If you work for government you do not have a legitimate job. Sorry if that offends you, but it's just what is. In that case your "job" probably shouldn't even exist, but even if it should, it still shouldn't be financed with theft.
A job at a corporation isn't the optimal job, either, but at least no corporations can (yet) force people to do business with them (even though the very nature of corporations mean they are in bed with "the State" and manipulate its "laws" to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of their competitors). Doing honest work at a corporation is still better than any "job" working directly for government at any level.
I'm not saying my "job" is the greatest or perfect, either. I write and then hope, without any guarantees, someone will "buy" a product I put out there without any strings attached. I know there are more stable ways to earn money, but I never coerce anyone to pay for what I write (although I do sometimes beg and plead). Even the newspaper approached me, rather than the other way around. Unlike every other job I have had, I never feel guilty about what I do.
It still comes back to the fact that a "government" job, paid through "taxation", is not a legitimate job. Not government school teachers, cops, social workers, librarians, bureaucrats, mayors, government secretaries... whatever. Not even if you are the most helpful and otherwise honest person in town. It is equal to the worst possible ways to get money.
If working for government is a legitimate job, then so is armed robbery.
.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Monday, May 11, 2015
Making life better
My life is better by not believing in "authority", and by expressing that lack of belief by respecting the life, liberty, and property of others. No matter what anyone else does, my life is better.
I imagine it would be even better the more people who join me, which is why I make the effort to get people to realize this, but even if no one does, my life is still better that it would otherwise be.
No, my life isn't perfect. I am not perfect. There is always room for improvement.
But why handicap yourself needlessly by clinging to a dangerous and damaging superstition and by being a bully because of it?
You are the one with most of the power for improving your life. Use it.
.
I imagine it would be even better the more people who join me, which is why I make the effort to get people to realize this, but even if no one does, my life is still better that it would otherwise be.
No, my life isn't perfect. I am not perfect. There is always room for improvement.
But why handicap yourself needlessly by clinging to a dangerous and damaging superstition and by being a bully because of it?
You are the one with most of the power for improving your life. Use it.
.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
The Loving State
Once upon a time...
John had grown tired of being scared. He was told there were terrorists and criminals all around him. And scary gun owners who wanted to shoot him.
And there were all these Big Businesses wanting to add poison to all the food they sold to kill him. And conspire together to make him pay too much. And, obviously, they enslaved all their employees and made them work for minimum wage in dangerous conditions. They even wanted to hire children and force them to work in sweatshops instead of learning how to read, write, and obey bells while being fed nice warm meals of government-approved "food"!
But, some of his friends kept reminding him this wasn't the way it had to be; peace and fairness were possible. All it took was accepting the Lord and Savior: The State. Giving all control of himself over to The State's representatives. Obeying each and every command without question and with perfect willingness. Never questioning- that was too hard anyway. Stop living for yourself as the selfish do, but live to lift up and praise The State and all its gifts.
In return The State would protect him with its Commandments called Laws. To pay for all this goodness only cost 88% of the production of the entire economy; an acceptable tithe. The occasional blood sacrifices would probably never happen to anyone he knew personally. As long as they obeyed the Commandments. And, even if falsely accused, he was promised, just do what the cops tell you to do, and if you survive, there won't be any problem. Even if you are horribly violated, it's your own fault, and you can sort it all out in court later. Or your survivors can. It's all good. No need to lift a finger against your protectors.
So, John gave himself- body and soul- to The State. He waved its flag and said its pledge. He supported its troops, both the foreign and domestic branches, whole-heartedly. He angrily defended it from any questions. He finally felt safe.
Enjoying his new-found serenity, he took a stroll in a government park. He knew cops were walking around, looking for trouble on his behalf. He was relieved to see cameras focused on every square inch of the park. As long as he stayed in plain view of the cameras, help would probably be only minutes away if something bad happened. He was so happy not to have to worry about defending himself anymore. It would have been too stressful- or so his friends had assured him. Not that he had ever tried, of course. That was distasteful business.
He remembered he had a pack of cigarettes in his pocket and sneakily picked up a stray bit of trash (the wind must have blown it here since he didn't see any blood to testify to an arrest) to hide his act of putting the pack in the trash can. He got away with it! Praise the cameras! The cameras would help him stop his filthy habit, and the chances the pack would be found and fingerprinted was pretty low. Still he felt a little guilty he hadn't turned himself in. He could probably afford the fine for possessing an open pack- his daughter would understand if they had to skip a meal or two. They had made sacrifices for the glory of The State before. In six months or so, his wife would be out of jail, having then served her time for taking that text message while parked in front of that store. She should have known better! But he wouldn't do anything wrong, like she did. Maybe she should have looked into one of those "parked texting" permits. Or, maybe she should have become a cop, since they can text or use their computers while they drive- not only while parked. This solution to a common problem made him smile. He felt good for having thought of it, and would be sure to scold his wife for not thinking clearer before doing something illegal.
As he strolled contentedly along, he noticed as a cop tried to arrest a guy who had committed the heinous crime of reaching into a pocket and then reacting with fear as he noticed the presence of a cop. The criminal didn't drop to his knees fast enough to satisfy the cop, who kicked his legs out from under him and started tazing and kicking him. He should have complied faster. What is he doing? Using sign language? Well, deaf people should always get on their knees in the presence of a cop so misunderstandings like this wouldn't happen. Again, if only people would comply! That deaf criminal sure could scream loud, though. John hoped the cop took note to add that to the list of offenses. He's probably an illegal immigrant too- because he looked a little different.
John turned away to avoid seeing anything the cop didn't want seen. You've got to support those fine people and their sacrifices, and supporting them is best served by looking the other way. His friends had told him that plenty of times. It's why the cameras automatically shut off any time a cop was in frame- for the safety of the officer.
John found a nice bench under a tree. He only jumped a little when he heard the gunshot that ended the screaming of the criminal. Ahh. Peace and quiet again.
Just another necessary sacrifice to make John, and those he loved, feel safe,
The clouds rolled by. A bird was starting to sing again. As John sat in the shade of the tree, a tear came to his eye as he reflected that none of this would be possible without the loving State's hand holding itself over him.
.
John had grown tired of being scared. He was told there were terrorists and criminals all around him. And scary gun owners who wanted to shoot him.
And there were all these Big Businesses wanting to add poison to all the food they sold to kill him. And conspire together to make him pay too much. And, obviously, they enslaved all their employees and made them work for minimum wage in dangerous conditions. They even wanted to hire children and force them to work in sweatshops instead of learning how to read, write, and obey bells while being fed nice warm meals of government-approved "food"!
But, some of his friends kept reminding him this wasn't the way it had to be; peace and fairness were possible. All it took was accepting the Lord and Savior: The State. Giving all control of himself over to The State's representatives. Obeying each and every command without question and with perfect willingness. Never questioning- that was too hard anyway. Stop living for yourself as the selfish do, but live to lift up and praise The State and all its gifts.
