Would I intervene to stop a bank robbery?
I'm not so sure.
I suppose if innocent people were in danger, I might. But if it was just to stop a theft... probably not.
Banks have become a tool of the State. From their compliance with all the vile "Patriot act" nonsense to "fractional reserve" banking (which I consider fraud), they are totally controlled by the State and its "laws". They have become nothing more than a branch of "government"- complicit in violating their customers for the benefit of that gang of thugs calling themselves "government".
At least they can't (yet) force you to do business with them against your will.
That doesn't mean I would steal from a bank, but I certainly wouldn't risk my life to stop someone else from doing so.
If it were a free market bank the story would be different. In that case I would look upon a bank robbery as I would any other violation of property, and would do all I could to stop it.
.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
4-19: "Patriots Day"
I used to get all worked up over 4-19. "Patriots Day".
It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.
So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.
You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.
.
It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.
So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.
You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.
.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
A wrinkle in "A Wrinkle in Time"
I read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was in ... either late elementary school or early junior high. Strange that I can't pin it down, since it is usually easy for me to remember where I lived when I first read something- and I moved constantly. Maybe my timeline has wrinkles I am not aware of.
But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.
Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.
In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”
Dead on!
Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.
Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.
.
But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.
Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.
In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”
Dead on!
Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.
-
Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.
.
Do professional rapists protect you from freelance rapists?
The excuse that "some people do bad things" as justification for your belief in "government" is the same as saying that it would be best to allow professional rapists to prey on people rather than to risk freelance rapists.
And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.
That's insane. Don't be insane.
Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.
.
And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.
That's insane. Don't be insane.
Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.
.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Pardon my mess while I evolve
I just read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose: A very good book which I highly recommend. (And FINALLY available in a Kindle edition, too!)
This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.
I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.
My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.
Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.
.
This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.
I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.
My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.
Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.
.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Compromises between bad guys
"National borders" represent compromises between thieving thugs. Really, that's all they are.
Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".
"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.
Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?
.
Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".
"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.
Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?
.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Honorable people don't
Is it honorable to hire yourself out to a gang?
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?
No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.
Military and cops are not "honorable".
.
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?
No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.
Military and cops are not "honorable".
.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas
Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 13, 2015- However, I'm NOT just talking about "lawmakers" as the headline states- I'm talking about government employees of every sort.)
Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?
It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.
If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.
It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.
If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.
I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.
Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.
It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.
So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.
During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?
As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.
.
Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?
It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.
If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.
It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.
If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.
I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.
Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.
It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.
So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.
During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?
As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.
.
"Law abiding taxpayer"
(Previously posted to Patreon)
"Law abiding taxpayer" is a really perverted term. When someone claims to be one, what they are really bragging about is the "honor" of being a compliant victim of theft and bullies.
Why brag about something that pathetic?
You might as well brag about being a cowardly back-stabber.
I understand why people pay the extortion called "taxes". Extortion works, otherwise thugs would find something else to try. But, be ashamed you were robbed, not proud of it.
And since "laws" are ALL either unnecessary or harmful, there is no honor in being "law abiding" either.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate the property of others. Those are things you can really be proud of- be a ZAP abiding property respecter, not a proudly compliant victim.
.
"Law abiding taxpayer" is a really perverted term. When someone claims to be one, what they are really bragging about is the "honor" of being a compliant victim of theft and bullies.
Why brag about something that pathetic?
You might as well brag about being a cowardly back-stabber.
I understand why people pay the extortion called "taxes". Extortion works, otherwise thugs would find something else to try. But, be ashamed you were robbed, not proud of it.
And since "laws" are ALL either unnecessary or harmful, there is no honor in being "law abiding" either.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate the property of others. Those are things you can really be proud of- be a ZAP abiding property respecter, not a proudly compliant victim.
.
Intentions
I don't care about your intentions; I care about what you do.
I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.
That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.
The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.
.
I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.
That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.
The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.
.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Department of... what?
I was recently looking at a sign in front of a prison. The sign declared that the facility was a part of the "Texas Department of Justice".
That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.
So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.
Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.
I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.
.
That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.
So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.
Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.
I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.
.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
A preference for Liberty
People act like a preference for Liberty is the same as a preference for ice tea over Dr Pepper. But it isn't.
You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.
Not so with a preference for Liberty.
Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.
The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.
A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.
.
You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.
Not so with a preference for Liberty.
Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.
The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.
A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.
.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Daughter's request
My daughter is wanting a day out at the movies. I don't have the extra money for such an expenditure.
It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.
So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.
.
It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.
So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.
.
If I were mayor
After last week's Liberty Lines came out in the paper, one person suggested I should run for mayor.
No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.
But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...
Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:
.
No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.
But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...
Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:
People of Farwell- from now on, there are only two rules in town: Do not violate anyone by attacking them, and Do not violate anyone's private property. That's it. I will not stand behind the police if they enforce any other "law", nor if by doing so they violate those two rules.
"Do not violate anyone by attacking them" can best be summed up by the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." If you "initiate force"- that means "start it"- your victim can legitimately defend himself against you, no matter who you are, and no matter what your job may be. Thugs be warned!
Another way to explain the re-adoption of these forgotten rules is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
All other "laws" violate the rights of the individual. Do not violate anyone or their private property and we'll be fine.
.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Shaneen Allen- the wrap-up.
The good news is that Shaneen Allen got pardoned.
The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.
Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).
No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.
So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.
Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".
That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.
.
The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.
Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).
No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.
So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.
Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".
That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.
.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
My next door neighbor is awesome.
This was in this week's State Line Tribune, in response to my most recent Liberty Lines. It was unsolicited, in fact, I haven't even spoken to her since my column came out.
.
Voluntaryist volunteers
I was recently told by a government extremist that they doubt I ever volunteer. They were speaking specifically about teaching (other people's) kids, but as I won't participate in classroom settings anymore, that limits my opportunities around here. They claimed that was no excuse.
Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.
I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.
Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.
For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.
But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.
I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)
But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.
I consider that another plus to me.
How many of you do volunteer work?
.
Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.
I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.
Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.
For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.
But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.
I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)
But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.
I consider that another plus to me.
How many of you do volunteer work?
.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Death by broccoli- Death by liberty
Broccoli is healthy for you to eat, eating only broccoli isn't healthy. Some statists believe liberty is like that. Some is good, but "too much" is unhealthy.
