Liberty doesn't work very well in a piecemeal fashion.
You can't end the foolishness of borders until you end the foolishness of "entitlements".
And anti-gun bigotry.
And "laws" which violate the right of association.
And rules which violate private property rights- which include "anti-immigration laws".
This isn't an excuse to avoid Rightful Liberty- it is a call to abolish all statism immediately, rather than in baby steps. Because baby steps don't work well- as lingering statism always gets in the way, and seems to verify the statist claim that Liberty can't work.
It's like all the other things that don't work well when sliced up. For example, let me get out a bandsaw and slice 4 inches off the left side of my laptop to give to a needy kid, so he can have some computer. You and I both know, in that case, neither of us would have any computer.
That's why, unfortunately for the "pragmatists", liberty is always all or nothing.
.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
Bad guys should suffer
People who do evil things- initiate force or violate private property- deserve to suffer. Right then. Sometimes they suffer at the hands of State employees. I am not opposed to that necessarily, as long as it isn't delayed, but happens during the attack, bringing it to an end.
I see depending on tax junkies to bring consequences as unnecessary and a poor substitute for justice.
When a murderer is on trial or in prison, he is probably suffering somewhat. And that is OK. But there are so many better ways- ways which don't also make the innocent suffer through the commission of "law" enforcement or theft/"taxation".
Ways where you don't end up punishing the wrong guy for something someone else did.
Ways which can't be used against political prisoners.
Ways where the collection of evildoers known as The State don't come out ahead, regardless of the verdict.
If the suffering is due to punishment- especially after testimony of government employees, in a government church (courtroom), in front of a government employee, awaiting imprisonment in a government cage (including those so-called "private prisons") then, while I agree bad guys should suffer, I can't get behind that method.
.
I see depending on tax junkies to bring consequences as unnecessary and a poor substitute for justice.
When a murderer is on trial or in prison, he is probably suffering somewhat. And that is OK. But there are so many better ways- ways which don't also make the innocent suffer through the commission of "law" enforcement or theft/"taxation".
Ways where you don't end up punishing the wrong guy for something someone else did.
Ways which can't be used against political prisoners.
Ways where the collection of evildoers known as The State don't come out ahead, regardless of the verdict.
If the suffering is due to punishment- especially after testimony of government employees, in a government church (courtroom), in front of a government employee, awaiting imprisonment in a government cage (including those so-called "private prisons") then, while I agree bad guys should suffer, I can't get behind that method.
.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Disregard for others
Total disregard for others irritates me.
I am not talking about "offending" others, but doing things that are likely to be harmful. Often intentionally.
And that applies also to actual drunk driving (not what enforcers generally find and punish as "drunk driving", but real drunk driving).
Things done because you either simply don't care what happens to other people- maybe you tell yourself they deserve it- or because you enjoy knowing people will be hurt.
Some people use folks like these as reasons they say a free society can never work. Yet, if a police state prevented this, why is it happening?
Nothing will ever make a perfect world. The innocent will always need to be defended. Bad guys will always need to be defended against. Property will always be violated. But why support a "system" where these abuses are institutionalized rather than seen for what they are?
Support for the state is also total disregard for others. It's like dumping garbage in people's living rooms on a massive scale. More damaging than any of the examples I gave above.
Polluting my life and the lives of those around me with your filthy, aggressive bullies wearing their silly State costumes, is a horrible way to behave toward others.
.
I am not talking about "offending" others, but doing things that are likely to be harmful. Often intentionally.
- Walking in front of moving cars because seeing the fear on a driver's face amuses you- as I have heard teens discussing doing for "fun".
- Breaking glass bottles where you know kids play.
- Scattering gravel, intentionally, on a concrete surface knowing it is likely to make people slip and fall.
And that applies also to actual drunk driving (not what enforcers generally find and punish as "drunk driving", but real drunk driving).
Things done because you either simply don't care what happens to other people- maybe you tell yourself they deserve it- or because you enjoy knowing people will be hurt.
Some people use folks like these as reasons they say a free society can never work. Yet, if a police state prevented this, why is it happening?
Nothing will ever make a perfect world. The innocent will always need to be defended. Bad guys will always need to be defended against. Property will always be violated. But why support a "system" where these abuses are institutionalized rather than seen for what they are?
Support for the state is also total disregard for others. It's like dumping garbage in people's living rooms on a massive scale. More damaging than any of the examples I gave above.
Polluting my life and the lives of those around me with your filthy, aggressive bullies wearing their silly State costumes, is a horrible way to behave toward others.
.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Disgusting cowards
I get really disappointed by the disingenuousness of people.
They'll say they "respect" libertarian ideas- and then show they don't even slightly "get it".
They'll confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarians, or- horrors- mistake "Constitutionalism" for libertarianism. Even worse than that are those who equate libertarian for "conservative", rather than realizing they are opposites- just as "liberal/progressive" is also the polar opposite of libertarian.
They'll claim they like libertarian ideas, but then hide from the truth of those ideas. They want a watered down version they can feel safe with. One that doesn't touch their beloved slavery and theft, and one that doesn't point out that their heroes are parasitic vermin. One that doesn't upset the status quo.
In other words, they "like" a "libertarianism" which rejects libertarianism.
They'll complain endlessly about the consequences that happen directly because of belief in "authority" and of rejecting the only possible ethical life- living in Rightful Liberty (while missing the fact that this is why what they complain about occurs)- but are too scared to actually do anything meaningful about it.
Those people make me sick.
.
They'll say they "respect" libertarian ideas- and then show they don't even slightly "get it".
They'll confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarians, or- horrors- mistake "Constitutionalism" for libertarianism. Even worse than that are those who equate libertarian for "conservative", rather than realizing they are opposites- just as "liberal/progressive" is also the polar opposite of libertarian.
They'll claim they like libertarian ideas, but then hide from the truth of those ideas. They want a watered down version they can feel safe with. One that doesn't touch their beloved slavery and theft, and one that doesn't point out that their heroes are parasitic vermin. One that doesn't upset the status quo.
In other words, they "like" a "libertarianism" which rejects libertarianism.
They'll complain endlessly about the consequences that happen directly because of belief in "authority" and of rejecting the only possible ethical life- living in Rightful Liberty (while missing the fact that this is why what they complain about occurs)- but are too scared to actually do anything meaningful about it.
Those people make me sick.
.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Cure cowardice- don't coddle it
A while back, on a Facebook post about "gun laws", someone was going off against "open carry"- saying all mass murderers "open carried" immediately before their murder spree, so it's not unreasonable for people to be fearful when seeing someone open carrying. So, open carry, according to this commenter, is "terrorizing".
Balderdash.
I am sorry some people are cowards, but why should I live my life for their comfort?
The guy got angry over my attitude and wrote "Yes Kent my three daughters are 'cowards.' How dare them or my wife get scared at people walking around in public with AR-15s. What a stupid comment"
Sorry- or not- but it's true. If his daughters or wife are scared by armed people, they are cowards. Instead of coddling (and probably feeding) their cowardice, he should do the responsible thing and encourage them to overcome their fears with knowledge and preparation.
This guy would probably not fear the people most likely to attack his loved ones while open carrying. And that's just insane.
.
Balderdash.
I am sorry some people are cowards, but why should I live my life for their comfort?
The guy got angry over my attitude and wrote "Yes Kent my three daughters are 'cowards.' How dare them or my wife get scared at people walking around in public with AR-15s. What a stupid comment"
Sorry- or not- but it's true. If his daughters or wife are scared by armed people, they are cowards. Instead of coddling (and probably feeding) their cowardice, he should do the responsible thing and encourage them to overcome their fears with knowledge and preparation.
This guy would probably not fear the people most likely to attack his loved ones while open carrying. And that's just insane.
.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Polishing a bully
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Are you sad when a rapist is killed by his intended victim? Or when a known murderer dies in a car wreck? How about when a burglar dies while stealing? No?
Then why be sad when self-important bullies and thieves who happen to wear badges or other state costumes suffer the same fate?
I have a suspicion it's the uniform. By "uniform" I am including all the trappings- the "idiot rug" haircut, badge, clothing, and attitude of entitlement. Including the "aura" of "authority" that is carefully manufactured by those who use the uniformed tools against you.
I have come to believe you could take any random bully or thief off the street- without changing his behavior in any way- give him an idiot rug, dress him in a neat uniform complete with metal trinkets and possibly ribbons, convince him he is entitled to automatic respect and obedience, and people would fall all over themselves worshiping him. And hating those who point out exactly what he really is.