In return The State would protect him with its Commandments called Laws. To pay for all this goodness only cost 88% of the production of the entire economy; an acceptable tithe. The occasional blood sacrifices would probably never happen to anyone he knew personally. As long as they obeyed the Commandments. And, even if falsely accused, he was promised, just do what the cops tell you to do, and if you survive, there won't be any problem. Even if you are horribly violated, it's your own fault, and you can sort it all out in court later. Or your survivors can. It's all good. No need to lift a finger against your protectors.
So, John gave himself- body and soul- to The State. He waved its flag and said its pledge. He supported its troops, both the foreign and domestic branches, whole-heartedly. He angrily defended it from any questions. He finally felt safe.
Enjoying his new-found serenity, he took a stroll in a government park. He knew cops were walking around, looking for trouble on his behalf. He was relieved to see cameras focused on every square inch of the park. As long as he stayed in plain view of the cameras, help would probably be only minutes away if something bad happened. He was so happy not to have to worry about defending himself anymore. It would have been too stressful- or so his friends had assured him. Not that he had ever tried, of course. That was distasteful business.
He remembered he had a pack of cigarettes in his pocket and sneakily picked up a stray bit of trash (the wind must have blown it here since he didn't see any blood to testify to an arrest) to hide his act of putting the pack in the trash can. He got away with it! Praise the cameras! The cameras would help him stop his filthy habit, and the chances the pack would be found and fingerprinted was pretty low. Still he felt a little guilty he hadn't turned himself in. He could probably afford the fine for possessing an open pack- his daughter would understand if they had to skip a meal or two. They had made sacrifices for the glory of The State before. In six months or so, his wife would be out of jail, having then served her time for taking that text message while parked in front of that store. She should have known better! But he wouldn't do anything wrong, like she did. Maybe she should have looked into one of those "parked texting" permits. Or, maybe she should have become a cop, since they can text or use their computers while they drive- not only while parked. This solution to a common problem made him smile. He felt good for having thought of it, and would be sure to scold his wife for not thinking clearer before doing something illegal.
As he strolled contentedly along, he noticed as a cop tried to arrest a guy who had committed the heinous crime of reaching into a pocket and then reacting with fear as he noticed the presence of a cop. The criminal didn't drop to his knees fast enough to satisfy the cop, who kicked his legs out from under him and started tazing and kicking him. He should have complied faster. What is he doing? Using sign language? Well, deaf people should always get on their knees in the presence of a cop so misunderstandings like this wouldn't happen. Again, if only people would comply! That deaf criminal sure could scream loud, though. John hoped the cop took note to add that to the list of offenses. He's probably an illegal immigrant too- because he looked a little different.
John turned away to avoid seeing anything the cop didn't want seen. You've got to support those fine people and their sacrifices, and supporting them is best served by looking the other way. His friends had told him that plenty of times. It's why the cameras automatically shut off any time a cop was in frame- for the safety of the officer.
John found a nice bench under a tree. He only jumped a little when he heard the gunshot that ended the screaming of the criminal. Ahh. Peace and quiet again.
Just another necessary sacrifice to make John, and those he loved, feel safe,
The clouds rolled by. A bird was starting to sing again. As John sat in the shade of the tree, a tear came to his eye as he reflected that none of this would be possible without the loving State's hand holding itself over him.
.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
...Even if I stand alone.
My Facebook status from a while back:
I don't wish to fire the police department and replace them with new guys.
I don't want to elect "better" politicians.
Those people are irrelevant to my life except when they get in the way- which is all they can ever do by holding those illegitimate "jobs".
They are all vermin and parasites- they make honest tapeworms and rabid skunks look good by comparison, since the tapeworms make no pretense of "helping" or "authority".
I can watch out for myself and those around me- I am an adult, after all. I don't need to be "governed" or "protected". I don't want anyone "governed", controlled, or violated on my "behalf". Not ever. Not even those who might consider me an enemy, or people who really annoy me.
I will never pretend such a thing as "authority" exists, and they just make themselves look ridiculous by insisting it does.
That doesn't mean the bullies won't violate me using their superstition of "authority" as justification. Bullies exist and always will- the excuse they use doesn't matter one bit.
I would hope people join me, but it's where I stand, even if I stand alone.
.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Liberty Lines, May 7, 2015
(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)
If government were necessary- it isn't, but I'll humor you- its one and only possible justification is to protect the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights; not "society" or any other collective. There is no such thing as "the common good"- this is just a flimsy excuse to harm individuals, which always harms society as a whole since society is made of nothing but individuals.
All rights are, at their foundation, property rights- concerning either your body, or the products of your body and life. When government employees start violating rights (with permits, licenses, prohibitions, and enforcement of "laws" against anything other than theft or aggression) instead of protecting these rights, they are behaving counter to their job's only possible justification and that job needs to be abolished.
A government which violates individual rights invalidates itself.
A large part of the problem is that very few people today understand what rights actually are. All real rights are "negative rights"- things you have a right to not have someone else do to you or your property.
"Positive rights"- things others are required to do for you- are the imaginary product of socialism.
"I have a right to housing, so you can be forced to provide it for me".
"I have a right to an education, so I'll vote to tax you in order to pay for it."
"I have a right to enjoy my property, so you have to get approval to use yours."
The right to use your property as you see fit, within your property lines, without asking permission from anyone, is inalienable. The imaginary right to control what others do with their property, for "the common good", is the perversion which has been normalized through the belief in the existence of human "authority"- which is a dangerous superstition.
Almost all law enforcement now done is nothing but violating Natural Rights and Rightful Liberty- while collecting money to finance even more of the same. As soon as a government starts violating individual rights, including property rights, in any way, it becomes the problem rather than a solution. When it becomes a way to collect fees or fines for the "privilege" of exercising your inalienable rights to your property and the fruits of your labors it becomes a protection racket, not a protector. Don't support or defend this abomination, or the individuals who enable it.
.
If government were necessary- it isn't, but I'll humor you- its one and only possible justification is to protect the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights; not "society" or any other collective. There is no such thing as "the common good"- this is just a flimsy excuse to harm individuals, which always harms society as a whole since society is made of nothing but individuals.
All rights are, at their foundation, property rights- concerning either your body, or the products of your body and life. When government employees start violating rights (with permits, licenses, prohibitions, and enforcement of "laws" against anything other than theft or aggression) instead of protecting these rights, they are behaving counter to their job's only possible justification and that job needs to be abolished.
A government which violates individual rights invalidates itself.
A large part of the problem is that very few people today understand what rights actually are. All real rights are "negative rights"- things you have a right to not have someone else do to you or your property.
"Positive rights"- things others are required to do for you- are the imaginary product of socialism.
"I have a right to housing, so you can be forced to provide it for me".
"I have a right to an education, so I'll vote to tax you in order to pay for it."
"I have a right to enjoy my property, so you have to get approval to use yours."
The right to use your property as you see fit, within your property lines, without asking permission from anyone, is inalienable. The imaginary right to control what others do with their property, for "the common good", is the perversion which has been normalized through the belief in the existence of human "authority"- which is a dangerous superstition.