They are wrong.
Is "too much" bad?
No.
First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.
Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.
In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.
.
They are wrong.
Is "too much" bad?
No.
First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.
Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.
In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.
.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
Only government wins in election
Only government wins in election
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)
I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?
You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.
Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.
Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?
Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?
I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.
In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.
I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)
I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?
You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.
Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.
Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?
Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?
I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.
In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.
I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.
.
Killing people
In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.
It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.
It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).
.
It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.
It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).
.
Monday, April 06, 2015
Sometimes, they really aren't a Scotsman
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.
It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.
If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.
If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.
I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.
That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"
I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.
And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.
You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.
.
I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.
It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.
If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.
If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.
I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.
That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"
I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.
And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.
You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.
.
"Constitutional" doesn't mean "legitimate"
Admitting that a government, a branch of government, or a "law" is "constitutional" in no way suggests that it has any legitimacy.
It only means the Constitution permits it.
That's a huge difference.
.
It only means the Constitution permits it.
That's a huge difference.
.
Sunday, April 05, 2015
Wedding cakes and other horrifying cultural disasters
Here's a suggestion which should- I repeat, should- make everyone happy and end the Great Gay Wedding Cake Battles.
On the part of the customer: Order the cake.
On the part of the baker: Bake and decorate the cake, leaving off any bride or groom figurines. Offer figurines for sale at the counter, separately and individually.
On the part of the customer: Buy the cake. Buy figurines of whatever gender or number and stick them in the icing of the cake in whatever arrangement makes you happy.
The end.
Yeah, I know. Everyone wants their choices validated by making them public and obnoxious. This peaceful solution doesn't satisfy that need.
.
On the part of the customer: Order the cake.
On the part of the baker: Bake and decorate the cake, leaving off any bride or groom figurines. Offer figurines for sale at the counter, separately and individually.
On the part of the customer: Buy the cake. Buy figurines of whatever gender or number and stick them in the icing of the cake in whatever arrangement makes you happy.
The end.
Yeah, I know. Everyone wants their choices validated by making them public and obnoxious. This peaceful solution doesn't satisfy that need.
.
Saturday, April 04, 2015
"Guilty of desertion"
Sure, you can be guilty of desertion.
If you sign a valid contract which lays out your responsibilities and what you will get in exchange, if you run away before the expiration of that contract you deserted it. You might owe some restitution, and you wouldn't be eligible for any continuing benefits from that contract. And people would know and understand that you don't honor your agreements.
Of course, no contract which enslaves you is valid. No contract which calls for you to be caged if you decide to break it can be valid. No contract which requires you to live off theft, kill, and possibly be killed is valid. No contract which has individual penalties for only one side in case of a broken contract is valid.
No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it.
Which comes to that military delusion of "desertion".
The silliest objection to this "crime" is that they expose their military "brothers" to harm. Those "brothers" should follow the good example and also desert if they feel endangered. Staying in the military is in no way "honorable". Working for The State in any capacity is dishonorable. Always.
I appreciate those who break their contract with the mafia or any other organization which victimizes me by stealing my property and liberty. An organization which by its very existence makes me and those I love less safe. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they are a really nasty character otherwise.
.
If you sign a valid contract which lays out your responsibilities and what you will get in exchange, if you run away before the expiration of that contract you deserted it. You might owe some restitution, and you wouldn't be eligible for any continuing benefits from that contract. And people would know and understand that you don't honor your agreements.
Of course, no contract which enslaves you is valid. No contract which calls for you to be caged if you decide to break it can be valid. No contract which requires you to live off theft, kill, and possibly be killed is valid. No contract which has individual penalties for only one side in case of a broken contract is valid.
No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it.
Which comes to that military delusion of "desertion".
The silliest objection to this "crime" is that they expose their military "brothers" to harm. Those "brothers" should follow the good example and also desert if they feel endangered. Staying in the military is in no way "honorable". Working for The State in any capacity is dishonorable. Always.
I appreciate those who break their contract with the mafia or any other organization which victimizes me by stealing my property and liberty. An organization which by its very existence makes me and those I love less safe. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they are a really nasty character otherwise.
.
Thursday, April 02, 2015
Liberty Lines 4-2-2015
(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)
[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)
I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.
It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.
That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".
I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.
As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.
Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.
Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.
A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.
I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-
Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link
.
[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)
I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.
It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.
That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".
I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.
As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.
Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.
Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.
A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.
I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-
Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link
.
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Is it really necessary?
If you work for government and justify your "job" by claiming if government didn't do it, no one would, then your "job" shouldn't be done.
It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe your work to be. If it is actually needed, someone will do it- without relying on theft and coercion to fund it. Probably much better than the pathetic government attempt at filling that "need".
If no one steps up, then the "job" needs to go away.
.
It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe your work to be. If it is actually needed, someone will do it- without relying on theft and coercion to fund it. Probably much better than the pathetic government attempt at filling that "need".
If no one steps up, then the "job" needs to go away.
.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Required vaccination brings red flag
Required vaccination brings red flag
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 27, 2015)
I know of a lot of people who are very vocal against vaccinations. They have their reasons, although I am less than convinced. I rarely believe in “one size fits all” solutions. This can make me unpopular with both sides.
I would say I am generally in favor of vaccinations — the ones that work, anyway. And, the ones where the targeted disease is actually worse than the potential harm caused by the vaccine.
Not all vaccines are equally effective, not all diseases to be vaccinated against are equally dangerous, and vaccines can and do cause harm.
"Until vaccines are as safe as say, marijuana, calling them 'safe' as a blanket statement is just plain false." -- libertarian activist, Christopher Cantwell
A couple of years ago I had a tetanus booster shot. To me the risks associated with tetanus- even considering the tiny likelihood of contracting it- are great enough that the risk of taking the vaccine wasn't even an issue. Others might disagree.
As long as you go into it understanding the risks and benefits, I won't criticize your choice.
To me, the red flag is mandatory vaccinations; something I am very much opposed to and will never support. I might try to talk you into a particular vaccination, but if you refuse I won't try to force you. If you're sick I'll probably avoid contact- just as I generally do with sick people.
If I am vaccinated against whatever you contracted, either my vaccination will protect me, or a vaccination probably wouldn't have done you any good, either. If there is any added risk to me, I am willing to accept it while standing up for your liberty. The risk is small compared to the risk of starting down the slippery slope of believing anyone has the authority to force someone to take a drug they don't want for their own good. I've seen where that inevitably leads, and it isn't healthy for anyone.