Government schooling is probably largely responsible- it removes critical thinking ability from most kids and replaces it with magical thinking of a type that equates "uniform" with "OMG! He's gorgeous" or "Look at how dignified he is. He served!"
Kinderprison equals 12-plus years of indoctrination to view them as "heroes" who are "necessary for freedom" and who are "keeping you safe"; it almost guarantees that outcome in the vast majority of people who go through the system.
I see their acts for what they are: the acts of a bully who feels entitled to your gratitude as he's violating your life, liberty, and property.
That's why I can't mourn when their chickens come home to roost.
Good riddance to bad trash!.
Are you sad when a rapist is killed by his intended victim? Or when a known murderer dies in a car wreck? How about when a burglar dies while stealing? No?
Then why be sad when self-important bullies and thieves who happen to wear badges or other state costumes suffer the same fate?
I have a suspicion it's the uniform. By "uniform" I am including all the trappings- the "idiot rug" haircut, badge, clothing, and attitude of entitlement. Including the "aura" of "authority" that is carefully manufactured by those who use the uniformed tools against you.
I have come to believe you could take any random bully or thief off the street- without changing his behavior in any way- give him an idiot rug, dress him in a neat uniform complete with metal trinkets and possibly ribbons, convince him he is entitled to automatic respect and obedience, and people would fall all over themselves worshiping him. And hating those who point out exactly what he really is.
Government schooling is probably largely responsible- it removes critical thinking ability from most kids and replaces it with magical thinking of a type that equates "uniform" with "OMG! He's gorgeous" or "Look at how dignified he is. He served!"
Kinderprison equals 12-plus years of indoctrination to view them as "heroes" who are "necessary for freedom" and who are "keeping you safe"; it almost guarantees that outcome in the vast majority of people who go through the system.
I see their acts for what they are: the acts of a bully who feels entitled to your gratitude as he's violating your life, liberty, and property.
That's why I can't mourn when their chickens come home to roost.
Good riddance to bad trash!.
Rules, legitimate and otherwise
At mountainman rendezvous the one rule you can always count on is "Nothing visible in camp which wasn't invented until after 1840". The rule is so standard that it is often shortened to "Pre-1840 rules apply".
There is some leeway given for medical necessity. Modern glasses frames might be frowned upon, but no one is likely to rip them off your face and stomp them. A rendezvous is, after all, an armed society, and we all know how polite those are.
If a person is making an effort, people will not usually push the issue. Don't carry around beer in a can, but pour it into a tin cup... cover your camera with a bit of deer skin or a canvas bag... if you sleep on an air mattress, cover the thing with canvas, a wool blanket, or a buffalo robe if it can be seen through the open door of your shelter... leave the cigarettes in your lodge, smoke a clay pipe if you need to smoke... things like that. And, for goodness sake, no plastic!
Of course, some people are compelled to see what they can get away with. They'll bring something invented before 1840, but not seen in the mountains until decades later- just because it's technically permitted. Some people ignore the rules, even after being "reminded". Occasionally, the non-compliant will be kicked out of camp.
I like the rule. I know it exists before I decide to attend. If I am not willing to live by the rule, I can choose to stay home or go somewhere else.
I wouldn't impose this rule on society, saying that if you choose to stay, you must live by this rule- staying implies consent. Nor would I claim if I managed to impose the rule before you were born, being born here means you have implicitly agreed to the rule.
It's the same with other onerous rules that I didn't agree to.
This includes your Constitution, anti-gun "laws", prohibition, "taxes", etc.
I never agreed to those rules. Neither did most other people. They were imposed. They are said to apply from now on- or until the "authorities" change them. No leeway for necessity is usually given unless you are a member of "the club". Reminders are at the point of a gun.
This isn't civilized. It is the opposite of a society. Take your rules and ... well, you know the rest.
.
There is some leeway given for medical necessity. Modern glasses frames might be frowned upon, but no one is likely to rip them off your face and stomp them. A rendezvous is, after all, an armed society, and we all know how polite those are.
If a person is making an effort, people will not usually push the issue. Don't carry around beer in a can, but pour it into a tin cup... cover your camera with a bit of deer skin or a canvas bag... if you sleep on an air mattress, cover the thing with canvas, a wool blanket, or a buffalo robe if it can be seen through the open door of your shelter... leave the cigarettes in your lodge, smoke a clay pipe if you need to smoke... things like that. And, for goodness sake, no plastic!
Of course, some people are compelled to see what they can get away with. They'll bring something invented before 1840, but not seen in the mountains until decades later- just because it's technically permitted. Some people ignore the rules, even after being "reminded". Occasionally, the non-compliant will be kicked out of camp.
I like the rule. I know it exists before I decide to attend. If I am not willing to live by the rule, I can choose to stay home or go somewhere else.
I wouldn't impose this rule on society, saying that if you choose to stay, you must live by this rule- staying implies consent. Nor would I claim if I managed to impose the rule before you were born, being born here means you have implicitly agreed to the rule.
It's the same with other onerous rules that I didn't agree to.
This includes your Constitution, anti-gun "laws", prohibition, "taxes", etc.
I never agreed to those rules. Neither did most other people. They were imposed. They are said to apply from now on- or until the "authorities" change them. No leeway for necessity is usually given unless you are a member of "the club". Reminders are at the point of a gun.
This isn't civilized. It is the opposite of a society. Take your rules and ... well, you know the rest.
.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The lie matters because of politics
The lie matters because of politics
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 19, 2015)
The rather disturbed president of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter is exposed as a liar by her parents, and it makes national news and causes an uproar.
Why does her lie matter to anyone outside her club? Race only matters to racists. Worse lies are told every day by people using those lies to harm innocent people they don’t even know.
Judges, police, politicians, and bureaucrats lie in the course of the job, and people refuse to notice until it harms them, personally.
Judges lie when they instruct a jury to consider only the law and their instructions, rather than considering whether the law is a legitimate law or a power grab by the State.
Police lie and say they are all that stands between society and chaos, even while being caught on video planting evidence, shooting people in the back, kicking women in the face, and offering to forget infractions in exchange for sexual favors.
Politicians lie when they offer you a choice between different brands of slavery, but leave real liberty off the table. They lie when they make campaign promises and when they utter the words "crisis", "national security", or "for the children".
Bureaucrats lie when they make up rules and call them "laws" and say you are obligated to obey. They lie when they claim you need this or that permit or license.
All the above lie when they call themselves "public servants" while meaning to be your masters.
In light of all this lying, why is anyone making a big deal over a woman pretending to belong to a race she doesn't?
Because of politics. If you remove politics from the equation it wouldn't matter to anyone outside her personal sphere what she imagines herself to be. As it is, it only matters because silly racists have dreamed up "laws" to treat people differently based upon their "race".
The claim is that the "laws" remove the obstacles society has erected, but if you've been paying attention you know that isn't how it actually works. In the name of "social justice", anti-social injustice has been institutionalized, and for this reason an insignificant woman's racial fantasy seems to matter.
I don't claim her lie was innocent. The NAACP has the right to kick her out for her deception. Remove politics from the situation and, without the reward of special status the group seeks for themselves, there would probably have been no incentive for her to lie to them, and no one besides the club members she deceived would have ever heard her name. Then it would be very unlikely for her lie to harm anyone at all.
Support?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 19, 2015)
The rather disturbed president of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter is exposed as a liar by her parents, and it makes national news and causes an uproar.
Why does her lie matter to anyone outside her club? Race only matters to racists. Worse lies are told every day by people using those lies to harm innocent people they don’t even know.
Judges, police, politicians, and bureaucrats lie in the course of the job, and people refuse to notice until it harms them, personally.
Judges lie when they instruct a jury to consider only the law and their instructions, rather than considering whether the law is a legitimate law or a power grab by the State.
Police lie and say they are all that stands between society and chaos, even while being caught on video planting evidence, shooting people in the back, kicking women in the face, and offering to forget infractions in exchange for sexual favors.
Politicians lie when they offer you a choice between different brands of slavery, but leave real liberty off the table. They lie when they make campaign promises and when they utter the words "crisis", "national security", or "for the children".
Bureaucrats lie when they make up rules and call them "laws" and say you are obligated to obey. They lie when they claim you need this or that permit or license.
All the above lie when they call themselves "public servants" while meaning to be your masters.
In light of all this lying, why is anyone making a big deal over a woman pretending to belong to a race she doesn't?
Because of politics. If you remove politics from the equation it wouldn't matter to anyone outside her personal sphere what she imagines herself to be. As it is, it only matters because silly racists have dreamed up "laws" to treat people differently based upon their "race".