Almost all law enforcement now done is nothing but violating Natural Rights and Rightful Liberty- while collecting money to finance even more of the same. As soon as a government starts violating individual rights, including property rights, in any way, it becomes the problem rather than a solution. When it becomes a way to collect fees or fines for the "privilege" of exercising your inalienable rights to your property and the fruits of your labors it becomes a protection racket, not a protector. Don't support or defend this abomination, or the individuals who enable it.
.
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
Delicate Statists
(Previously posted to Patreon)
How much should you lie to keep from hurting statists' feelings?
Some people believe it's OK to steal if you call it "taxation". They get upset if you point this out.
Some people believe it's OK to initiate force if you call it "law enforcement". They get upset if you point this out.
They want their double standards to remain untouched and unexposed.
These people are, by definition, statists. I would like to talk them out of their beliefs, but in most cases, I don't think it's possible. I am told I will never get them to listen and consider liberty as long as I deal with these types of issues honestly.
It has been mostly women who tell me this recently, but over the years I have been told the same by a few men.
I have been told women are natural socialists, due to a "safety" bias. I sincerely don't want to believe it, but I see a lot of evidence it may be true. Yes, I see a lot of male socialists, but I consider all statism socialist at heart, so I may see male socialists where others don't.
How gentle should any of us be with statists? How much effort should you put into not hurting the feelings of a person who advocates for your murder if you don't quietly sit still while they send people to violate your life, liberty, and property? Do you believe coddling them will change their mind?
If I have to lie and say that taxation and enforcement of laws which violate life, liberty, and property are OK- just another valid life choice- then I am not interested in writing anymore. But, if I can change the words I use to deprogram large numbers of statists, it would be worth it.
.
How much should you lie to keep from hurting statists' feelings?
Some people believe it's OK to steal if you call it "taxation". They get upset if you point this out.
Some people believe it's OK to initiate force if you call it "law enforcement". They get upset if you point this out.
They want their double standards to remain untouched and unexposed.
These people are, by definition, statists. I would like to talk them out of their beliefs, but in most cases, I don't think it's possible. I am told I will never get them to listen and consider liberty as long as I deal with these types of issues honestly.
It has been mostly women who tell me this recently, but over the years I have been told the same by a few men.
I have been told women are natural socialists, due to a "safety" bias. I sincerely don't want to believe it, but I see a lot of evidence it may be true. Yes, I see a lot of male socialists, but I consider all statism socialist at heart, so I may see male socialists where others don't.
How gentle should any of us be with statists? How much effort should you put into not hurting the feelings of a person who advocates for your murder if you don't quietly sit still while they send people to violate your life, liberty, and property? Do you believe coddling them will change their mind?
If I have to lie and say that taxation and enforcement of laws which violate life, liberty, and property are OK- just another valid life choice- then I am not interested in writing anymore. But, if I can change the words I use to deprogram large numbers of statists, it would be worth it.
.
"But, the LAW!"
"But, there's a law!"
So?
Bullies calling themselves "government" aren't watching your every move. They'd love for you to believe they are, though.
Mostly, they depend on you intimidating yourself into following their made-up rules out of fear, or because of some weird "obligation" to obey their absurd opinions.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Obey "laws" if you are currently being watched by a bully who has the ability to harm you for not doing so- if self-preservation is high on your list of priorities. Otherwise, ignore the bullies and their opinions.
And feel free to laugh at them and their fans.
So?
Bullies calling themselves "government" aren't watching your every move. They'd love for you to believe they are, though.
Mostly, they depend on you intimidating yourself into following their made-up rules out of fear, or because of some weird "obligation" to obey their absurd opinions.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Obey "laws" if you are currently being watched by a bully who has the ability to harm you for not doing so- if self-preservation is high on your list of priorities. Otherwise, ignore the bullies and their opinions.
And feel free to laugh at them and their fans.
.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
Prohibition still has lessons to teach
Prohibition still has lessons to teach
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 3, 2015)
If government is a good idea — which I doubt — it is being done backward.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 3, 2015)
If government is a good idea — which I doubt — it is being done backward.
Currently, the way it works is a law is passed, then enforced, in an attempt to change people’s behavior. If some behavior weren’t being targeted for change, no one would even dream up a law in the first place.
The only reasonable course, where laws are concerned, is the other way around. People's behavior should determine whether or not a law is enforced, and then once it isn't being enforced, the law should be eliminated.
In fact, this is how alcohol prohibition ended up being scaled back. (I say "scaled back" rather than "repealed", since it is still with us today, as evidenced by "liquor licensing", laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sunday, "dry counties", and various other violations of human rights with regard to alcohol.)
Alcohol prohibition was ignored by enough people that it became unenforceable. Being unenforceable, it stopped being effectively or consistently enforced. Juries stopped convicting people they knew had broken the bad law. Eventually the law changed to reflect this fact. Unfortunately we still suffer the societal damage done by that ill-conceived experiment.
Drug prohibition- for drugs other than alcohol, I mean- may take the same path.
One difference between the alcohol prohibitionists of the 1920s and the drug prohibitionists of today is those who wanted alcohol criminalized understood no such authority was allowed under the Constitution, so they changed the Constitution to make their campaign legal, if not right. Drug prohibitionists never bothered to legalize their stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Yes, they chose (and continue to choose) to act in a criminal manner to get what they want. And it has been a disaster to everyone other than those who profit from enforcement, punishment, and other inseparable aspects of black market drug sales.
Abuse of any substance is a bad idea, but no worse than abuse of some imagined authority to control how others live their lives.
If enough good and decent people risk punishment by ignoring a law, any law, that law shouldn't be enforced. Then, always slow to catch up to reality, those who imagine their job is to dream up laws should abolish it. They shouldn't amend it or tweak it to try to make it work better, they should go back and erase the mistake as if it had never happened. All political prisoners held in captivity for breaking the "law" should be immediately released and paid restitution directly from the pockets of those who passed, enforced, and supported the former law.
Or, you can stay on course and be surprised when the results of your stubbornness destroy society.
.
The only reasonable course, where laws are concerned, is the other way around. People's behavior should determine whether or not a law is enforced, and then once it isn't being enforced, the law should be eliminated.
In fact, this is how alcohol prohibition ended up being scaled back. (I say "scaled back" rather than "repealed", since it is still with us today, as evidenced by "liquor licensing", laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sunday, "dry counties", and various other violations of human rights with regard to alcohol.)
Alcohol prohibition was ignored by enough people that it became unenforceable. Being unenforceable, it stopped being effectively or consistently enforced. Juries stopped convicting people they knew had broken the bad law. Eventually the law changed to reflect this fact. Unfortunately we still suffer the societal damage done by that ill-conceived experiment.
Drug prohibition- for drugs other than alcohol, I mean- may take the same path.
One difference between the alcohol prohibitionists of the 1920s and the drug prohibitionists of today is those who wanted alcohol criminalized understood no such authority was allowed under the Constitution, so they changed the Constitution to make their campaign legal, if not right. Drug prohibitionists never bothered to legalize their stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Yes, they chose (and continue to choose) to act in a criminal manner to get what they want. And it has been a disaster to everyone other than those who profit from enforcement, punishment, and other inseparable aspects of black market drug sales.
Abuse of any substance is a bad idea, but no worse than abuse of some imagined authority to control how others live their lives.