Once you start forcing people to be stabbed and have foreign substances placed inside their body "for the good of society", it is a small step to say they must give up other parts of their life, liberty, and property for society's benefit. Maybe their car is too big, their house too garish, their bank account too large, or their yard too messy. The notion that other people do not belong to you has become a very radical position, but it is still the only right one.
If you have strong feelings one way or the other about vaccinations, try to convince people and then leave them alone to live with the consequences of their choice.
.
I would say I am generally in favor of vaccinations — the ones that work, anyway. And, the ones where the targeted disease is actually worse than the potential harm caused by the vaccine.
Not all vaccines are equally effective, not all diseases to be vaccinated against are equally dangerous, and vaccines can and do cause harm.
"Until vaccines are as safe as say, marijuana, calling them 'safe' as a blanket statement is just plain false." -- libertarian activist, Christopher Cantwell
A couple of years ago I had a tetanus booster shot. To me the risks associated with tetanus- even considering the tiny likelihood of contracting it- are great enough that the risk of taking the vaccine wasn't even an issue. Others might disagree.
As long as you go into it understanding the risks and benefits, I won't criticize your choice.
To me, the red flag is mandatory vaccinations; something I am very much opposed to and will never support. I might try to talk you into a particular vaccination, but if you refuse I won't try to force you. If you're sick I'll probably avoid contact- just as I generally do with sick people.
If I am vaccinated against whatever you contracted, either my vaccination will protect me, or a vaccination probably wouldn't have done you any good, either. If there is any added risk to me, I am willing to accept it while standing up for your liberty. The risk is small compared to the risk of starting down the slippery slope of believing anyone has the authority to force someone to take a drug they don't want for their own good. I've seen where that inevitably leads, and it isn't healthy for anyone.
Once you start forcing people to be stabbed and have foreign substances placed inside their body "for the good of society", it is a small step to say they must give up other parts of their life, liberty, and property for society's benefit. Maybe their car is too big, their house too garish, their bank account too large, or their yard too messy. The notion that other people do not belong to you has become a very radical position, but it is still the only right one.
If you have strong feelings one way or the other about vaccinations, try to convince people and then leave them alone to live with the consequences of their choice.
Statists on parade
There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". If something is necessary it can't be evil, and if it is evil, it can't be necessary.
Try to find some other justification for the State and its enforcers and military, and "taxation", and "laws".
The above was posted on the spur of the moment as my Facebook status a couple of days ago. It attracted the attention of a government extremist. The thread is long, but you might enjoy seeing just how a statist attempts to justify their beliefs.
If you don't "do" Facebook, I understand, but you are missing some amusement. Someday, I may try to post the whole thing here, but probably not. It is long and still growing.
Here is the link; Link
.
Smart (people's) choices
Smart people are not necessarily better people, but smart people are more able to consciously choose to be better people. Or worse people.
It's a double-edged sword.
But dumb people don't seem to be able to even choose. They are what they are, and not capable of thinking further than that. There are good stupid people and bad stupid people (just as there are both kinds of smart people), but they can't consider why they do what they do- unless they say something about religion or god to justify themselves. Thought makes them uncomfortable. Change would be scary. Realizing they have been wrong and need to change would unthinkable (in more ways than one) if it were even possible.
I realize everyone has a sort of ethical inertia. But, it is easier to at least discuss Liberty with smart people. And more likely (in my experience) to be successful in at least getting them to consider what you say.
Be smart and make the right choices- the choice to refuse to violate others, and to withdraw your support from those who choose to continue violating others "on your behalf".
.
It's a double-edged sword.
But dumb people don't seem to be able to even choose. They are what they are, and not capable of thinking further than that. There are good stupid people and bad stupid people (just as there are both kinds of smart people), but they can't consider why they do what they do- unless they say something about religion or god to justify themselves. Thought makes them uncomfortable. Change would be scary. Realizing they have been wrong and need to change would unthinkable (in more ways than one) if it were even possible.
I realize everyone has a sort of ethical inertia. But, it is easier to at least discuss Liberty with smart people. And more likely (in my experience) to be successful in at least getting them to consider what you say.
Be smart and make the right choices- the choice to refuse to violate others, and to withdraw your support from those who choose to continue violating others "on your behalf".
.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Reading "sign"
When I see rabbit tracks or pellets I know a rabbit has passed this way.
When I see deer tracks or deer poop, I know a deer has been here. By the type of poop left behind I know what the deer has been eating.
In the same way, when I see "laws" and "government" I know stupid and/or unethical people have been here. It's their "sign", as surely as tracks or poop, or their litter on the ground.
.
When I see deer tracks or deer poop, I know a deer has been here. By the type of poop left behind I know what the deer has been eating.
In the same way, when I see "laws" and "government" I know stupid and/or unethical people have been here. It's their "sign", as surely as tracks or poop, or their litter on the ground.
.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
"Safe spaces"
In thinking about my post about judgmental people, I also consider the notion of "safe spaces".
I will say I find the concept ridiculous, crippling, and childish.
No one offers anarchists a "safe space" away from depictions of The State, or even away from actually being physically and financially violated by statists and their harmful and unnecessary "laws".
Even in groups which ought to know better- and I particularly think of the Browncoat Facebook group- you'll find people saying "there has to be laws/government otherwise companies would poison me with mercury in my orange juice". Yes, someone really said that! That's a statist fallacy which "triggers" me. Where can I go to feel safe from such violent advocacy? Nowhere.
And I accept that.
It isn't "society's" responsibility to coddle my delicate feelings, making me soft and helpless.
If you can't deal with the real world, and accept that there will always be bad things out there to "trigger" you, you are not suited for survival. Not even if "compassionate" people want to wrap you in bubblewrap and place you in Nerf world. If you don't learn how to deal with reality, and with bad people and uncomfortable situations, your life will always suck.
People sometimes rape. Not because of a "culture" (unless you count the degraded culture of gangs), but because of an individual making the decision to violate the Zero Aggression Principle.
Cops are evil. The fact that you knew a "nice" one, or were saved by one once upon a time changes nothing.
Politicians are harmful to the world, and are- without exception- thieves and aggressors. Even if some are less bad than others.