The claim is that the "laws" remove the obstacles society has erected, but if you've been paying attention you know that isn't how it actually works. In the name of "social justice", anti-social injustice has been institutionalized, and for this reason an insignificant woman's racial fantasy seems to matter.
I don't claim her lie was innocent. The NAACP has the right to kick her out for her deception. Remove politics from the situation and, without the reward of special status the group seeks for themselves, there would probably have been no incentive for her to lie to them, and no one besides the club members she deceived would have ever heard her name. Then it would be very unlikely for her lie to harm anyone at all.
-
Support?
.
Discover the ZAP for yourself
(Previously posted to Patreon)
The number/concept "zero" wasn't invented, it was discovered. It had been there all along, undiscovered. Unnoticed. Without having discovered it, much of science was impossible to really do, and much of reality was impossible to understand.
So it is with Zero Aggression Principle and property rights. No one invented the concepts- they were independently discovered many times- by many, mostly anonymous, individuals- throughout history.
Without those features of reality, humans suffer needlessly. Without them, bad guys flourish and prosper. With them, civilization happens.
People may complain that "zero" is "nothing"- only an imaginary thing dreamed up inside the head of people who think about such things. You can't "see it" or touch it. Maybe. But it's still real and necessary.
So it is with the only civilized ways to interact with other people: living by the ZAP and respecting their property rights.
You can deny it, fight it, ridicule it... and it is still there. It would be there even if no one had yet discovered it.
Support?
The number/concept "zero" wasn't invented, it was discovered. It had been there all along, undiscovered. Unnoticed. Without having discovered it, much of science was impossible to really do, and much of reality was impossible to understand.
So it is with Zero Aggression Principle and property rights. No one invented the concepts- they were independently discovered many times- by many, mostly anonymous, individuals- throughout history.
Without those features of reality, humans suffer needlessly. Without them, bad guys flourish and prosper. With them, civilization happens.
People may complain that "zero" is "nothing"- only an imaginary thing dreamed up inside the head of people who think about such things. You can't "see it" or touch it. Maybe. But it's still real and necessary.
So it is with the only civilized ways to interact with other people: living by the ZAP and respecting their property rights.
You can deny it, fight it, ridicule it... and it is still there. It would be there even if no one had yet discovered it.
-
Support?
Monday, July 20, 2015
Don't doom yourself to failure
Any plan that hinges on changing other people will fail. It will lead to frustration and, quite possibly, anger.
It's why "restore the Constitution", "learn to use the law", and "remember to say these words" are hopeless fantasies for increasing liberty. It is wishful thinking bordering on magical thinking.
It's also why the ZAP and Rightful Liberty work- you are responsible for yourself. Any change needed is inside you. And since you are the only person you can change...
Perhaps by changing yourself, others will be influenced. If not, you have still changed for the better. You will see the world differently. You will have a new way of acting and reacting. You will be a better person.
.
It's why "restore the Constitution", "learn to use the law", and "remember to say these words" are hopeless fantasies for increasing liberty. It is wishful thinking bordering on magical thinking.
It's also why the ZAP and Rightful Liberty work- you are responsible for yourself. Any change needed is inside you. And since you are the only person you can change...
Perhaps by changing yourself, others will be influenced. If not, you have still changed for the better. You will see the world differently. You will have a new way of acting and reacting. You will be a better person.
.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Worthless opinions
I'm talking about mine.
Believe it or not, you don't know my opinions on most things. Because they are only opinions and don't matter. Maybe they aren't exactly worthless, but they are completely irrelevant to anyone but me.
My favorite color, the breeds of dog I dislike, what I prefer to drink... those are opinions. There is no "right" opinion on those things, nor is there a "wrong" opinion. Probably most of the people closest to me wouldn't even know my opinions on those- unless they have asked or tried to rope me into something.
Opinions are only opinions. Everyone has a lot of them.
But some things I know.
Liberty is better than slavery and that is not an opinion.
.
Believe it or not, you don't know my opinions on most things. Because they are only opinions and don't matter. Maybe they aren't exactly worthless, but they are completely irrelevant to anyone but me.
My favorite color, the breeds of dog I dislike, what I prefer to drink... those are opinions. There is no "right" opinion on those things, nor is there a "wrong" opinion. Probably most of the people closest to me wouldn't even know my opinions on those- unless they have asked or tried to rope me into something.
Opinions are only opinions. Everyone has a lot of them.
But some things I know.
Liberty is better than slavery and that is not an opinion.
.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Two different approaches
I noticed a difference in approaches recently, between the statist approach and the voluntaryist approach when faced with the same issue.
There is a gazebo at the park near the house. It has a concrete floor, which catches water from the sprinkler system that waters the grass. The sprinkler comes on often enough to keep a puddle on the floor most of the time. The puddle grows a slimy layer on the concrete.
My daughter loves to play in the gazebo. When she was little she could never resist running through the puddle, and each and every time she did- without fail- she would slip and fall. She would get dirty and wet and be very upset about it.
So, I got in the habit of reminding her every time she was heading for the gazebo: "If you run through the water, you will probably slip and fall!" (No, she never remembered once she got there.)
Well, a few days ago she and another kid were once again heading over to run around in the gazebo- and there was a slimy puddle on the floor. I overheard her telling the kid :"Don't run through the water!"
And, then it struck me. That's the main difference between trying to control someone else, and warning someone of probable consequences. The difference between the statist approach and the Rightful Liberty approach.
.
There is a gazebo at the park near the house. It has a concrete floor, which catches water from the sprinkler system that waters the grass. The sprinkler comes on often enough to keep a puddle on the floor most of the time. The puddle grows a slimy layer on the concrete.
My daughter loves to play in the gazebo. When she was little she could never resist running through the puddle, and each and every time she did- without fail- she would slip and fall. She would get dirty and wet and be very upset about it.
So, I got in the habit of reminding her every time she was heading for the gazebo: "If you run through the water, you will probably slip and fall!" (No, she never remembered once she got there.)
Well, a few days ago she and another kid were once again heading over to run around in the gazebo- and there was a slimy puddle on the floor. I overheard her telling the kid :"Don't run through the water!"
And, then it struck me. That's the main difference between trying to control someone else, and warning someone of probable consequences. The difference between the statist approach and the Rightful Liberty approach.
.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Being nothing
Several times in my life I've encountered people who seem compelled to tell me "you're nothing".
Which is interesting, since I don't remember claiming to be "something" more than what I am- which is me. Whatever others may decide to call me is their business. You may or may not like me, but that's just how it is.
Years ago in the town where I was commonly known as "The mountainman" (or "the pet store guy", depending on who was talking to/about me) I encountered a drunk who insisted on telling me I didn't measure up. His little toe was more of a mountainman than I could ever be. He kept getting right in my face to tell me exactly what he thought of me- which, since I had never met the guy, really wasn't that important to me. His little yappy long-haired lapdog was a "real mountain dog" according to Mr. VaporBreath. I just kept saying "OK. If you say so." (As an aside, this is one of the few times I ever pulled out a gun in preparation to use in self defense- although he wasn't aware I had done so. I was almost certain he was going to attack any moment as he got angrier and angrier- but he suddenly calmed down and left.)
Online I have had people tell me I am not a "real libertarian" or "real anarchist" because I'm not shooting bullies, or sitting in jail. Or moving to Somalia.
It seems that whatever I get a reputation for, someone is just waiting to try to tell me I'm "nothing".
And, I used to care a little, but less and less all the time.
I've never claimed to be perfect. I don't suggest you follow me. I'll tell you what I think I should be doing- maybe I'll measure up... maybe I won't. But I know where I should be. And, yes, I'll probably judge your actions according to what I think is right. But why concern yourself over my approval?
You'll probably not get me into much of a battle trying to convince you I am what you say I'm not. Instead, I'll just go out there and be myself. I'll let my actions speak for me- and either prove you right or wrong.
.
Which is interesting, since I don't remember claiming to be "something" more than what I am- which is me. Whatever others may decide to call me is their business. You may or may not like me, but that's just how it is.
Years ago in the town where I was commonly known as "The mountainman" (or "the pet store guy", depending on who was talking to/about me) I encountered a drunk who insisted on telling me I didn't measure up. His little toe was more of a mountainman than I could ever be. He kept getting right in my face to tell me exactly what he thought of me- which, since I had never met the guy, really wasn't that important to me. His little yappy long-haired lapdog was a "real mountain dog" according to Mr. VaporBreath. I just kept saying "OK. If you say so." (As an aside, this is one of the few times I ever pulled out a gun in preparation to use in self defense- although he wasn't aware I had done so. I was almost certain he was going to attack any moment as he got angrier and angrier- but he suddenly calmed down and left.)
