible to be inconsistent, yet right. You may be right about some things (by supporting Rightful Liberty) and wrong about others (by rejecting Rightful Liberty for some people in some instances and/or by supporting a particular enemy of liberty you want to support for whatever reason), but the areas where you are wrong damage your credibility where you are right.
I try to remain consistent. If I notice inconsistency in myself (or have it pointed out to me) I know it means I am wrong somewhere. I have worked hard to eliminate those inconsistencies, always toward a deeper respect for Liberty, even when it makes people hate me. I'd rather be right than popular- well, I suppose it would be nice to be both, but that's just not going to happen. Besides, if you are right, it means the people who like you are the good people, and not just those who "like" you for your popularity.
These petty (or not so petty) in-fights could be avoided if people would take consistency seriously and just stop trying to appease the anti-liberty bigots who will never be their friends anyway: those who give lip service to liberty as long as it suits their purposes- advancing their own liberty- and quickly forget it as soon as the State and its "laws" can be used against someone they hate.
When in doubt- and even when sure- always default toward Rightful Liberty. If you choose something over Liberty, own it.
Added: Someone, on the Facebook "share" of this post, commented "Good advice for you, Kent!", to which I replied "Please be specific about any inconsistencies I exhibit so that I can fix them." I'm still waiting for a response. Maybe I misunderstood what she was attempting to communicate.
.
The War on Driving
Isn't it convenient that the primary mode of transportation has been declared by the State to be so uniquely dangerous that they must exercise extraordinary control over it with all sorts of "laws", and swarms of enforcers to impose those "laws" on travelers, even as those enforcers constitute a real "public" hazard by doing so.
They say in order to be safe enough to drive you must have all sorts of permits and licenses for you and your vehicle. They have asserted for themselves the "authority" to regulate what is in your blood or what you are doing. They claim to be authorized to take away your right to drive on a whim if you don't do what they demand.
Yes, there is a War on Driving, declared by the State and supported in some form by every sort of person- with truly few exceptions.
.
They say in order to be safe enough to drive you must have all sorts of permits and licenses for you and your vehicle. They have asserted for themselves the "authority" to regulate what is in your blood or what you are doing. They claim to be authorized to take away your right to drive on a whim if you don't do what they demand.
Yes, there is a War on Driving, declared by the State and supported in some form by every sort of person- with truly few exceptions.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)