Those things are reality. They may hurt your feelings and make you feel "unsafe", but that doesn't make reality go away.
So, don't look for a "safe space" and whine when reality seeps in. Take control of your surroundings and your own reaction to them. Accept uncomfortable reality. Get thicker skin. Take actions to protect yourself from actual dangers, rather than seek someone else's protection from imaginary ones. Grow up.
.
I will say I find the concept ridiculous, crippling, and childish.
No one offers anarchists a "safe space" away from depictions of The State, or even away from actually being physically and financially violated by statists and their harmful and unnecessary "laws".
Even in groups which ought to know better- and I particularly think of the Browncoat Facebook group- you'll find people saying "there has to be laws/government otherwise companies would poison me with mercury in my orange juice". Yes, someone really said that! That's a statist fallacy which "triggers" me. Where can I go to feel safe from such violent advocacy? Nowhere.
And I accept that.
It isn't "society's" responsibility to coddle my delicate feelings, making me soft and helpless.
If you can't deal with the real world, and accept that there will always be bad things out there to "trigger" you, you are not suited for survival. Not even if "compassionate" people want to wrap you in bubblewrap and place you in Nerf world. If you don't learn how to deal with reality, and with bad people and uncomfortable situations, your life will always suck.
People sometimes rape. Not because of a "culture" (unless you count the degraded culture of gangs), but because of an individual making the decision to violate the Zero Aggression Principle.
Cops are evil. The fact that you knew a "nice" one, or were saved by one once upon a time changes nothing.
Politicians are harmful to the world, and are- without exception- thieves and aggressors. Even if some are less bad than others.
Those things are reality. They may hurt your feelings and make you feel "unsafe", but that doesn't make reality go away.
So, don't look for a "safe space" and whine when reality seeps in. Take control of your surroundings and your own reaction to them. Accept uncomfortable reality. Get thicker skin. Take actions to protect yourself from actual dangers, rather than seek someone else's protection from imaginary ones. Grow up.
.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Judgmental people: I am one
I recently lost a dear friend on Facebook, who was also a friend before Facebook. And it really upset me.
Earlier this week on Facebook, when I posted that I often forget how indoctrinated most people are, this person commented that they forget how judgmental most people are. I didn't even realize at the time they were referring to me, until I noticed they were no longer a Facebook friend.
But I answered the comment, anyway. At first I said some people are, but not everyone.
Then, I reconsidered.
I think everyone is judgmental- but people express it in different ways.
It is one thing to judge something as right or wrong- I suppose everyone does that. It's another thing entirely to impose your will on people doing something you see as wrong.
There are a lot of things I believe are wrong, but which I will defend people's right to do.
If you aren't stealing or attacking, I might still not agree with what you're doing, but I wouldn't use force to stop you. I might try to talk you out of it. I might shun you. I might make fun of you or say what an evil monster you are. I will only use force if I see you engaging in theft or aggression.
I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing for some people to grasp.
I suspect this person abandoned me because of my stance against cops and the "conservative" politicians they like, although they never actually explained. (I had to go through a mutual friend to even find out anything at all, and to get an answer which involved me and my "high horse").
I can't lie to protect feelings or friendships... but it still hurts.
.
Earlier this week on Facebook, when I posted that I often forget how indoctrinated most people are, this person commented that they forget how judgmental most people are. I didn't even realize at the time they were referring to me, until I noticed they were no longer a Facebook friend.
But I answered the comment, anyway. At first I said some people are, but not everyone.
Then, I reconsidered.
I think everyone is judgmental- but people express it in different ways.
It is one thing to judge something as right or wrong- I suppose everyone does that. It's another thing entirely to impose your will on people doing something you see as wrong.
There are a lot of things I believe are wrong, but which I will defend people's right to do.
If you aren't stealing or attacking, I might still not agree with what you're doing, but I wouldn't use force to stop you. I might try to talk you out of it. I might shun you. I might make fun of you or say what an evil monster you are. I will only use force if I see you engaging in theft or aggression.
I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing for some people to grasp.
I suspect this person abandoned me because of my stance against cops and the "conservative" politicians they like, although they never actually explained. (I had to go through a mutual friend to even find out anything at all, and to get an answer which involved me and my "high horse").
I can't lie to protect feelings or friendships... but it still hurts.
.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
"Gun control" compromise, part 2
The next time you hear someone calling for a ban on normal capacity magazines- usually, but not always, suggesting to limit them to 10 rounds maximum- ask if, in exchange for that violation of your liberty, they'd be willing to compromise.
In fact, you could use this anytime you hear any anti-gun "law" being proposed.
In exchange for a magazine limit would they then be willing to get rid of all "laws" against carrying guns with the limited magazines, or revolvers with a capacity equal to or less than this arbitrary number of rounds? Not just "Constitutional carry", but diplomatic carry. As gun owners you and I are in a foreign, hostile land, after all.
If they balk you can then scream in their face they they are unwilling to compromise, so obviously they are in favor of mass-murder of toddlers and the elderly. Hey, it's what they consistently do to gun owners.
.
In fact, you could use this anytime you hear any anti-gun "law" being proposed.
In exchange for a magazine limit would they then be willing to get rid of all "laws" against carrying guns with the limited magazines, or revolvers with a capacity equal to or less than this arbitrary number of rounds? Not just "Constitutional carry", but diplomatic carry. As gun owners you and I are in a foreign, hostile land, after all.
If they balk you can then scream in their face they they are unwilling to compromise, so obviously they are in favor of mass-murder of toddlers and the elderly. Hey, it's what they consistently do to gun owners.
.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Mandatory v*ting
I don't believe for a second that Obama was ever seriously considering mandatory voting. But, the thought makes me smile.
If voting were mandatory, and I couldn't figure out a way to avoid it anyway, I would have fun with it.
I would vote for the most incompetent candidate I could find. Or the most overtly evil. I would do everything possible to mess up my ballot or smear the screen of the machine- not through "vandalism", but through bumbling idiocy. I would monkeywrench in every way I could think of.
Making something mandatory is the best way I know to destroy the value of it (if it even had any value before).
So, come on Obama. Bring it.
.
If voting were mandatory, and I couldn't figure out a way to avoid it anyway, I would have fun with it.