Online I have had people tell me I am not a "real libertarian" or "real anarchist" because I'm not shooting bullies, or sitting in jail. Or moving to Somalia.
It seems that whatever I get a reputation for, someone is just waiting to try to tell me I'm "nothing".
And, I used to care a little, but less and less all the time.
I've never claimed to be perfect. I don't suggest you follow me. I'll tell you what I think I should be doing- maybe I'll measure up... maybe I won't. But I know where I should be. And, yes, I'll probably judge your actions according to what I think is right. But why concern yourself over my approval?
You'll probably not get me into much of a battle trying to convince you I am what you say I'm not. Instead, I'll just go out there and be myself. I'll let my actions speak for me- and either prove you right or wrong.
.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Demanding entitlement drones
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Back around Insurrection Day (July 4) a group of veterans held the "local" Walmart hostage. Or, at least tried to.
They had wanted the Walmart employees to wear red shirts and collect money (or promote something- I forget exactly which) for their group on that Friday.
The Walmart already does a huge collection push for the Children's Miracle Network, and for whatever reason declined to add the veterans to their supported charities. As if they don't already bend over backward to accommodate and worship the military in other ways.
So, on that morning (I believe it was July 3) the veterans showed up ready to invade Walmart to make their demands and try to pressure the store managers into changing their minds.
Walmart managers met them at the door and kept them from coming in.
This was seen as a disgraceful act on the part of Walmart by some people. I heard it said that "if any group deserves [to be honored], it is veterans". Yuck.
I see veterans (in general, I know there are wonderful exceptions) as entitled whiners. They risked life and limb (and often lost both) to impose the agenda of the federal mafia on people around the globe, but want it to be called "fighting for your freedom" instead of talking about it honestly. Then, since being paid with stolen money while imposing The State on people wasn't enough, they want everyone to worship and support them for the rest of their lives.
I'm amazed and glad Walmart didn't bow under the pressure.
Of course, none of this is to be read as being a fan of Walmart. Corporations are another branch of the State and are disgusting, too.
.
Back around Insurrection Day (July 4) a group of veterans held the "local" Walmart hostage. Or, at least tried to.
They had wanted the Walmart employees to wear red shirts and collect money (or promote something- I forget exactly which) for their group on that Friday.
The Walmart already does a huge collection push for the Children's Miracle Network, and for whatever reason declined to add the veterans to their supported charities. As if they don't already bend over backward to accommodate and worship the military in other ways.
So, on that morning (I believe it was July 3) the veterans showed up ready to invade Walmart to make their demands and try to pressure the store managers into changing their minds.
Walmart managers met them at the door and kept them from coming in.
This was seen as a disgraceful act on the part of Walmart by some people. I heard it said that "if any group deserves [to be honored], it is veterans". Yuck.
I see veterans (in general, I know there are wonderful exceptions) as entitled whiners. They risked life and limb (and often lost both) to impose the agenda of the federal mafia on people around the globe, but want it to be called "fighting for your freedom" instead of talking about it honestly. Then, since being paid with stolen money while imposing The State on people wasn't enough, they want everyone to worship and support them for the rest of their lives.
I'm amazed and glad Walmart didn't bow under the pressure.
Of course, none of this is to be read as being a fan of Walmart. Corporations are another branch of the State and are disgusting, too.
.
Police culture
The police have a "culture". An uncultured culture of entitlement and brutality.
An aggressive gang culture where they cover up the evil actions of their gang "brothers" and "sisters".
A whiny culture where if they don't get the groveling respect they believe they are entitled to, they'll tell you they hope you or your loved ones get raped and robbed so you'll believe you need them- or they'll do it to you themselves.
Or kill you.
To me, cops and their culture are completely unacceptable. They are unwelcome in my presence. I can't really understand why anyone tolerates them.
Oh wait... yes I do. Indoctrination, through TV and kinderprison.
.
An aggressive gang culture where they cover up the evil actions of their gang "brothers" and "sisters".
A whiny culture where if they don't get the groveling respect they believe they are entitled to, they'll tell you they hope you or your loved ones get raped and robbed so you'll believe you need them- or they'll do it to you themselves.
Or kill you.
To me, cops and their culture are completely unacceptable. They are unwelcome in my presence. I can't really understand why anyone tolerates them.
Oh wait... yes I do. Indoctrination, through TV and kinderprison.
.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Ideas, beliefs change with growth
Ideas, beliefs change with growth
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 12, 2015)
Everyone changes their mind as they grow. Almost everything I now believe is because along the way someone, somehow, convinced me I was wrong.
Most of those changes came after a lot of figurative kicking and screaming. I didn't want to accept I could be wrong, and I liked what I believed. It was comfortable, and matched what many around me seemed to believe.
I once held many more "conservative" ideas than I now do. I used to support police and the military- in general. I used to support the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I used to support capital punishment. I used to believe government was necessary for moral society. I used to be fine with the law treating some non-aggressive people as though they had fewer rights than others.
I also used to hold some "liberal" ideas I have since rejected. I used to believe the best way to protect the environment was for government to make up laws telling people what they could and couldn't do with their own property. I used to think government should subsidize electric cars and penalize people who drove gasoline cars. I thought littering or polluting should be a capital crime- OK, I may be slightly exaggerating on that one (but not by much). I used to support a minimum wage, and laws against child labor.
I even used to wonder if the gun ban crowd might be right; maybe guns were too dangerous for people to own and carry.
Of course, I thought I believed in freedom and I believed I was consistent. Now, it is embarrassing and painful to even remember entertaining those ideas, and agony to admit them publicly.
Sure, I always had some doubts that government was as great as many people said, and my observations seemed to indicate it wasn't just the particular person in office which was the problem, but the existence of the position itself. I also noticed the results of laws, programs, and agencies were usually the exact opposite of the purported goal. For years I clung to my comfortable beliefs in spite of these observations. Like so many, I supported freedom for things I liked, but not for things I didn't, and ignored the inconsistency.
Then I began to really think and those inconsistencies began to fall away.
There are still details people I look up to disagree with me on. I consider their points, but if they don't hold up I stand my ground.
I am more likely to be convinced by logic, reason, and consistency than by emotionalism. I'm sure more changes are to come. What convinces you to change your mind?
(One thing I was thinking about, which didn't make it into the column, is that those advocating Liberty never threatened me to change my mind. Those advocating statism of one sort or another never took any other way.)
Support?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 12, 2015)
Everyone changes their mind as they grow. Almost everything I now believe is because along the way someone, somehow, convinced me I was wrong.
Most of those changes came after a lot of figurative kicking and screaming. I didn't want to accept I could be wrong, and I liked what I believed. It was comfortable, and matched what many around me seemed to believe.
I once held many more "conservative" ideas than I now do. I used to support police and the military- in general. I used to support the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I used to support capital punishment. I used to believe government was necessary for moral society. I used to be fine with the law treating some non-aggressive people as though they had fewer rights than others.
I also used to hold some "liberal" ideas I have since rejected. I used to believe the best way to protect the environment was for government to make up laws telling people what they could and couldn't do with their own property. I used to think government should subsidize electric cars and penalize people who drove gasoline cars. I thought littering or polluting should be a capital crime- OK, I may be slightly exaggerating on that one (but not by much). I used to support a minimum wage, and laws against child labor.
I even used to wonder if the gun ban crowd might be right; maybe guns were too dangerous for people to own and carry.
Of course, I thought I believed in freedom and I believed I was consistent. Now, it is embarrassing and painful to even remember entertaining those ideas, and agony to admit them publicly.
Sure, I always had some doubts that government was as great as many people said, and my observations seemed to indicate it wasn't just the particular person in office which was the problem, but the existence of the position itself. I also noticed the results of laws, programs, and agencies were usually the exact opposite of the purported goal. For years I clung to my comfortable beliefs in spite of these observations. Like so many, I supported freedom for things I liked, but not for things I didn't, and ignored the inconsistency.
Then I began to really think and those inconsistencies began to fall away.
There are still details people I look up to disagree with me on. I consider their points, but if they don't hold up I stand my ground.
I am more likely to be convinced by logic, reason, and consistency than by emotionalism. I'm sure more changes are to come. What convinces you to change your mind?
(One thing I was thinking about, which didn't make it into the column, is that those advocating Liberty never threatened me to change my mind. Those advocating statism of one sort or another never took any other way.)
-
Support?
.
Choices and shame and who cares?
A while back I saw where someone had said that even suggesting "homosexuality is a choice" is "homophobic".
That is crazy.