If enough good and decent people risk punishment by ignoring a law, any law, that law shouldn't be enforced. Then, always slow to catch up to reality, those who imagine their job is to dream up laws should abolish it. They shouldn't amend it or tweak it to try to make it work better, they should go back and erase the mistake as if it had never happened. All political prisoners held in captivity for breaking the "law" should be immediately released and paid restitution directly from the pockets of those who passed, enforced, and supported the former law.
Or, you can stay on course and be surprised when the results of your stubbornness destroy society.
Bullies are everywhere
Are you scared when confronted by a cop or when in front of a judge?
You should be. If you aren't, you don't know the score.
They have no magical powers; they are just bullies imposing their worthless opinions on you with aggression. Those bullies can ruin your life- or even end it- on a whim. If you fight back- as you have every right to do- they will send endless numbers of their cronies after you.
The best bet is to avoid them. But that can cripple your life, too, because those parasites are everywhere.
Be aware, and don't defend them or their "job".
.
You should be. If you aren't, you don't know the score.
They have no magical powers; they are just bullies imposing their worthless opinions on you with aggression. Those bullies can ruin your life- or even end it- on a whim. If you fight back- as you have every right to do- they will send endless numbers of their cronies after you.
The best bet is to avoid them. But that can cripple your life, too, because those parasites are everywhere.
Be aware, and don't defend them or their "job".
.
Monday, May 04, 2015
Cult of death
It's not someone's "authority" that makes them a danger to my life, liberty, and property. "Authority" is imaginary.
It's their willingness to rob, molest, or kill me, based on their belief in their own "authority", that's the danger to me.
Some will kill in the name of their god, and one of the most dangerous death cults is "authority".
.
It's their willingness to rob, molest, or kill me, based on their belief in their own "authority", that's the danger to me.
Some will kill in the name of their god, and one of the most dangerous death cults is "authority".
.
Sunday, May 03, 2015
I believe...
I believe it is always wrong to initiate force, but if you believe it is necessary, in the heat of the moment, you should just do it and accept the consequences rather than trying to justify it beforehand.
I believe it is wrong to violate private property.
I don't believe you are being good or compassionate when you dream up justifications to violate person or property.
I believe it is right to defend yourself and your property against violators.
I don't believe a job carves out exceptions.
I believe you should honor your agreements unless doing so would violate any of the above.
I believe if the other party breaks their end of the bargain, the deal's off.
What do you believe?
.
I believe it is wrong to violate private property.
I don't believe you are being good or compassionate when you dream up justifications to violate person or property.
I believe it is right to defend yourself and your property against violators.
I don't believe a job carves out exceptions.
I believe you should honor your agreements unless doing so would violate any of the above.
I believe if the other party breaks their end of the bargain, the deal's off.
What do you believe?
.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Constitution fluffers
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I generally have a lot of patience for those who respect and honor the Constitution and other such things. Probably more than is justified. In part because I kind of feel sorry for them. After all, I was once in their shoes, myself.
You can see the vestiges of that on the pages of KentForLiberty.com (although a lot of that has fallen by the wayside due to updates over the years) and in the oldest posts on this blog.
It took time, thinking, and reading to realize that the Constitution was a horrible mistake if Rightful Liberty were the goal.
It's like saying you want to go to Tahiti, and traveling to Alaska to look for it. Sure, maybe someone lied to you about how to get there. Maybe you misunderstood something. But you aren't getting to your destination by going the wrong direction even if you really mean well.
To me, relying on the Constitution to advance or protect Rightful Liberty is no different from any other magic incantations. If it could work, it would have already worked and would always work. It can't, it didn't, it doesn't, and it won't.
It's a distraction that leads... well, somewhere else. It leads to Big Government and to propping up the belief in "authority". Been there, done that, survived to be better.
.
I generally have a lot of patience for those who respect and honor the Constitution and other such things. Probably more than is justified. In part because I kind of feel sorry for them. After all, I was once in their shoes, myself.
You can see the vestiges of that on the pages of KentForLiberty.com (although a lot of that has fallen by the wayside due to updates over the years) and in the oldest posts on this blog.
It took time, thinking, and reading to realize that the Constitution was a horrible mistake if Rightful Liberty were the goal.
It's like saying you want to go to Tahiti, and traveling to Alaska to look for it. Sure, maybe someone lied to you about how to get there. Maybe you misunderstood something. But you aren't getting to your destination by going the wrong direction even if you really mean well.
To me, relying on the Constitution to advance or protect Rightful Liberty is no different from any other magic incantations. If it could work, it would have already worked and would always work. It can't, it didn't, it doesn't, and it won't.
It's a distraction that leads... well, somewhere else. It leads to Big Government and to propping up the belief in "authority". Been there, done that, survived to be better.
.
Friday, May 01, 2015
"Assisted Dying" on Scott Adams' blog
The blog post, found here, presents the views of a person opposed to a "law" "legalizing" physician-assisted suicide.
As always, I am opposed to the very concept of "laws", knowing they are all either unnecessary or harmful. This is another case where not violating the self-ownership of others solves the "problem".
But, as I so often do, I weighed in on the issue. My comment is pasted below (quotes from the post in italics):
Mr. Akins starts out by (and continues throughout) appealing to the "common good", which is a myth; it undermines much of his argument. There are only individuals. What is good for the individual will be the highest good. Those appealing to the "common good" are always using this justification to violate individuals in some way, which wouldn't be good for the "common good", even if such a thing were real.
"What makes you think you have a moral right to medical assistance to kill yourself upon contracting a terminal disease?"
Self ownership. If you own yourself (and if you don't, who does?) then you have the absolute right to end yourself, and to hire someone- voluntarily and without coercion- to assist you if you so choose.
"Why that right in particular and not some other?"
It's not an either/or situation. You have the absolute human right to do anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. That includes hiring someone to help you end your life.
"I don’t think that such a legal right should be created."
There are no such things as "legal rights". There are legal privileges- which is really just the privilege to not have someone else's opinions imposed on you- until that "law" is changed. Rights can't be created or eliminated. They can only be respected or violated.
"...it involves a violation of the innate human dignity of the individuals who commit suicide."
In your opinion. So don't participate. Death probably violates "the innate human dignity of the individuals" no matter how it occurs, so this is a nonsense excuse.
"Our culture has been affected by a view that downplays or rejects the dignity of human beings."
Again, your opinion. I believe that saying you can make up a rule that violates self ownership is rejecting the dignity of humans a lot worse than respecting that right- even when it offends you- could ever do.
"We’re either ugly bags of mostly water or we’re human beings with intrinsic dignity."
Yes. And bags of water can be owned by someone else, and the owner can do with those as he sees fit without degrading their dignity (which they don't have). You don't have that right where humans are concerned.
"Just because you are older or in poorer health doesn’t mean that you have any less a right to life."
Of course not. You also have a right to own and to carry weapons. Would you like me to force you to do so against your wishes?
"...and so your life must still be respected."
Yes, and denying a person the freedom and liberty to do with that life as they see fit- as long as they aren't violating anyone else- does not respect their life at all.