I would vote for the most incompetent candidate I could find. Or the most overtly evil. I would do everything possible to mess up my ballot or smear the screen of the machine- not through "vandalism", but through bumbling idiocy. I would monkeywrench in every way I could think of.
Making something mandatory is the best way I know to destroy the value of it (if it even had any value before).
So, come on Obama. Bring it.
.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Evil justifies evil?
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I get tired of hearing people excuse things done by the US Empire by saying that other States do things even worse.
Waterboarding and torture are "OK" because [Islamic enemy of the day] beheads and burns people alive.
Ignoring, of course, what Hellfire missiles are designed to do, and what regular bombs also do. If we don't have to watch people having their heads ripped off or burning to death (or screen shots of the deaths, anyway), it doesn't happen. Right?
If you only have to find someone more evil to justify what you do, then there is nothing which can't be justified. I could rape and torture children to death and justify it by finding someone who was even worse. Maybe they did the same, but to one more child than me. Or maybe they were more cruelly creative. But they were "worse".
No, they weren't.
A better way is to simply not engage in evil. Yes, there will be consequences of that, too. Maybe one evil person will survive and murder again. But, if you remove him by being evil, the amount of evil hasn't gone down- it has just infected another person. It has transferred to you, and then to the person who has to kill you. Not a solution by any definition....to be continued...
.
I get tired of hearing people excuse things done by the US Empire by saying that other States do things even worse.
Waterboarding and torture are "OK" because [Islamic enemy of the day] beheads and burns people alive.
Ignoring, of course, what Hellfire missiles are designed to do, and what regular bombs also do. If we don't have to watch people having their heads ripped off or burning to death (or screen shots of the deaths, anyway), it doesn't happen. Right?
If you only have to find someone more evil to justify what you do, then there is nothing which can't be justified. I could rape and torture children to death and justify it by finding someone who was even worse. Maybe they did the same, but to one more child than me. Or maybe they were more cruelly creative. But they were "worse".
No, they weren't.
A better way is to simply not engage in evil. Yes, there will be consequences of that, too. Maybe one evil person will survive and murder again. But, if you remove him by being evil, the amount of evil hasn't gone down- it has just infected another person. It has transferred to you, and then to the person who has to kill you. Not a solution by any definition....to be continued...
.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Libertarian girlfriends
I thought this was cute, and true: 7 Reasons Libertarian Women Make Amazing Girlfriends*
Or, I imagine it would be true- not having any personal experience to see for myself.
Anyway, I shared the link after reading it.
It was fluff. I wasn't prepared for a negative response.
A woman commented with "Hopefully, nobody believes in this. Expecting any person as an individual to apply world at large political principles to personal relationships is naive and almost leans in the direction of collectivism."
Or, I imagine it would be true- not having any personal experience to see for myself.
Anyway, I shared the link after reading it.
It was fluff. I wasn't prepared for a negative response.
A woman commented with "Hopefully, nobody believes in this. Expecting any person as an individual to apply world at large political principles to personal relationships is naive and almost leans in the direction of collectivism."
Wait... what?
She believes you can treat "society" in a civilized manner, but treat the person you love like crap? And, behaving in a non-libertarian way is treating someone like crap. It is violating their person or property. Or both.
Being civil isn't something you can switch on and off. Not consistently. If you think you can consistently treat outsiders with civility, but then have control over the people you have personal relationships with, you are fooling yourself. You might be able to pull it off to some degree, but you'll forget which mode you are in sometimes.
Anyway, I responded with "The ZAP applies at all levels. If it doesn't apply in your personal relationships, you are not libertarian. Because ALL relationships are personal."
She immediately corrected me, saying "I think that you meant NAP, which can still be intact without adherence to some of the items on this list.".
She immediately corrected me, saying "I think that you meant NAP, which can still be intact without adherence to some of the items on this list.".
As I say, and have said for years, the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient. I doubt she would have understood the difference.
-
*And, of course, I think every one of those points in that "article" apply equally as well to libertarian boyfriends. Isn't that the kind of significant other you'd want, whichever gender you prefer?
.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Privatization
If something shouldn't be done at all, it isn't better to privatize it.
Tax collecting, policing, or helping government in any way is evil. You wouldn't praise privatized executions or rape. Why praise privatized statism?
I was scolded a while back for not being enthusiastic at a Texas town's decision to shut down its police department and replace them with a private security force- one which did the exact same things that make police the bad guys: paid through theft, enforcing counterfeit rules, violating person and property. A difference which makes no difference isn't different, and certainly isn't an improvement.
Try again.
It's a sign of the deep indoctrination to believe the function of "policing" is so necessary that if government doesn't do it, you have to replace that function with something indistinguishable. Abolish the police and replace them with nothing... nothing but a universally armed populace.
.
Tax collecting, policing, or helping government in any way is evil. You wouldn't praise privatized executions or rape. Why praise privatized statism?
I was scolded a while back for not being enthusiastic at a Texas town's decision to shut down its police department and replace them with a private security force- one which did the exact same things that make police the bad guys: paid through theft, enforcing counterfeit rules, violating person and property. A difference which makes no difference isn't different, and certainly isn't an improvement.
Try again.
It's a sign of the deep indoctrination to believe the function of "policing" is so necessary that if government doesn't do it, you have to replace that function with something indistinguishable. Abolish the police and replace them with nothing... nothing but a universally armed populace.
-
Added: From "oooorgle" in comments comes this video. Watch it and see if you can figure out (without reading my comment response) why this wouldn't bother me, and why they wouldn't be what I am against..
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Scouts? Or something less?
Wow. Boy scouting has really become pathetic.
During my recent outing there happened to be a boy scout meeting going on at the same time.
They seemed like nice people when I returned a lost "be prepared" patch (Ouch! The irony) to them.
Later I watched from a distance as a group of them were shown how to carry a federal flag. And as they practiced what they were learning.
I saw nothing useful being taught, then or any time.
Then I asked a couple of scouts if they were being taught wilderness skills or anything. They said they weren't.
Well, one said they were taught "survival knots". Sigh.
So I asked, more specifically, if they were being taught firestarting for example. They said they weren't. They said they can't learn that until they earn a badge for it, nor can they carry a knife until they have a "knife badge".
I asked how they are supposed to learn something to earn a badge if they aren't being taught and aren't allowed to practice. They looked at me like lost puppies, shrugged, and said they didn't know.