If anyone says it either never, or always, is a choice they are lying. No one knows that either way. I suspect it is sometimes genetic, beyond choice, and other times is a choice. If someone is pushing one or the other as the only truth it is because they have an agenda, and want "laws" dreamed up depending on how they want reality to be.
Someday, maybe, it will be settled as to whether it is or is not (mainly) a choice.
But who cares?
I am only ashamed of my choices if they are wrong, foolish, or stupid. I am pleased with many of my choices and ashamed of others.
And either way, choice or not, I'm not going to suggest that people be punished for, or "laws" passed against, non-aggressive choices. That would be evil.
.
That is crazy.
If anyone says it either never, or always, is a choice they are lying. No one knows that either way. I suspect it is sometimes genetic, beyond choice, and other times is a choice. If someone is pushing one or the other as the only truth it is because they have an agenda, and want "laws" dreamed up depending on how they want reality to be.
Someday, maybe, it will be settled as to whether it is or is not (mainly) a choice.
But who cares?
I am only ashamed of my choices if they are wrong, foolish, or stupid. I am pleased with many of my choices and ashamed of others.
And either way, choice or not, I'm not going to suggest that people be punished for, or "laws" passed against, non-aggressive choices. That would be evil.
.
Monday, July 13, 2015
"Don't keep harping on it"
If a newspaper or network keeps reporting on those who call themselves "government" doing the same thing over and over, but won't publish criticisms from the intended victims each and every time, isn't that favoritism?
Of course it is.
Sure, I want to know when some bully is threatening to violate me, but to keep criticisms from being heard, on the basis of it being "too repetitive", only helps those bullies get away with it. The criticisms are repetitive only because the violations are repetitive.
The bullies of "government" sometimes (in fact, almost always) keep proposing to violate you in the same way until it finally gets imposed. They keep harping on the issue until they get their way. The media rarely points out that "government" is repetitive in its schemes- but just try to publish a letter to the editor or a column addressing the potential violation each and every time it is proposed or discussed and you'll get shut off. It's like the media is hoping the memory of your rational objections will fade, and the violation will eventually be imposed without anyone speaking up.
It's like the never-ending push for anti-gun "laws". If the bullies don't get their way this month, they'll be back next month with the same "idea". They do the same with their theft proposals.
Take away the soapbox, just like the ballot box and jury box have been taken away, and you leave most people no peaceful recourse. Maybe that's what the media hopes- after all, bloodshed sells papers and attracts viewers.
.
Of course it is.
Sure, I want to know when some bully is threatening to violate me, but to keep criticisms from being heard, on the basis of it being "too repetitive", only helps those bullies get away with it. The criticisms are repetitive only because the violations are repetitive.
The bullies of "government" sometimes (in fact, almost always) keep proposing to violate you in the same way until it finally gets imposed. They keep harping on the issue until they get their way. The media rarely points out that "government" is repetitive in its schemes- but just try to publish a letter to the editor or a column addressing the potential violation each and every time it is proposed or discussed and you'll get shut off. It's like the media is hoping the memory of your rational objections will fade, and the violation will eventually be imposed without anyone speaking up.
It's like the never-ending push for anti-gun "laws". If the bullies don't get their way this month, they'll be back next month with the same "idea". They do the same with their theft proposals.
Take away the soapbox, just like the ballot box and jury box have been taken away, and you leave most people no peaceful recourse. Maybe that's what the media hopes- after all, bloodshed sells papers and attracts viewers.
.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Me vs. (some) Dogs
For those who would like to have more things to hate me for, I have a confession: I am a dog killer.
Or, I have been.
So, how can I hold dog-killing cops in contempt if I'm no better than them?
Well, I am better than them; I never killed a dog in its own territory while I was trespassing, but only at my house. And, always in defense of my property.
When I was younger I always had chickens, pheasants, quail, doves, and rabbits in my yard. In a fenced in area, or in pens and cages. I lost a lot of them to neighbors' dogs, who would run in a pack at night, come to my yard, climb over (or under) the fence, tear open the cages, and kill my animals.
That doesn't sit well with me. My animals are my responsibility to protect, and I take that seriously.
But, at first I was nice. I told the neighbors what had happened and asked them to keep their dogs out of my yard. The response I got several times: "That's your problem."
OK, so if it is my problem, I will solve it myself. And I did. One .22 hollowpoint at a time.
It was a short-term solution, as the neighbors would get a replacement as soon as "Fluffy" stopped coming home. One thing I noticed is these dogs weren't loved. Every one of them was so covered in ticks (and fleas) you couldn't see any skin on their faces- they were just an object to their owners, which made me sad even as I shot them.
The permanent solution was so simple I wish I had discovered it years earlier: Wild turkeys.
A friend gave me some 2nd generation wild turkeys her uncle had hatched out. I put them in a pen that adjoined my chicken pen- and I never lost another critter to dogs.
The turkeys were mean. When I went in their pen I had to wear a heavy coat, make sure my hat protected the back of my neck, and carry a shovel for protection. And I still got flogged. In fact, I had to reinforce the wire of the pen near the door to the chicken pen because the tom would attack the wire each time I went in to do any chicken work, and he was ripping the wire.
But I never had to shoot another dog in protection of my livestock again, and that made me happy.
Later, though, I almost shot another neighbor's dog- this time in defense of my older daughter.
She was about 4 years old, playing in the yard, when she started to scream. A neighbor's black lab had her cornered and was barking aggressively at her. I grabbed some rocks and rushed the dog pelting him and yelling. He ran and I chased him home. His owner was outside and started cussing me for chasing his dog. I told him his dog was in my yard, threatening my daughter- and to keep it out of my yard. He said he didn't believe in keeping dogs penned or chained, because it was like his child. I told him my daughter IS my child, and if his dog doesn't stay out of my yard I would shoot it. I also let him know it wasn't the first trouble I had experienced with his dog- it had ripped up a couple of deerskins I was tanning, and my patience was used up.
Somehow the guy managed to find a way to keep the dog out of my yard- or I had scared it enough it didn't come back. Later the guy was complaining to me that the painters working at the restaurant next door to his cabin had pained his dog red. I was thinking if he kept his dog home he wouldn't have had that problem either.
Notice, that neither I nor the dog owners grovelled for the state to step in and solve our problem. I wonder if it would go the same way today.
So that's my confession.
.
Or, I have been.
So, how can I hold dog-killing cops in contempt if I'm no better than them?
Well, I am better than them; I never killed a dog in its own territory while I was trespassing, but only at my house. And, always in defense of my property.
When I was younger I always had chickens, pheasants, quail, doves, and rabbits in my yard. In a fenced in area, or in pens and cages. I lost a lot of them to neighbors' dogs, who would run in a pack at night, come to my yard, climb over (or under) the fence, tear open the cages, and kill my animals.
That doesn't sit well with me. My animals are my responsibility to protect, and I take that seriously.
But, at first I was nice. I told the neighbors what had happened and asked them to keep their dogs out of my yard. The response I got several times: "That's your problem."
OK, so if it is my problem, I will solve it myself. And I did. One .22 hollowpoint at a time.
It was a short-term solution, as the neighbors would get a replacement as soon as "Fluffy" stopped coming home. One thing I noticed is these dogs weren't loved. Every one of them was so covered in ticks (and fleas) you couldn't see any skin on their faces- they were just an object to their owners, which made me sad even as I shot them.
The permanent solution was so simple I wish I had discovered it years earlier: Wild turkeys.
A friend gave me some 2nd generation wild turkeys her uncle had hatched out. I put them in a pen that adjoined my chicken pen- and I never lost another critter to dogs.
The turkeys were mean. When I went in their pen I had to wear a heavy coat, make sure my hat protected the back of my neck, and carry a shovel for protection. And I still got flogged. In fact, I had to reinforce the wire of the pen near the door to the chicken pen because the tom would attack the wire each time I went in to do any chicken work, and he was ripping the wire.
But I never had to shoot another dog in protection of my livestock again, and that made me happy.
Later, though, I almost shot another neighbor's dog- this time in defense of my older daughter.
She was about 4 years old, playing in the yard, when she started to scream. A neighbor's black lab had her cornered and was barking aggressively at her. I grabbed some rocks and rushed the dog pelting him and yelling. He ran and I chased him home. His owner was outside and started cussing me for chasing his dog. I told him his dog was in my yard, threatening my daughter- and to keep it out of my yard. He said he didn't believe in keeping dogs penned or chained, because it was like his child. I told him my daughter IS my child, and if his dog doesn't stay out of my yard I would shoot it. I also let him know it wasn't the first trouble I had experienced with his dog- it had ripped up a couple of deerskins I was tanning, and my patience was used up.