"Just as we must respect the dignity that others have, we must respect our own dignity. "
And how did it become your right to tell others how that respect for the self must be put into action?
"A person killing himself is not a desirable outcome."
Again, in your opinion. Getting a terminal disease is also not a desirable outcome- but the universe doesn't seem to care. Probably the person seeking assisted suicide wouldn't have chosen to get the disease and be facing the choice. But it's not your choice to make for him.
"The innate human dignity that we possess demands that we seek another solution, such as treating the cause of the situation."
Why? What if no treatment is possible? Because that's the reality. Are you obligated to seek unicorns just because someone else believes you should?
"Because physician-assisted suicide involves others in suicide—doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc.—it also involves a violation of their dignity."
They always have the right to refuse to participate. Any "law" which says they must help no matter their wishes would be wrong- but I don't think that's what anyone is promoting.
"Just as torturing another person is wrong even if the other person wants to be tortured."
Your opinion. I happen to agree this time, and wouldn't do it, but if it is mutually consensual it's none of your business. Nor mine.
"...legalizing physician-assisted suicide would produce various other problems..."
Why do you assume these would result? You think everyone- or a vast majority- would choose assisted suicide? If so, then your speculations might hold, but as long as there are a lot of people who wouldn't choose it, your objections and fearmongering don't work.
"I’m in favor of getting your grandmother the pain relief she needs in her last month of life."
Why do you assume physical pain is the only thing that could be causing her to want to die? What about being trapped in a body that no longer works, and seeing it shutting down more each and every day- knowing there is only one destination. Knowing she will never again walk through a meadow, or make love, or enjoy her favorite meal. How can your pain drugs deaden this pain without causing a coma? Why is that better than death?
"I could paint the plight of the victims of such laws in similar terms (e.g., 'Why do you favor a policy that would lead heartless doctors and greedy insurance companies to deny my grandmother the pain relief that she desperately needs and instead pressure her to kill herself against her will?')."
You could, but you'd be lying. It's the anti-drug "laws" that most get in the way- doctors are scared of losing their licenses or being arrested for "over-prescribing" pain meds.
" 'once my family wants me dead it is time to go anyway.' This statement is very alarming. The value of the individual is not the subject of a collectivist determination, even of one’s own family."
This wasn't about the family making the determination.
"Today, pain can be eliminated by drugs, for it is possible to place someone in a medically induced coma"
Why is this preferable to death? Because they could wake up? (To agonizing pain.) Just keep them in a coma til they die so they won't wake up in pain? Again, why is this preferable?
"...as the pains associated with age and/or disease occur, we find that we can deal with them better than we thought."
In which case, "we" probably won't be seeking assisted suicide.
"Thus many individuals who could end all pain by a medically induced coma may rationally decide that they would prefer to remain conscious and experience the benefits of consciousness, even if it means living with a certain level of pain."
And these would not be the people seeking assisted suicide.
"I was absolutely determined to make sure that my wife got all the medical care she wanted to have, and I made sure she did."
But what if "all the medical care she wanted to have" included help dying once she knew it was inevitable? Would you have then felt justified in violating her wishes? What's the difference?
"I think virtually everyone would agree that certain, highly destructive weapons simply should not be available for purchase by the general public"
Then those same weapons should certainly not be "owned" by governments, which are always made up of people indoctrinated to believe they are "above" such "silly notions" as "right and wrong". I'd trust my neighbor with a nuke before I'd trust any president or prime minister.
"My point is that physician-assisted suicide is wrong in and of itself..."
Then how about a new field that is not a physician, but instead a "suicide facilitator"? With completely different and more relevant training.
"But there are situations when we are suffering to the point that we might feel imprisoned"
If your body doesn't move and you must have others perform basic bodily functions for you, you don't simply "feel imprisoned", you are imprisoned more effectively than any cage could ever accomplish. Think of the most cruel imprisonment- putting a person in a body-sized iron cage- and you'll approach what some people are going through as they slowly die. Again, this is completely separate from the physical pain- although it could accompany it.
"It is true that some individuals experience pain that can only be satisfactorily treated by inducing unconsciousness..."
Pain is subjective, so your opinions about the pain others experience is irrelevant.
"However, 'if even one person' arguments famously lead to bad policies that do more harm than good."
Which is an excellent refutation of the belief in the legitimacy of "one-size-fits-all laws". Something I find absurd, anyway.
"Suffering does not deprive one of dignity."
Of course it does. I recently had a very painful kidney stone. The pain most assuredly deprived me of any dignity. It's hard to feel any sense of dignity- or to be viewed with dignity- while writhing on the floor. End of life pain (and debility) is sometimes orders of magnitude worse for the sufferer.
"Killing oneself is always a tragedy..."
Yes, but not always the worst tragedy.
.
As always, I am opposed to the very concept of "laws", knowing they are all either unnecessary or harmful. This is another case where not violating the self-ownership of others solves the "problem".
But, as I so often do, I weighed in on the issue. My comment is pasted below (quotes from the post in italics):
Mr. Akins starts out by (and continues throughout) appealing to the "common good", which is a myth; it undermines much of his argument. There are only individuals. What is good for the individual will be the highest good. Those appealing to the "common good" are always using this justification to violate individuals in some way, which wouldn't be good for the "common good", even if such a thing were real.
"What makes you think you have a moral right to medical assistance to kill yourself upon contracting a terminal disease?"
Self ownership. If you own yourself (and if you don't, who does?) then you have the absolute right to end yourself, and to hire someone- voluntarily and without coercion- to assist you if you so choose.
"Why that right in particular and not some other?"
It's not an either/or situation. You have the absolute human right to do anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. That includes hiring someone to help you end your life.
"I don’t think that such a legal right should be created."
There are no such things as "legal rights". There are legal privileges- which is really just the privilege to not have someone else's opinions imposed on you- until that "law" is changed. Rights can't be created or eliminated. They can only be respected or violated.
"...it involves a violation of the innate human dignity of the individuals who commit suicide."
In your opinion. So don't participate. Death probably violates "the innate human dignity of the individuals" no matter how it occurs, so this is a nonsense excuse.
"Our culture has been affected by a view that downplays or rejects the dignity of human beings."
Again, your opinion. I believe that saying you can make up a rule that violates self ownership is rejecting the dignity of humans a lot worse than respecting that right- even when it offends you- could ever do.
"We’re either ugly bags of mostly water or we’re human beings with intrinsic dignity."
Yes. And bags of water can be owned by someone else, and the owner can do with those as he sees fit without degrading their dignity (which they don't have). You don't have that right where humans are concerned.
"Just because you are older or in poorer health doesn’t mean that you have any less a right to life."
Of course not. You also have a right to own and to carry weapons. Would you like me to force you to do so against your wishes?
"...and so your life must still be respected."
Yes, and denying a person the freedom and liberty to do with that life as they see fit- as long as they aren't violating anyone else- does not respect their life at all.
"Just as we must respect the dignity that others have, we must respect our own dignity. "
And how did it become your right to tell others how that respect for the self must be put into action?
"A person killing himself is not a desirable outcome."