Sorry, but that's just disgusting.
I went back the next day to offer to demonstrate some actual skills to the group, but they were already gone. I suspected they might be by the lack of noise. (I will say I was impressed at how little litter such a large group left behind. Very unusual.)
OK, so maybe the scouts I asked were misrepresenting the situation. Maybe most troops are being taught more skills. Maybe these were "too young" to be learning such things (no, they really weren't, but you and I both know in the year 2015 "childhood" is being stretched and prolonged beyond all reason, to the detriment of the kids). Maybe this example was not representative in some other way.
But if it is, scouting needs more competition.
I'd love to start a new kind of scouting: Browncoat Scouts.
Each group could choose who to allow in- freedom of association needs to be respected. Instead of "God & Country" I'd teach them that "right" is more important that "legal", and is often unrelated to what is presented as "moral" by religions. I'd teach them that loyalty isn't to be given automatically, but is earned. I'd teach them the importance of an honest deal resulting in a profit, and how there is no loser, but two winners, in such an interaction. I'd teach them that authority, including mine, is usually an empty illusion. There is a difference between a leader and a ruler, and almost all "authority" is nothing but rulers. And I'd teach them the importance of learning the proper way to handle weapons, fire, and other survival skills and tools. And, over all, the importance of never initiating force or theft.
I told my daughter she could be the first ever Browncoat Scout.
.
During my recent outing there happened to be a boy scout meeting going on at the same time.
They seemed like nice people when I returned a lost "be prepared" patch (Ouch! The irony) to them.
Later I watched from a distance as a group of them were shown how to carry a federal flag. And as they practiced what they were learning.
I saw nothing useful being taught, then or any time.
Then I asked a couple of scouts if they were being taught wilderness skills or anything. They said they weren't.
Well, one said they were taught "survival knots". Sigh.
So I asked, more specifically, if they were being taught firestarting for example. They said they weren't. They said they can't learn that until they earn a badge for it, nor can they carry a knife until they have a "knife badge".
I asked how they are supposed to learn something to earn a badge if they aren't being taught and aren't allowed to practice. They looked at me like lost puppies, shrugged, and said they didn't know.
Sorry, but that's just disgusting.
I went back the next day to offer to demonstrate some actual skills to the group, but they were already gone. I suspected they might be by the lack of noise. (I will say I was impressed at how little litter such a large group left behind. Very unusual.)
OK, so maybe the scouts I asked were misrepresenting the situation. Maybe most troops are being taught more skills. Maybe these were "too young" to be learning such things (no, they really weren't, but you and I both know in the year 2015 "childhood" is being stretched and prolonged beyond all reason, to the detriment of the kids). Maybe this example was not representative in some other way.
But if it is, scouting needs more competition.
I'd love to start a new kind of scouting: Browncoat Scouts.
Each group could choose who to allow in- freedom of association needs to be respected. Instead of "God & Country" I'd teach them that "right" is more important that "legal", and is often unrelated to what is presented as "moral" by religions. I'd teach them that loyalty isn't to be given automatically, but is earned. I'd teach them the importance of an honest deal resulting in a profit, and how there is no loser, but two winners, in such an interaction. I'd teach them that authority, including mine, is usually an empty illusion. There is a difference between a leader and a ruler, and almost all "authority" is nothing but rulers. And I'd teach them the importance of learning the proper way to handle weapons, fire, and other survival skills and tools. And, over all, the importance of never initiating force or theft.
I told my daughter she could be the first ever Browncoat Scout.
-
Update 5-19-2015: And it just gets more ridiculous all the time. link.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Violated by those you look up to
Julie on Politics has another case of a gun owner in New Jersey being violated for doing nothing wrong. It's a recurring theme, committed by the same gaggle of goons in silly costumes.
However, in this case I have less sympathy because the guy wanted to be a cop. Yep. He wanted to join the evil gang which ended up violating him. I wonder if that taught him anything about which side he should be on.
If you own a gun, or have any sense, you should stay far, far away from New Jersey. If you go there understand it's like sticking your head in an alligator's mouth- but less enjoyable.
There is a petition you can sign- but as the guy was an aspiring cop, I won't be signing it. Unless I hear of him speaking out against cops and their Blue Line Gang- if he does so, I'll sign. If he still believes cops are the good guys, he's still on the wrong side.
.
However, in this case I have less sympathy because the guy wanted to be a cop. Yep. He wanted to join the evil gang which ended up violating him. I wonder if that taught him anything about which side he should be on.
If you own a gun, or have any sense, you should stay far, far away from New Jersey. If you go there understand it's like sticking your head in an alligator's mouth- but less enjoyable.
There is a petition you can sign- but as the guy was an aspiring cop, I won't be signing it. Unless I hear of him speaking out against cops and their Blue Line Gang- if he does so, I'll sign. If he still believes cops are the good guys, he's still on the wrong side.
.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Kent's Vacation Memorabilia
I just got back from a bit of a vacation. Sometimes I am reminded how ill-suited I am to the modern world, even though I try to accommodate it.
The first day there, as I wandered through the brush, I found myself in need of a bit of string with which to tie up a bag, and unwilling to use the 550 paracord in my pocket. So I did the normal thing- I found some fibers and made my own cordage. Something crude and just long enough for my purpose.
As I wander I always pick up trash- which is what the cordage was for in the first place. I put trash in a bag I had stashed in a pouch, but the bag got too full to shove under my belt so I tied it shut and hung it from my belt. Most of what I found went into trash cans, but I always find some interesting stuff, too. This time I found some old Coors cans- probably buried in the sand a long time. Faded more on the side most exposed to the sun; dented. And filled with sand which I dumped out. I kept them.
Later, on another "hike", I used the cord to tie some firemaking tinder I had collected to the top of my walking stick. I'm in the habit of collecting tinder wherever I find it- maybe "habit" isn't a strong enough word. Obsession? I really don't need any more, but I am compelled to collect it anyway. I tried a sample with a magnifying glass and discovered it works extremely well. It burst into flame without me even having to blow on it.
Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to auction off a "Kent's Vacation Memorabilia Set". Sorry. No postcards or knick-knacks. No state spoons or pecan log rolls. Just stuff I made or picked up for free.