Somehow the guy managed to find a way to keep the dog out of my yard- or I had scared it enough it didn't come back. Later the guy was complaining to me that the painters working at the restaurant next door to his cabin had pained his dog red. I was thinking if he kept his dog home he wouldn't have had that problem either.
Notice, that neither I nor the dog owners grovelled for the state to step in and solve our problem. I wonder if it would go the same way today.
So that's my confession.
.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Don't feel bad about putting bullies in their place
I never want to make people feel bad about things they didn't choose, or things they did choose which are not harming others.
I'm not saying I have never said anything racist, sexist, or mean. I have.
And I feel bad about it, and I intend to not repeat that behavior.
But I don't feel bad about calling people on the carpet for doing evil things. Not all opinions or choices are equally valid, and if your opinions or choices lead to behavior which violates the property or Rightful Liberty of another, you need to feel bad about it.
.
I'm not saying I have never said anything racist, sexist, or mean. I have.
And I feel bad about it, and I intend to not repeat that behavior.
But I don't feel bad about calling people on the carpet for doing evil things. Not all opinions or choices are equally valid, and if your opinions or choices lead to behavior which violates the property or Rightful Liberty of another, you need to feel bad about it.
.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Late!
My Clovis News Journal column will be posted late. The newspaper's site is offline due to a cyberattack/virus. I'll post the link as soon as I can.
The column is in the paper, with another of those headlines that seems completely divorced from the content of the column. Sigh...
The column is in the paper, with another of those headlines that seems completely divorced from the content of the column. Sigh...
Thursday, July 09, 2015
"Politically incorrect"? Or something more hilarious?
Most people who believe they are being "politically incorrect" are actually just being political- and are also incorrect.
And many of them feel very smug while doing so.
It's sort of funny to watch.
.
And many of them feel very smug while doing so.
It's sort of funny to watch.
.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
The answers not offered
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I recently took another of those quizzes (probably used by NSA goons to get you to self-incriminate, but at this point, who cares?).
It was titled Can We Identify Your Age Based On Your Political Opinions? I usually just think "No. No you can't" but I took it anyway.
It missed my age by a long shot, but that's based on not being able to choose the right answers on anything.
I thought I would write the answers I would choose to the questions they ask, to be a little more accurate.
Here goes:
#1- "The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class"
No, everyone should pay the same: 0%
#2- "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified"
There's no such thing as "international law" unless it is Natural Law, and military action which defies Natural Law is never justified, but is always evil.
#3- "Gay marriage should be legal"
No one has the right to regulate marriage by "law".
#4- "Abortion should be illegal"
I don't believe in "laws" against anything. If something is wrong (an initiation of force or violation of property), stop those doing it. Yourself. There are only two types of "law"- the unnecessary and the harmful.
#5- "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns"
Where to start? Well, no one has the right to forbid anyone from carrying any weapon, openly or concealed, regardless of the person's history of complying with "laws" or not, and without regard for where a person was born or what government bullies claim the "authority" to rob and control them.
#6- "Healthcare is the responsibility of the government"
Ummm.... no. Their only responsibility (if any) is to not be evil by preventing anyone from finding and making arrangements for whatever kind of healthcare they want. This is why the DEA, FDA, and various medicine/doctor rationing scams are abominable.
#7- "Marijuana should be legal"
Again, no one has the right to make "laws" against a plant- any plant- nor to tell you what medicines or chemicals you are allowed to put into your body.
#8- "Government regulation of businesses probably does more harm than good"
"Probably"? There's no "probably" about it. No one has the right to interfere in people's trades. Not even "for your own good". That is socialism and harms the business and the customers- and probably ends up harming the customer the most.
#9- "A country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment"
A "country" can't do anything. People do. I do think soiling your own nest is an incredibly foolish and short-sighted behavior. But "whatever it takes" could include killing off all the humans, if someone with that power decides that's what it would take. I don't litter. I pick up trash constantly. I pollute as little as I possibly can, and avoid the use of certain chemicals. And I still think "environmental laws" are counterproductive and stupid.
#10- "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values"
Nothing could be more obvious. Some of the least moral people I have ever met believe in God. And most of them support the hideous evil of "The State" with fervor. That doesn't mean that not believing in God/god/gods leads to good behavior, either. The things seem completely unrelated in my experience.
#11- "The growing number of immigrants from other countries threaten our values and customs"
Not sure who this "our" is. If your values can be threatened by the presence of people with different values, then your values are apparently worthless. No one else threatens my values. Now, maybe you could get introduced to new customs, and decide you enjoy them and would like to participate. I don't see how this can be considered a threat, either. If you don't want to whack piñatas at a kid's birthday party, don't. And, if it seems I am picking on one particular group of "immigrants" with that comment, it is only because they are the ones generally being disparaged by the borderists.
#12- "Everyone has it in their power to succeed"
Probably not. We are all born different and have different abilities and talents. Some people are more prone to success- even taking individual strengths into account. Don't erect "laws" and regulations to ensure failure in more people who might otherwise succeed.
#13- "Sometimes citizens must give up some privacy to be protected from terrorism"
If that's the case, it's a good case against lowering yourself to the status of "citizen", which is synonymous with "slave" in my mind. But, exactly how does behaving as a terrorist "protect" anyone from terrorism? Aren't you just becoming what you tell people you are protecting them from? Of course you are. I would rather risk the occasional act of "terrorism" than put up with bullies spying on my every move. Or, on the every move of my worst enemy. Not on my behalf.
#14- "Social welfare makes people too dependent on government and less accountable for themselves"
"Don't feed the wildlife. It would become dependent and lose the ability to fend for itself." How can this be true of wild animals and be not true about humans? If you get accustomed to being fed, housed, doctored, and policed, how will you ever learn to take responsibility for yourself? You won't. You'll become a domestic animal, farmed and used.
#15- "Capital punishment can sometimes be justified"
Not in my opinion. No government anywhere, ever, has been (or could be) honest enough to be trusted with the power of life or death. The "justice system" is a horrible joke, with juries routinely passing along the result the government employees desire- which is almost always some version of "guilty as charged".
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge, not justice.
So, there you have it. A quiz with the right answers for me to choose, rather than the statist standard answers that assume a statist outlook.
.
I recently took another of those quizzes (probably used by NSA goons to get you to self-incriminate, but at this point, who cares?).
It was titled Can We Identify Your Age Based On Your Political Opinions? I usually just think "No. No you can't" but I took it anyway.
It missed my age by a long shot, but that's based on not being able to choose the right answers on anything.
I thought I would write the answers I would choose to the questions they ask, to be a little more accurate.
Here goes:
#1- "The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class"
No, everyone should pay the same: 0%
#2- "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified"
There's no such thing as "international law" unless it is Natural Law, and military action which defies Natural Law is never justified, but is always evil.
#3- "Gay marriage should be legal"
No one has the right to regulate marriage by "law".
#4- "Abortion should be illegal"
I don't believe in "laws" against anything. If something is wrong (an initiation of force or violation of property), stop those doing it. Yourself. There are only two types of "law"- the unnecessary and the harmful.
#5- "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns"
Where to start? Well, no one has the right to forbid anyone from carrying any weapon, openly or concealed, regardless of the person's history of complying with "laws" or not, and without regard for where a person was born or what government bullies claim the "authority" to rob and control them.
#6- "Healthcare is the responsibility of the government"
Ummm.... no. Their only responsibility (if any) is to not be evil by preventing anyone from finding and making arrangements for whatever kind of healthcare they want. This is why the DEA, FDA, and various medicine/doctor rationing scams are abominable.
#7- "Marijuana should be legal"
Again, no one has the right to make "laws" against a plant- any plant- nor to tell you what medicines or chemicals you are allowed to put into your body.
#8- "Government regulation of businesses probably does more harm than good"
"Probably"? There's no "probably" about it. No one has the right to interfere in people's trades. Not even "for your own good". That is socialism and harms the business and the customers- and probably ends up harming the customer the most.
#9- "A country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment"
A "country" can't do anything. People do. I do think soiling your own nest is an incredibly foolish and short-sighted behavior. But "whatever it takes" could include killing off all the humans, if someone with that power decides that's what it would take. I don't litter. I pick up trash constantly. I pollute as little as I possibly can, and avoid the use of certain chemicals. And I still think "environmental laws" are counterproductive and stupid.
#10- "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values"
Nothing could be more obvious. Some of the least moral people I have ever met believe in God. And most of them support the hideous evil of "The State" with fervor. That doesn't mean that not believing in God/god/gods leads to good behavior, either. The things seem completely unrelated in my experience.