Again, in your opinion. Getting a terminal disease is also not a desirable outcome- but the universe doesn't seem to care. Probably the person seeking assisted suicide wouldn't have chosen to get the disease and be facing the choice. But it's not your choice to make for him.
"The innate human dignity that we possess demands that we seek another solution, such as treating the cause of the situation."
Why? What if no treatment is possible? Because that's the reality. Are you obligated to seek unicorns just because someone else believes you should?
"Because physician-assisted suicide involves others in suicide—doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc.—it also involves a violation of their dignity."
They always have the right to refuse to participate. Any "law" which says they must help no matter their wishes would be wrong- but I don't think that's what anyone is promoting.
"Just as torturing another person is wrong even if the other person wants to be tortured."
Your opinion. I happen to agree this time, and wouldn't do it, but if it is mutually consensual it's none of your business. Nor mine.
"...legalizing physician-assisted suicide would produce various other problems..."
Why do you assume these would result? You think everyone- or a vast majority- would choose assisted suicide? If so, then your speculations might hold, but as long as there are a lot of people who wouldn't choose it, your objections and fearmongering don't work.
"I’m in favor of getting your grandmother the pain relief she needs in her last month of life."
Why do you assume physical pain is the only thing that could be causing her to want to die? What about being trapped in a body that no longer works, and seeing it shutting down more each and every day- knowing there is only one destination. Knowing she will never again walk through a meadow, or make love, or enjoy her favorite meal. How can your pain drugs deaden this pain without causing a coma? Why is that better than death?
"I could paint the plight of the victims of such laws in similar terms (e.g., 'Why do you favor a policy that would lead heartless doctors and greedy insurance companies to deny my grandmother the pain relief that she desperately needs and instead pressure her to kill herself against her will?')."
You could, but you'd be lying. It's the anti-drug "laws" that most get in the way- doctors are scared of losing their licenses or being arrested for "over-prescribing" pain meds.
" 'once my family wants me dead it is time to go anyway.' This statement is very alarming. The value of the individual is not the subject of a collectivist determination, even of one’s own family."
This wasn't about the family making the determination.
"Today, pain can be eliminated by drugs, for it is possible to place someone in a medically induced coma"
Why is this preferable to death? Because they could wake up? (To agonizing pain.) Just keep them in a coma til they die so they won't wake up in pain? Again, why is this preferable?
"...as the pains associated with age and/or disease occur, we find that we can deal with them better than we thought."
In which case, "we" probably won't be seeking assisted suicide.
"Thus many individuals who could end all pain by a medically induced coma may rationally decide that they would prefer to remain conscious and experience the benefits of consciousness, even if it means living with a certain level of pain."
And these would not be the people seeking assisted suicide.
"I was absolutely determined to make sure that my wife got all the medical care she wanted to have, and I made sure she did."
But what if "all the medical care she wanted to have" included help dying once she knew it was inevitable? Would you have then felt justified in violating her wishes? What's the difference?
"I think virtually everyone would agree that certain, highly destructive weapons simply should not be available for purchase by the general public"
Then those same weapons should certainly not be "owned" by governments, which are always made up of people indoctrinated to believe they are "above" such "silly notions" as "right and wrong". I'd trust my neighbor with a nuke before I'd trust any president or prime minister.
"My point is that physician-assisted suicide is wrong in and of itself..."
Then how about a new field that is not a physician, but instead a "suicide facilitator"? With completely different and more relevant training.
"But there are situations when we are suffering to the point that we might feel imprisoned"
If your body doesn't move and you must have others perform basic bodily functions for you, you don't simply "feel imprisoned", you are imprisoned more effectively than any cage could ever accomplish. Think of the most cruel imprisonment- putting a person in a body-sized iron cage- and you'll approach what some people are going through as they slowly die. Again, this is completely separate from the physical pain- although it could accompany it.
"It is true that some individuals experience pain that can only be satisfactorily treated by inducing unconsciousness..."
Pain is subjective, so your opinions about the pain others experience is irrelevant.
"However, 'if even one person' arguments famously lead to bad policies that do more harm than good."
Which is an excellent refutation of the belief in the legitimacy of "one-size-fits-all laws". Something I find absurd, anyway.
"Suffering does not deprive one of dignity."
Of course it does. I recently had a very painful kidney stone. The pain most assuredly deprived me of any dignity. It's hard to feel any sense of dignity- or to be viewed with dignity- while writhing on the floor. End of life pain (and debility) is sometimes orders of magnitude worse for the sufferer.
"Killing oneself is always a tragedy..."
Yes, but not always the worst tragedy.
.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Drought
I've been thinking a lot about water problems and droughts. And not just as it pertains to California.
In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.
People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.
I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".
If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.
"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.
.
In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.
People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.
I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".
If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.
"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.
.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
I'd rather be wild
Jungle fowl are in danger from predators and forced to find their own food, Poor things!
So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.
When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".
How do you like your box?
.
So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.
When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".
How do you like your box?
 |
| Jungle fowl hen- in danger from predators |
 |
| Jungle fowl rooster- worried where his next meal will come from |
 |
| Safe hens under government protection |
.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Government actions not surprising
Government actions not surprising
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 27, 2015)
Are you shocked when the “most transparent administration in history” turns out to be the most blatantly secretive, passing new laws to hide behind while going after whistleblowers with religious zeal?
How about when a president who talks a good freedom game enthusiastically signs the anti-American “Patriot Act?
Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?
Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?
How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?
Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?
Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?
You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.
You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.
How do you really expect governing to turn out?
Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.
The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)
Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.
As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?
.
Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?
Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?
How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?
Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?
Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?
You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.
You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.
How do you really expect governing to turn out?
Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.
The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)
Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.
As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?
.
Anarchy- almost too mainstream
One sad thing about being an anarchist is that the opportunities to do something really radical and different are so few.
Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.
So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.
In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"
I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".
.
Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.
So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.
In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"
I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".
.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Renovations complete at KentForLiberty.com
For the past several days I have been re-writing all the pages at KentForLiberty.com. I was a bigger task that I expected, and I am glad it is done.
A lot of the pages were badly outdated. My views have changed. I used to be much more a "constitutionalist" than I am now- although that was years ago. I have come closer to the roots of many things, rather than worrying with the leaves and branches so much. It was time to reflect that growth. (One page that I don't edit is "My Views", since that is an archive. Well, I don't edit anything but the introduction to the page, anyway.)
As always, I found and corrected more typos and misspellings.
I also decided to mirror KentForLiberty in pages on this blog. You can find these new pages under the blog header. I did that for a couple of reasons: I wanted a backup, just in case something happened to the website- such as me not continuing to pay for it, or it getting shut down for some other reason. I also have had technical glitches, while I was in the midst of editing, which have erased pages before. I wanted a faster way of fixing that problem.
I also thought it would be good to have it all in one place, here, so that if anyone is looking around, it would be easy to find.
It was a lot of work- I hope you like the results.
.
A lot of the pages were badly outdated. My views have changed. I used to be much more a "constitutionalist" than I am now- although that was years ago. I have come closer to the roots of many things, rather than worrying with the leaves and branches so much. It was time to reflect that growth. (One page that I don't edit is "My Views", since that is an archive. Well, I don't edit anything but the introduction to the page, anyway.)