I am putting it on eBay- and here is the listing: "Kent's Vacation Memorabilia Set". The high bidder will get that specific piece of handmade (by my own grubby fingers) cordage (a bit over 25" long), the lump of tinder I tied to my walking stick (walking stick not included), one of the Coors cans, and a sprig of the grass fibers I used to make the cordage. If no one bids, I'll have no problem keeping the stuff (well, other than the can, which I'll toss).
Here are the accompanying pictures to show what I'm talking about:
The first day there, as I wandered through the brush, I found myself in need of a bit of string with which to tie up a bag, and unwilling to use the 550 paracord in my pocket. So I did the normal thing- I found some fibers and made my own cordage. Something crude and just long enough for my purpose.
As I wander I always pick up trash- which is what the cordage was for in the first place. I put trash in a bag I had stashed in a pouch, but the bag got too full to shove under my belt so I tied it shut and hung it from my belt. Most of what I found went into trash cans, but I always find some interesting stuff, too. This time I found some old Coors cans- probably buried in the sand a long time. Faded more on the side most exposed to the sun; dented. And filled with sand which I dumped out. I kept them.
Later, on another "hike", I used the cord to tie some firemaking tinder I had collected to the top of my walking stick. I'm in the habit of collecting tinder wherever I find it- maybe "habit" isn't a strong enough word. Obsession? I really don't need any more, but I am compelled to collect it anyway. I tried a sample with a magnifying glass and discovered it works extremely well. It burst into flame without me even having to blow on it.
Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to auction off a "Kent's Vacation Memorabilia Set". Sorry. No postcards or knick-knacks. No state spoons or pecan log rolls. Just stuff I made or picked up for free.
I am putting it on eBay- and here is the listing: "Kent's Vacation Memorabilia Set". The high bidder will get that specific piece of handmade (by my own grubby fingers) cordage (a bit over 25" long), the lump of tinder I tied to my walking stick (walking stick not included), one of the Coors cans, and a sprig of the grass fibers I used to make the cordage. If no one bids, I'll have no problem keeping the stuff (well, other than the can, which I'll toss).
Here are the accompanying pictures to show what I'm talking about:
These are the grass fibers hanging around that I used to make the cordage.
There was a lot of it around.
Here's the sample of the grass fibers.
Here's the cordage I made. A bit over 25" of it.
Here's the tinder bundle.
Here is the cord tying the tinder to the walking stick.
This is the exact cord and tinder you'd get.
Here's the can I'll include. A bit of research indicates the can dates to 1967.
(Look for #1020 on that site)*
I just thought this might be fun. I was told "That's stupid and no one will bid". Maybe. We shall see. UPDATE: (Looks like my detractor was right- no one will bid. Oh well. It was a thought.)
UPDATE 2: (Nope. Didn't sell, and very, very few views. Spectacularly unpopular. Hmmm.)
-
*I also have a can that seems to be from 1963 (#1019) and one from maybe 1986 (either #1023 or #1024)- again, according to that site. Of the 3, the one from 1963 is in the best shape and the one from 1986 in the worst. Still dented and worn. If interested in either of those, check them out under my listings on eBay.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Be good- don't work for government
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Just as there is no such thing as a "good cop", you can't be a good person while doing a government job. It's just not possible. Truly good people don't work for government.
But what about "public school" teachers? Surely I don't include them?
Yes, I do. And it pains me because of the number of government school (kinderprison) teachers in my family. They can (just like cops) be nice, but not good.
A kinderprison teacher's money comes by theft- often, or maybe always- from a yearly ransom on property. "Property tax" is one of the most outright evil forms of theft ever dreamed up by thieving perverts. Living on stolen goods isn't good.
Then, kinderprison teachers also indoctrinate their young prisoners into the religion of statism. Sometimes gently, but always.
"Truth comes from authority."
"You must follow the rules, no matter how ridiculous."
"You will obey the bell."
"Truancy must not be allowed!"
And, usually, the "students" are indoctrinated into believing that government is necessary, or even good. They are taught a warped version of history that exalts evil thugs and war.
Of course, even a private school teacher can do the same horrible things to the students. Privatization is no guarantee of decency.
If you are a teacher at a kinderprison- or a private school based on the Prussian indoctrination system- you should quit if you want to become a good person.
.
Just as there is no such thing as a "good cop", you can't be a good person while doing a government job. It's just not possible. Truly good people don't work for government.
But what about "public school" teachers? Surely I don't include them?
Yes, I do. And it pains me because of the number of government school (kinderprison) teachers in my family. They can (just like cops) be nice, but not good.
A kinderprison teacher's money comes by theft- often, or maybe always- from a yearly ransom on property. "Property tax" is one of the most outright evil forms of theft ever dreamed up by thieving perverts. Living on stolen goods isn't good.
Then, kinderprison teachers also indoctrinate their young prisoners into the religion of statism. Sometimes gently, but always.
"Truth comes from authority."
"You must follow the rules, no matter how ridiculous."
"You will obey the bell."
"Truancy must not be allowed!"
And, usually, the "students" are indoctrinated into believing that government is necessary, or even good. They are taught a warped version of history that exalts evil thugs and war.
Of course, even a private school teacher can do the same horrible things to the students. Privatization is no guarantee of decency.
If you are a teacher at a kinderprison- or a private school based on the Prussian indoctrination system- you should quit if you want to become a good person.
.
Petty control freaks
I try to get along with everyone- and usually do- even with most statists. But some statists try really hard to make that nearly impossible.
I say "statists", but in some cases I'm not quite sure whether it's statism, or just an enthusiasm to enforce rules.
I have been "camping" for the past few days. No internet (which is why no comments on the blog were responded to for a few days). The camp host where I stayed enthusiastically enforces rules the park management never bothered with. In fact, he bragged that he "educated" the manager about the rule which wasn't being enforced and of which the manager wasn't even aware. He even says he has had to inform many other park managers of this rule, because most of them aren't aware of it. Isn't he such a big man.
I'm sure I don't even need to mention it is a counterfeit rule.
This is a case of the government employee being less evil than the freelance control freak. "Watch how good I am- pat me on the head, Master."
This camp "host" (Benny Dennis, in case you'd like to know the control freak's name) descended on us with clipboard in hand to inform us we were in violation- almost before we'd had a chance to catch our breath after arrival. The extra fee to bring us into compliance would have cost us 50% more and would have obviously shortened the vacation- although we found a way around it (at added cost and inconvenience).