#11- "The growing number of immigrants from other countries threaten our values and customs"
Not sure who this "our" is. If your values can be threatened by the presence of people with different values, then your values are apparently worthless. No one else threatens my values. Now, maybe you could get introduced to new customs, and decide you enjoy them and would like to participate. I don't see how this can be considered a threat, either. If you don't want to whack piñatas at a kid's birthday party, don't. And, if it seems I am picking on one particular group of "immigrants" with that comment, it is only because they are the ones generally being disparaged by the borderists.
#12- "Everyone has it in their power to succeed"
Probably not. We are all born different and have different abilities and talents. Some people are more prone to success- even taking individual strengths into account. Don't erect "laws" and regulations to ensure failure in more people who might otherwise succeed.
#13- "Sometimes citizens must give up some privacy to be protected from terrorism"
If that's the case, it's a good case against lowering yourself to the status of "citizen", which is synonymous with "slave" in my mind. But, exactly how does behaving as a terrorist "protect" anyone from terrorism? Aren't you just becoming what you tell people you are protecting them from? Of course you are. I would rather risk the occasional act of "terrorism" than put up with bullies spying on my every move. Or, on the every move of my worst enemy. Not on my behalf.
#14- "Social welfare makes people too dependent on government and less accountable for themselves"
"Don't feed the wildlife. It would become dependent and lose the ability to fend for itself." How can this be true of wild animals and be not true about humans? If you get accustomed to being fed, housed, doctored, and policed, how will you ever learn to take responsibility for yourself? You won't. You'll become a domestic animal, farmed and used.
#15- "Capital punishment can sometimes be justified"
Not in my opinion. No government anywhere, ever, has been (or could be) honest enough to be trusted with the power of life or death. The "justice system" is a horrible joke, with juries routinely passing along the result the government employees desire- which is almost always some version of "guilty as charged".
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge, not justice.
So, there you have it. A quiz with the right answers for me to choose, rather than the statist standard answers that assume a statist outlook.
.
Love Gov
This is a video series I recommend- from Independent Institute. It's funny and truthful.
M only quibble is when they talk about government debt putting an individual (besides the government employees who actually took on the debt) into debt. Not my debt, and not yours either.
Watch all 5 episodes. Really. Number 5 was my favorite, but they are all good.
.
M only quibble is when they talk about government debt putting an individual (besides the government employees who actually took on the debt) into debt. Not my debt, and not yours either.
Watch all 5 episodes. Really. Number 5 was my favorite, but they are all good.
.
Don't hire bad guys for something you should do
I have no interest in sending cops after anyone for anything.
If someone is doing something bad- aggression or property violation- and needs to be stopped, stop them.
Don't add to the wrong by allowing a gang to exist on theft and aggression to (supposedly) "fight" theft and aggression. That's just insane.
.
If someone is doing something bad- aggression or property violation- and needs to be stopped, stop them.
Don't add to the wrong by allowing a gang to exist on theft and aggression to (supposedly) "fight" theft and aggression. That's just insane.
.
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
City councils radically un-American
City councils radically un-American
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 5, 2015. This is the repeatedly rejected one. The version you'll see at the newspaper site is the editor's version- which really isn't much different, but some. I'll probably find a way to post- somewhere- the original version, along with the reworked one which was rejected that I will post here in its entirety in a month.)
Through observation over my adult life- and especially lately- I have come to a conclusion: city councils are the realm of the petty megalomaniac. Need proof? The publicly stated goal of one such gang in the area recently was to plot to impose "enforceable rules that all residents could be held to".
That city council's stated goal is a sad, perverted goal; harmful and radically anti-American.
It was triggered when some people didn't beg them for permission, and pay the demanded bribe (which is dishonestly called a "permit"), before improving their own property in a way which harmed absolutely no one, and in a way many others have done before.
The only rule needed doesn't have to be written: don't violate the property of others. Nor does it need to be made enforceable. Defend your own property from those who try to violate it. I'll even help.
The only real danger most property owners ever face comes from those who imagine they have the right to enforce rules to control everyone else's property... and their eager quislings. It's that dangerous, superstitious belief in "authority" again.
A legitimate rule would apply only to government employees: "You will not violate, under color of law, the choice of others as to how to use their own property, nor steal property in the name of taxation, permits, and fines".
If any city council wants to legitimize itself, it could abolish all its made-up rules and become nothing more than a social club. It could then make all the rules it wants between its members. That path leads to no glorification or rush of power, though.
Do you consider ObamaCare a problem? It can't damage your rights as badly as local busybodies. You encounter them every day, whereas the vermin in Washington DC or your state capital don't generally notice you unless you first seek them out.
Property codes are not needed. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are fast approaching the day when everything not forbidden is mandatory. And I, for one, refuse to play along.
I don't want you committing enforcement of property-violating rules against my neighbors. I don't want you enforcing your twisted notion of "the common good".
It's time to wrest control of our private property back from those who believe they have a right to make up rules which violate us to feed their communistic hunger. It's time to tell them to knock it off and go away. North Korea seems a good fit for those who lust for ever more government control over every aspect of their neighbors' lives.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 5, 2015. This is the repeatedly rejected one. The version you'll see at the newspaper site is the editor's version- which really isn't much different, but some. I'll probably find a way to post- somewhere- the original version, along with the reworked one which was rejected that I will post here in its entirety in a month.)
Through observation over my adult life- and especially lately- I have come to a conclusion: city councils are the realm of the petty megalomaniac. Need proof? The publicly stated goal of one such gang in the area recently was to plot to impose "enforceable rules that all residents could be held to".
That city council's stated goal is a sad, perverted goal; harmful and radically anti-American.
It was triggered when some people didn't beg them for permission, and pay the demanded bribe (which is dishonestly called a "permit"), before improving their own property in a way which harmed absolutely no one, and in a way many others have done before.
The only rule needed doesn't have to be written: don't violate the property of others. Nor does it need to be made enforceable. Defend your own property from those who try to violate it. I'll even help.
The only real danger most property owners ever face comes from those who imagine they have the right to enforce rules to control everyone else's property... and their eager quislings. It's that dangerous, superstitious belief in "authority" again.
A legitimate rule would apply only to government employees: "You will not violate, under color of law, the choice of others as to how to use their own property, nor steal property in the name of taxation, permits, and fines".
If any city council wants to legitimize itself, it could abolish all its made-up rules and become nothing more than a social club. It could then make all the rules it wants between its members. That path leads to no glorification or rush of power, though.
Do you consider ObamaCare a problem? It can't damage your rights as badly as local busybodies. You encounter them every day, whereas the vermin in Washington DC or your state capital don't generally notice you unless you first seek them out.
Property codes are not needed. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are fast approaching the day when everything not forbidden is mandatory. And I, for one, refuse to play along.
I don't want you committing enforcement of property-violating rules against my neighbors. I don't want you enforcing your twisted notion of "the common good".
It's time to wrest control of our private property back from those who believe they have a right to make up rules which violate us to feed their communistic hunger. It's time to tell them to knock it off and go away. North Korea seems a good fit for those who lust for ever more government control over every aspect of their neighbors' lives.
.
The government lamprey
Picture society- or even the individual human- as a fish.
"Government"- or, each and every individual with a government "job"- is a lamprey.
A devastating parasite feeding on the productive people. In no way "necessary" for the well-being of the society or individual they feed off of.
"Government" is piggybacking on civilization. It is nothing but a useless feeder, which has somehow convinced its victims that it is the one feeding and supporting them.
.
"Government"- or, each and every individual with a government "job"- is a lamprey.
You, supporting the local cop/teacher/judge/"government" employee
The consequences of your support
A devastating parasite feeding on the productive people. In no way "necessary" for the well-being of the society or individual they feed off of.
"Government" is piggybacking on civilization. It is nothing but a useless feeder, which has somehow convinced its victims that it is the one feeding and supporting them.
.
Monday, July 06, 2015
Truth will make itself known
Lysander Spooner:
Truth will always be independently discovered. Over and over again. Until it finally becomes something "everyone knows".
“If two individuals enter into a contract to commit trespass, theft, robbery or murder upon a third, the contract is unlawful and void, simply because it is a contract to violate natural justice, or men’s natural rights.” (h/t Bill Buppert)
Which is what I have been saying:
"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." (link)
I had never read this quote of Spooner's before. Yet I came up with the same principle simply by thinking about a question. I have seen the same thing happen so many times, with so many other ideas.
Truth will always be independently discovered. Over and over again. Until it finally becomes something "everyone knows".
.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
This blog is biased!