As always, I found and corrected more typos and misspellings.
I also decided to mirror KentForLiberty in pages on this blog. You can find these new pages under the blog header. I did that for a couple of reasons: I wanted a backup, just in case something happened to the website- such as me not continuing to pay for it, or it getting shut down for some other reason. I also have had technical glitches, while I was in the midst of editing, which have erased pages before. I wanted a faster way of fixing that problem.
I also thought it would be good to have it all in one place, here, so that if anyone is looking around, it would be easy to find.
It was a lot of work- I hope you like the results.
.
Belief in "government" makes you weak
Belief in "government" is a crutch for some people. Leaning on it atrophies their muscles and is a self-destructive cycle of decay.
They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can- if they'll just try. It might be difficult at first, and they may falter and stumble, but the alternative is a steady decline.
When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to "government" for assistance.
Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that.
Don't let the belief in "government" blind you to your own abilities and your real value.
You are not crippled; the State-worshipers are.
You can stand on your own if only you will drop the crutch that belief in "government" has hypnotized you into believing you need.
Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the State. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.
.
They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can- if they'll just try. It might be difficult at first, and they may falter and stumble, but the alternative is a steady decline.
When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to "government" for assistance.
Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that.
Don't let the belief in "government" blind you to your own abilities and your real value.
You are not crippled; the State-worshipers are.
You can stand on your own if only you will drop the crutch that belief in "government" has hypnotized you into believing you need.
Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the State. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.
.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Reluctant bleg
Other than a recent request for some money for something my daughter wanted (which was met- thank you!), I haven't annoyed my readers with a request for money in a while. I have been managing okay.
Well, now things have changed a little and I have to ask.
A while back- in January, actually- I helped someone else out financially. At the time it wasn't going to be a problem. It still wouldn't be, except ... now I need the money I used to help them out and they aren't yet in a position to pay me back. (And if they never can, I'll not make an issue of it.)
The crisis is due to the other person in the household not getting paid for a week of vacation time from last month. Not yet. The money is supposedly still coming through the bureaucratic pipeline at their job, but I'm having my doubts. It won't get here in time to prevent some bad problems, either way. And I don't have enough to meet the shortfall.
If you are a subscriber, please don't respond with a donation- you already do enough. If you don't want to help, or if you can't help, then please don't. If you don't think I provide any value in return for the money, then obviously I am not asking you to donate. I only want voluntary trades of value for value.
If you can, and want to, the "donate" button is over there to the right.
.
Well, now things have changed a little and I have to ask.
A while back- in January, actually- I helped someone else out financially. At the time it wasn't going to be a problem. It still wouldn't be, except ... now I need the money I used to help them out and they aren't yet in a position to pay me back. (And if they never can, I'll not make an issue of it.)
The crisis is due to the other person in the household not getting paid for a week of vacation time from last month. Not yet. The money is supposedly still coming through the bureaucratic pipeline at their job, but I'm having my doubts. It won't get here in time to prevent some bad problems, either way. And I don't have enough to meet the shortfall.
If you are a subscriber, please don't respond with a donation- you already do enough. If you don't want to help, or if you can't help, then please don't. If you don't think I provide any value in return for the money, then obviously I am not asking you to donate. I only want voluntary trades of value for value.
If you can, and want to, the "donate" button is over there to the right.
.
Ejikashun iz M-por-tint
Government school is the worst thing to ever happen to education.
It cheapened it, and not in a good way.
It also made it feel like punishment to the inmates referred to as "students". It encourages a lot of them to stay as far as possible away from anything which could be considered educational. And, not just during their "school years", but throughout life. That is tragic! It's why v*ting and "government" is still as popular as it is among those unable to truly think.
It teaches "authority" instead of independence. It dumbs down rather than lifts up.
It teaches kids it's OK to steal as long as you use what you stole for something "important"- and some kids get the message loud and clear.
And, rather than educating, it indoctrinates.
Nothing could be worse as far as education goes. In fact, doing nothing would be an improvement.
.
It cheapened it, and not in a good way.
It also made it feel like punishment to the inmates referred to as "students". It encourages a lot of them to stay as far as possible away from anything which could be considered educational. And, not just during their "school years", but throughout life. That is tragic! It's why v*ting and "government" is still as popular as it is among those unable to truly think.
It teaches "authority" instead of independence. It dumbs down rather than lifts up.
It teaches kids it's OK to steal as long as you use what you stole for something "important"- and some kids get the message loud and clear.
And, rather than educating, it indoctrinates.
Nothing could be worse as far as education goes. In fact, doing nothing would be an improvement.
.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Stupid questions
Yes, they do exist:
The two questions, and the sentiments they echo, are equally stupid. Both are based on superstition.
.
"Without astrology how can we know what will happen today?"
"Without government how will we be safe from dangers?"
The two questions, and the sentiments they echo, are equally stupid. Both are based on superstition.
.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
It's NOT "OK" to support cops
A while back, in a Facebook thread, a cop supporter (I'll refrain from using the more descriptive term) said she had discovered, due to that thread, that people have differences of opinions about cops, and that's OK.
But not all opinions are equally valid.
Supporting cops (or being a cop), and saying that's a valid choice, is identical to saying that rape is a perfectly valid way to have sex, and supporting rapists is just peachy.
No, it isn't.
Aggression is the disqualifying feature of both acts.
.
But not all opinions are equally valid.
Supporting cops (or being a cop), and saying that's a valid choice, is identical to saying that rape is a perfectly valid way to have sex, and supporting rapists is just peachy.
No, it isn't.
Aggression is the disqualifying feature of both acts.
.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Facebook experiments
Recently, I have been using Facebook to test out ideas and sound bites. I mean, more so than in the past.
Some of those (like today's earlier blog post) end up being blogged here. Others don't.
If you'd like to get in on the fun, feel free to "friend" me- or "follow" me, if the available spots in my friend list get taken up before you get there.
I find it very educational to discover what gets the townfolk riled.
.
Some of those (like today's earlier blog post) end up being blogged here. Others don't.
If you'd like to get in on the fun, feel free to "friend" me- or "follow" me, if the available spots in my friend list get taken up before you get there.
I find it very educational to discover what gets the townfolk riled.
.
"Trigger warning"?
If you require "trigger warnings"- about ANYTHING- you have failed as a human.
Sorry if you believe that statement should have come with a "trigger warning". Wait... no, I'm not.
I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to you in the past. I'm not saying that being reminded of those bad things won't hurt.
What I am saying is that no one is obligated to tip-toe around your delicate feelings and censor themselves to keep you from getting upset. Doing so doesn't help you; it shelters you and allows you to remain broken- and to only get worse over time.
Anyone posting a trigger warning for your "benefit" is slapping you in the face and saying you can't handle being a human. It's an insult to you.
You should be grateful that people treat you as a fully-functional human rather than as a delicate cracked egg shell.
.
Sorry if you believe that statement should have come with a "trigger warning". Wait... no, I'm not.
I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to you in the past. I'm not saying that being reminded of those bad things won't hurt.
What I am saying is that no one is obligated to tip-toe around your delicate feelings and censor themselves to keep you from getting upset. Doing so doesn't help you; it shelters you and allows you to remain broken- and to only get worse over time.