People who say "I only enforce the rules; I don't make them", and "apologize" for having no choice but to enforce the rules- rules which have never been enforced until he showed up and insisted on enforcing them- are worse than those idiots who make up the rules in the first place.
I could see if he were being forced to enforce the rules by a gun pointed at his head. But that obviously wasn't the case here. He is someone who goes out of his way to insist a counterfeit rule be enforced so that he can throw his weight around. A cancer on the human family tree.
Yet, as in all cases, he could become a good guy in one instant by stopping what he has been doing. By minding his own business and leaving people alone as long as they aren't attacking or stealing.
I mostly avoided him by staying off in the brush. It's better for my health.
.
I say "statists", but in some cases I'm not quite sure whether it's statism, or just an enthusiasm to enforce rules.
I have been "camping" for the past few days. No internet (which is why no comments on the blog were responded to for a few days). The camp host where I stayed enthusiastically enforces rules the park management never bothered with. In fact, he bragged that he "educated" the manager about the rule which wasn't being enforced and of which the manager wasn't even aware. He even says he has had to inform many other park managers of this rule, because most of them aren't aware of it. Isn't he such a big man.
I'm sure I don't even need to mention it is a counterfeit rule.
This is a case of the government employee being less evil than the freelance control freak. "Watch how good I am- pat me on the head, Master."
This camp "host" (Benny Dennis, in case you'd like to know the control freak's name) descended on us with clipboard in hand to inform us we were in violation- almost before we'd had a chance to catch our breath after arrival. The extra fee to bring us into compliance would have cost us 50% more and would have obviously shortened the vacation- although we found a way around it (at added cost and inconvenience).
People who say "I only enforce the rules; I don't make them", and "apologize" for having no choice but to enforce the rules- rules which have never been enforced until he showed up and insisted on enforcing them- are worse than those idiots who make up the rules in the first place.
I could see if he were being forced to enforce the rules by a gun pointed at his head. But that obviously wasn't the case here. He is someone who goes out of his way to insist a counterfeit rule be enforced so that he can throw his weight around. A cancer on the human family tree.
Yet, as in all cases, he could become a good guy in one instant by stopping what he has been doing. By minding his own business and leaving people alone as long as they aren't attacking or stealing.
I mostly avoided him by staying off in the brush. It's better for my health.
.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Few things subject to outside control
Few things subject to outside control
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 13, 2015)
Life is like an ice cream parlor, except instead of 21 flavors, the choices are nearly infinite.
Or, they would be if others would stop demanding you choose only from the limited options they decided to allow you; ignoring all other possibilities.
You are told you may only choose between vanilla and chocolate. Of course, the reality is that it's closer to a choice between vanilla made by two different companies, rather than between flavors which actually differ in any substantive way. Whichever flavor wins the majority vote becomes exclusive for the next few years- if outvoted you can't have your preference at all. Not even in the privacy of your own home.
That's your option. Any other choice is off the table. You'll wait years before being offered a chance to enjoy your favorite again. Then, you might lose once more and be forced to forgo your preference even longer. Or become an outlaw.
How can anyone think this is normal?
Don't ignore the real variety. Your choice between two flavors- between Republicrat and Demolican- only matters because people have been fooled into believing it's OK to allow the winners to dictate things no one can have the right or authority to control.
There are extremely few things in your life legitimately subject to outside control. Even then, the only ethical type of outside control is self defense. If you attack or steal, your victim is right to use force to stop you. If you smoke something someone else doesn't approve of, no matter who he is, he has no right or authority to send government employees after you. If he chooses to do so anyway, he becomes the bad guy, as do those he sends to act on his behalf.
That's just one among countless examples I could list.
That he has a "majority" behind him makes no difference whatsoever. Doing wrong isn't made right through popularity, or "laws". Nor because "it has always been done this way".
Unbelievable as it may seem, it gets even worse. If your fondest hopes come to pass and Vanilla wins the next election, the coercion imposed by Chocolate will not go away. Instead Vanilla will add his own rules to those imposed by the Chocolate regime before him, which were added to hundreds of years of made-up rules; negating your choices, taking your property, and pushing you around as it suits the whim of those who impose the rules.
You probably defend this behavior because you have been schooled to see this as the way things are supposed to be. You have been trained to see this as normal. Break free.
.
Life is like an ice cream parlor, except instead of 21 flavors, the choices are nearly infinite.
Or, they would be if others would stop demanding you choose only from the limited options they decided to allow you; ignoring all other possibilities.
You are told you may only choose between vanilla and chocolate. Of course, the reality is that it's closer to a choice between vanilla made by two different companies, rather than between flavors which actually differ in any substantive way. Whichever flavor wins the majority vote becomes exclusive for the next few years- if outvoted you can't have your preference at all. Not even in the privacy of your own home.
That's your option. Any other choice is off the table. You'll wait years before being offered a chance to enjoy your favorite again. Then, you might lose once more and be forced to forgo your preference even longer. Or become an outlaw.
How can anyone think this is normal?
Don't ignore the real variety. Your choice between two flavors- between Republicrat and Demolican- only matters because people have been fooled into believing it's OK to allow the winners to dictate things no one can have the right or authority to control.
There are extremely few things in your life legitimately subject to outside control. Even then, the only ethical type of outside control is self defense. If you attack or steal, your victim is right to use force to stop you. If you smoke something someone else doesn't approve of, no matter who he is, he has no right or authority to send government employees after you. If he chooses to do so anyway, he becomes the bad guy, as do those he sends to act on his behalf.
That's just one among countless examples I could list.
That he has a "majority" behind him makes no difference whatsoever. Doing wrong isn't made right through popularity, or "laws". Nor because "it has always been done this way".
Unbelievable as it may seem, it gets even worse. If your fondest hopes come to pass and Vanilla wins the next election, the coercion imposed by Chocolate will not go away. Instead Vanilla will add his own rules to those imposed by the Chocolate regime before him, which were added to hundreds of years of made-up rules; negating your choices, taking your property, and pushing you around as it suits the whim of those who impose the rules.
You probably defend this behavior because you have been schooled to see this as the way things are supposed to be. You have been trained to see this as normal. Break free.
.
Concealed carry and responsibility
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)