Just because I like guns, and know that the more people who own and carry them the better it is for the good guys, doesn't mean I think everyone should necessarily have a gun at every moment.
For example, I don't think cops should carry guns- they are the only people I think should be legally disarmed (since I don't think "laws" should ever be applied to anyone who isn't explicitly a part of government).
I used to know a guy who would get really drunk at the bar and then endlessly tell me about the gun in his boot (while patting the boot), and how if "anything goes down" I didn't have to worry because he was ready. Not that I believe he could have hit the target in his condition.
He also used to brag about his "permit" to carry. He often showed me his "license" and acted as if it were a really big deal.
I have no idea whether he actually had a gun in his boot- he never flashed that. I guess he did that right.
I never saw him do anything dangerous with a gun. Even if I had, it's not the State's business. But, had he pulled the gun out during any "exciting event" I would have been as worried about him as anyone else.
The first rule of concealed carry is don't advertise. Don't people know what "concealed" means? Maybe he only talked to me about it, but I doubt it. Someone else might have used his talk against him.
Second, if you are drunk, you are quite possibly a bigger danger if you pull out your gun than whatever you think you would be protecting others from.
It all comes down to responsibility. You are responsible for what you do- good or bad. So weigh your actions carefully. Yes, I want you to be armed at all times. But if you are compromised, it might be best if you aren't. Either way, the State has no authority.
.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
Don't try anarchy
Right. Anarchy is how I live almost all of my life. And so do you. You no more "try it" than you try circulating your blood through your veins.
You can't even avoid living anarchy if it scares you. It only scares you if you overthink it and realize what you are (and always have been) doing.
So, don't "try" anarchy. Just accept it.
.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Education beats enforced ignorance every time
I'm actually going to pass along an anti-gun ad (even though I hate to give it page views). Well, perhaps you might consider it "gun safety" rather than anti-gun. That argument could be made, but I think it's on shaky ground. It feels anti-gun to me.
Anyway, here it is:
Yes, kids who are kept ignorant will play with anything they find. Now. once again, I suggest education is the key.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the boys had been educated about what the "toys" were, and how to properly use them, they wouldn't have touched them with a ten-foot pole.
A locked-up gun is useless for defense. Of course, that's what the anti-liberty bigots want. It's their idea of "safety". Safety for whom?
.
Anyway, here it is:
Yes, kids who are kept ignorant will play with anything they find. Now. once again, I suggest education is the key.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the boys had been educated about what the "toys" were, and how to properly use them, they wouldn't have touched them with a ten-foot pole.
A locked-up gun is useless for defense. Of course, that's what the anti-liberty bigots want. It's their idea of "safety". Safety for whom?
.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
When should you hit a woman?
...anytime you need to hit anyone in self defense, that's when. To imagine that someone gets a pass for aggression due to the type of genitalia they have is inconsistent and hurts everyone- attacker and victim, alike.
You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.
I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.
When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.
Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.
So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.
You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.
I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.
When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.
Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.
So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Circumcision by "law"
I'm sure you've seen the case in Florida where the woman is being ordered by the State to have her 4 year-old son circumcised like she had previously agreed to do.
First off, I will say that I support the mother's resistance. I consider circumcision to be genital mutilation- and when medically unnecessary, it is definitely an act of aggression. I consider the State's opinions to be the utterings of an idiot, to be ignored unless a gun is in your face right now, and to be resisted whenever necessary to do the right thing.
But I accidentally got into a Facebook "debate" with a couple of women whose opinions on this matter astounded me.
Here are the basics:
The contract is sacred and must be upheld- no matter what.
It is better to do this to a baby since he won't remember it, but since she didn't do it then, she must do it now, and it is her fault the kid is now being traumatized.
The mom is wrong for informing (and scaring) him of what the dad and State want to do to him.
The mom is a drama queen for not simply complying.
It is hyperbole to call this "genital mutilation", and it can't be compared at all to female genital mutilation.
The "origins" of the procedure matter more than the results.
I see these women as radical statists. Collectivists of the worst kind.
I don't care what contract you have signed. If an act is wrong, enforcing a contract that says you have to do it is wrong.
The baby may not remember the trauma, but it will affect his whole life and his quality of life- one way or the other. And this kid is no longer a baby and his wishes in the matter need to be considered. And, of course he is scared! People want to cut off a part of his body for no real reason other than it is "normal" to do so!
Sure, the dad claims the kid has a medical condition that can be solved by circumcision. You could solve a pimple on a breast with radical mastectomy, too, but that doesn't mean it's the only, or even the best, option. I'd be willing to bet there are less radical ways to fix the problem while leaving the kid intact.
This was one of those times I had a hard time being nice. I wanted to scream at these women for being brutal child abuse enablers. I consider them pure evil of the sort that empowers the State and tramples liberty. What you do out of ignorance is one thing- what you continue to advocate after being educated is quite another.
.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
If a thug lends a hand
If I were in serious trouble would I accept help from a known bad guy? You bet I would.
So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.
Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."
And it's the same if a cop helps.
No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.
Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.
If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.
Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.
.
So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.
Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."
And it's the same if a cop helps.
No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.
Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.
If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.
-
Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.
.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Visitors center could be profitable
Visitors center could be profitable
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 6, 2015)
The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?
Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.
I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.
Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.
Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.
A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.
Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.
The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".
.
The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?
Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.
I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.
Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.
Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.
A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.
Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.
The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".
.
Skinhead Bob's double standards
Sunday evening I was taking a walk with my daughter. As we were leaving our yard a local skinhead belonging to the Blue Line Gang drove past. He was talking on his cell phone and using his laptop as he drove. His hands were so busy I'm not sure how he was driving.
This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.
OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.
And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.
What do you think the chances of that might be?
Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.
*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.
.
This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.
OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.
And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.
What do you think the chances of that might be?
Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.
-
*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.
.
Monday, March 09, 2015
A "Deaddog's switch"- a profitable idea?
You know I'm somewhat enthusiastic about preps. I try not to push the issue, since I don't think that helps- when it matters to you, you'll do it. I wish it mattered to everyone.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Is history fiction?
(Previously posted to Patreon.)
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
Garry Reed's "Selected Salvos 2".
I recently finished reading Garry Reed's latest little collection, "Selected Salvos 2 from the Loose Cannon Libertarian".
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/km4jxqr
Kindle: http://tinyurl.com/okqacn3
Barnes&Noble: http://tinyurl.com/o339l2o
Goodreads: http://tinyurl.com/khvrvox
(And, for a video about the book- YouTube: http://youtu.be/MYFWQlTIYPs)
.
Read it and absorb it
MamaLiberty has written a really great one.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
"Private, for-profit" man cages
"Private, for-profit" prisons are just as bad as their State-run twins. First of all, they are not "private" since they depend utterly on the criminal-creating State for their existence and profits.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Finally- I find an excuse for government
I'm always saying there's no excuse for government.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Good ISIS?
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)