Anyone posting a trigger warning for your "benefit" is slapping you in the face and saying you can't handle being a human. It's an insult to you.
You should be grateful that people treat you as a fully-functional human rather than as a delicate cracked egg shell.
.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Being prepared is common sense
Being prepared is common sense
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)
The water shut off in Portales last week should have awakened a few people. From previous experience, I doubt it did.
For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.
No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?
Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.
Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.
Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.
"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."
Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."
Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?
Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.
It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.
You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.
For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.
No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?
Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.
Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.
Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.
"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."
Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."
Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?
Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.
It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.
You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.
.
"Compromising Good with Evil"- and failing, utterly
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I would still rather be right- be accepting of reality- than be comfortable. I'd rather be right than be libertarian.
If reality doesn't support liberty, then I want to be aware of it and accept it and figure out what the reality is.
I don't want cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization to get in the way. Fantasies about how things are might be comforting to some people, but I don't want to coddle those fantasies.
But, the deeper I dig, the less sense statism makes to me. The more "arguments" I hear in support of "governments", "laws", "States", and initiating force and theft, the more insane they sound. The inconsistencies are simply too glaring to ignore.
But, trying to explore the possibilities to discover reality is why I read things like this: Compromising Good with Evil
Right off the bat he gets something completely wrong, which throws off the entire rest of his screed- he says libertarians think that "There simply can be no middle ground between the two fundamental philosophical opposites of freedom and slavery. Either we are a free society or a slave society, but we can't be both."
While that is a true statement, he goes on to say "This all libertarians agree upon, or they're not libertarians." So, this is the defining principle of libertarianism?
Ummm... wrong. Libertarians know that initiating force and violating private property are wrong. That's what makes them libertarians. The other things logically stem from that, but are not the foundation.
And, he goes downhill from there, just like every single criticism of Abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism I have ever encountered does- simply because they utterly fail to understand what they are trying to debunk. They argue from ignorance.
His entire article is based upon an appeal to authority- in this case, Aristotle and his "Golden Mean". The "Golden Mean" works for some things, like Goldilocks' "Not too cold or too hot- but just right". It doesn't work at all where Liberty is concerned. That's because Liberty is self-limiting. Your Liberty can't violate anyone else, or it ceases to be Liberty. And "government" always violates Liberty.
He claims, using the idea of the "Golden Mean", that good and evil are not opposites along a single axis, but good is in the middle, with evil at either extreme. With regards to Liberty, "too much" is anarchy, and too little is tyranny. As if anarchy is a bad thing. His superstitious belief in "limited government" is, of course, his "Golden Mean" of juicy goodness. He is wrong. Probably because he doesn't understand what evil is.
Evil is doing intentional harm to those who don't deserve to be harmed right now. Harm isn't on either side of good- it is the opposite of good no matter what justification you use. And, if it doesn't harm people, it isn't evil even if you think it wouldn't be the best path. Statism- the belief that governing people is a legitimate human endeavor- is evil because of the harm it inevitably causes to individual life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. You can't violate people "for their own good" no matter how passionately you make that silly claim.
Originally I intended to show how and why the author was wrong, bit by bit. Piece by piece. Paragraph by paragraph. Because he is wrong. In fact, either he is intentionally lying, or he's an idiot.
But the article is so incredibly long and full of fail that I realized quickly that to dissect it would require one of those multi-part blogs addressing slavery-apologists (statists) I have done in the past. I just don't feel like it. Besides, cutting through the BS of his "Golden Mean" idea of good and evil is probably all that is necessary to bring down his whole house of marked cards.
Feel free to read that article for yourself, and notice all the mistakes he makes- even if you don't get far into it, I'm confident you'll see more wrongness than you can keep up with. His flawed assumptions; his mischaracterizations; his non-sequiturs. The list is almost endless. Statism is a fail. From beginning to end. It is based on a superstition.
.
I would still rather be right- be accepting of reality- than be comfortable. I'd rather be right than be libertarian.
If reality doesn't support liberty, then I want to be aware of it and accept it and figure out what the reality is.
I don't want cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization to get in the way. Fantasies about how things are might be comforting to some people, but I don't want to coddle those fantasies.
But, the deeper I dig, the less sense statism makes to me. The more "arguments" I hear in support of "governments", "laws", "States", and initiating force and theft, the more insane they sound. The inconsistencies are simply too glaring to ignore.
But, trying to explore the possibilities to discover reality is why I read things like this: Compromising Good with Evil
Right off the bat he gets something completely wrong, which throws off the entire rest of his screed- he says libertarians think that "There simply can be no middle ground between the two fundamental philosophical opposites of freedom and slavery. Either we are a free society or a slave society, but we can't be both."
While that is a true statement, he goes on to say "This all libertarians agree upon, or they're not libertarians." So, this is the defining principle of libertarianism?
Ummm... wrong. Libertarians know that initiating force and violating private property are wrong. That's what makes them libertarians. The other things logically stem from that, but are not the foundation.
And, he goes downhill from there, just like every single criticism of Abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism I have ever encountered does- simply because they utterly fail to understand what they are trying to debunk. They argue from ignorance.
His entire article is based upon an appeal to authority- in this case, Aristotle and his "Golden Mean". The "Golden Mean" works for some things, like Goldilocks' "Not too cold or too hot- but just right". It doesn't work at all where Liberty is concerned. That's because Liberty is self-limiting. Your Liberty can't violate anyone else, or it ceases to be Liberty. And "government" always violates Liberty.
He claims, using the idea of the "Golden Mean", that good and evil are not opposites along a single axis, but good is in the middle, with evil at either extreme. With regards to Liberty, "too much" is anarchy, and too little is tyranny. As if anarchy is a bad thing. His superstitious belief in "limited government" is, of course, his "Golden Mean" of juicy goodness. He is wrong. Probably because he doesn't understand what evil is.
Evil is doing intentional harm to those who don't deserve to be harmed right now. Harm isn't on either side of good- it is the opposite of good no matter what justification you use. And, if it doesn't harm people, it isn't evil even if you think it wouldn't be the best path. Statism- the belief that governing people is a legitimate human endeavor- is evil because of the harm it inevitably causes to individual life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. You can't violate people "for their own good" no matter how passionately you make that silly claim.
Originally I intended to show how and why the author was wrong, bit by bit. Piece by piece. Paragraph by paragraph. Because he is wrong. In fact, either he is intentionally lying, or he's an idiot.
But the article is so incredibly long and full of fail that I realized quickly that to dissect it would require one of those multi-part blogs addressing slavery-apologists (statists) I have done in the past. I just don't feel like it. Besides, cutting through the BS of his "Golden Mean" idea of good and evil is probably all that is necessary to bring down his whole house of marked cards.
Feel free to read that article for yourself, and notice all the mistakes he makes- even if you don't get far into it, I'm confident you'll see more wrongness than you can keep up with. His flawed assumptions; his mischaracterizations; his non-sequiturs. The list is almost endless. Statism is a fail. From beginning to end. It is based on a superstition.
.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Would you stop a bank robbery?
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)