This blog is biased against slavery, theft, the superstitious belief in "authority", bullies, and anti-liberty bigots.
This blog is biased toward Rightful Liberty, responsibility, and individualism.
I never claim to be "unbiased" like some liars in the "mainstream media" do.
Every source of information is biased, as is every opinion (which seems so self evident it shouldn't need to be said) published anywhere.
If you want "unbiased" go find a sasquatch riding a unicorn and ask him. Otherwise, figure out what the bias is, and read with that in mind.
.
This blog is biased toward Rightful Liberty, responsibility, and individualism.
I never claim to be "unbiased" like some liars in the "mainstream media" do.
Every source of information is biased, as is every opinion (which seems so self evident it shouldn't need to be said) published anywhere.
If you want "unbiased" go find a sasquatch riding a unicorn and ask him. Otherwise, figure out what the bias is, and read with that in mind.
.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Happy Liberty Porn Day!
"Independence Day", more commonly known as simply "The 4th of July", is to actual independence as porn is to an actual sexual relationship.
It is a simulated substitute for the real act. The act of shooting and blowing up tyrants and their enforcers.
Shooting off fireworks- especially "in accordance with local laws"- has nothing to do with the act of rebellion to government that "Independence Day" is supposed to commemorate. It doesn't do anything for Rightful Liberty. It is a pathetic substitute for the real thing.
Yes, fireworks are pretty. And sometimes awe inspiring. And killing tyrants and their enforcers is messy, and unpleasant, and innocent people will inevitably get killed in retaliation. "Independence Day" is a cuddly alternative to the real spirit of independence.
But I miss the spirit of people willing to send tyrants and their hired bullies, either to another corner of the globe, or to the grave.
Until or unless "Independence Day" becomes about independence, I'll think of it as "Independents' Day" instead.
.
It is a simulated substitute for the real act. The act of shooting and blowing up tyrants and their enforcers.
Shooting off fireworks- especially "in accordance with local laws"- has nothing to do with the act of rebellion to government that "Independence Day" is supposed to commemorate. It doesn't do anything for Rightful Liberty. It is a pathetic substitute for the real thing.
Yes, fireworks are pretty. And sometimes awe inspiring. And killing tyrants and their enforcers is messy, and unpleasant, and innocent people will inevitably get killed in retaliation. "Independence Day" is a cuddly alternative to the real spirit of independence.
But I miss the spirit of people willing to send tyrants and their hired bullies, either to another corner of the globe, or to the grave.
Until or unless "Independence Day" becomes about independence, I'll think of it as "Independents' Day" instead.
.
Friday, July 03, 2015
Bully
bul·ly
ˈbo͝olÄ“/
noun
1. a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator
verbHow can anyone not see how this applies to politicians, bureaucrats, and cops? It's EXACTLY and precisely what they are and how they operate. You don't even have to clarify, change, or redefine any part of that definition- which I got directly off of Google.
1. use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
Don't be a bully. If you work for "government", please quit. You can't be a good person and hold a "government job"- even if you somehow manage to not be a bully.
.
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Theft, enforced with death threats
If there isn't an individual I can point to and say "He was killed strictly because he didn't pay a tax", does that mean "taxes" are not enforced by the threat of death?
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Forever alone... Not
Am I alone in preferring to see the messiness of liberty rather than the enforced uniformity and conformity of tyranny?
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Self defense a primary human right
Self defense a primary human right
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)
If someone is violating your personal rights — through aggression or by violating your property — you have the right to stop them.
Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.
Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.
If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.
The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.
The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.
I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.
Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.
Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?
Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.
Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.
If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.
The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.
The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.
I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.
Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.
Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?
.
"Can't we all just be civil?"
Well, apparently not. It's not that I'm unwilling, but when someone gets into their head that they are entitled to any bit of my life, liberty, or property- and believes it's OK to violate me as long as they do it "legally" and send others to pull the trigger for them- then all this "civility" is suicidal.
You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.
You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.
Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.
I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.
For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.
I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.
If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.
.
You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.
You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.
Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.
I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.
For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.
I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.
If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.
.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Gay marriage, collective punishment, and licenses
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.
They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.
Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?
Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?
The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.
But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.
If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?
What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.
What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?
Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.
I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.
I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.
It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.
.
Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.
They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.
Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?
Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?
The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.
But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.
If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?
What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.
What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?
Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.
I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.
I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.
It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.
.
An update
I found out a bit of interesting information about my previous "rejected" column.
The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
 |
| "Mrs. __ stressed that folks in the city should get building permits for any construction they do." |
Only, she says she never said any such thing.
Is this a case of the paper saying something that fits with their agenda, rather than with the truth? Or, did she really say that to the bullies and is now denying it?
.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Grab some popcorn
When I see someone do something stupid, I usually try to bite my tongue.
After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.
But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.
And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.
But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.
That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.
.
After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.
But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.
And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.
But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.
That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.
.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Learn from others
I am willing to learn from the experience of others. I am constantly amazed at those who aren't.
Sure I will experiment and see if their advice holds up. Often it doesn't. Sometimes it does, and I find a better way.
I will try other ways, too.
But so many I see simply refuse to even try something someone else suggests. It's as if listening to someone else is a threat to their ego.
And it doesn't have to be anything important. Something as simple as the "best way" to load dishes into the dishwasher, so that more stuff fits, and actually gets clean, seems to be ego-based for some people. Listening to what others have learned from experience is a sign of weakness to some people. I don't understand that.
And, for things that are actually important, rejecting the experience of others who have gone before seems completely crazy to me.
.
Sure I will experiment and see if their advice holds up. Often it doesn't. Sometimes it does, and I find a better way.
I will try other ways, too.
But so many I see simply refuse to even try something someone else suggests. It's as if listening to someone else is a threat to their ego.
And it doesn't have to be anything important. Something as simple as the "best way" to load dishes into the dishwasher, so that more stuff fits, and actually gets clean, seems to be ego-based for some people. Listening to what others have learned from experience is a sign of weakness to some people. I don't understand that.
And, for things that are actually important, rejecting the experience of others who have gone before seems completely crazy to me.
.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
It's a trap!
Isn't it strange how often now being responsible means breaking the "law".
It's almost as if it's intentional.
.
It's almost as if it's intentional.
.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
"Rape culture"
If you believe in the prevalence of "rape culture", convince your least favorite friend to go around bragging about committing a rape or two and let's watch what happens to him... and see how long it takes.
.
.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Alcohol laws do little to protect
Alcohol laws do little to protect
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 22, 2015)
Recently there was a situation near Farwell that stirred up a lot of residents. I doubt the backlash is finished.
The reaction reminds me of my cats watching a bird through the window — lots of chattering and gnashing of teeth.
The situation involved young people, a school board member, an after-prom party, and alcohol.
Bear in mind, as far as I know, no one is claiming the adults present even knew any alcohol was on the rural premises.
I also haven't heard any credible claims the alcohol was being used irresponsibly (at least until law enforcement showed up) or causing any actual problems- all such claims I have seen are simply based on arbitrary age criteria, which is meaningless.
I'm not anti-alcohol; I'm an alcohol agnostic. Like any other substance, you can use it safely, or you can abuse it and cause yourself and others harm. Age is not a magic wand; it can't make wrong right or vice versa.
Obviously laws forbidding people below some arbitrary age (which varies around the globe) to drink alcohol won't stop them. In fact, it probably encourages them more than if the whole thing weren't imagined to be a behavior subject to other people's silly legislative opinions, mistakenly called "laws". There's always an appetite to taste the forbidden fruit, even if the fruit is spoiled. Prohibition is a powerful seasoning.
The extended infantilization of young people today also leaves them woefully unprepared to make responsible choices once they are suddenly expected to be adults upon reaching a particular birthday.
If you live in a bubble-wrapped world where you don't realize teens and alcohol will find a way to be together, regardless of your wishes, there's not much I can do for your misperceptions of reality.
If you don't want your offspring to drink alcohol, lead by example. Don't allow it on your property. Tell your kids the consequences of you finding them using it anyway. The truthful, objective consequences; not nonsense such as the various legal ramifications of being caught.
The fact that some "concerned citizen" called law enforcement just made the situation get instantly worse when the party-goers suddenly found it preferable to flee rather than remain more safely in place. That's just what such an irresponsible and uncivil action as reporting your neighbors to law enforcement always does.
Vices are not crimes, except in the imagination. Even if this were wrong, it shouldn't be turned into a law enforcement situation. It is strictly a family concern, to be handled as the families involved see fit. Very few things, if any, should ever involve laws and enforcement. To me, this is "much ado about nothing".
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 22, 2015)
Recently there was a situation near Farwell that stirred up a lot of residents. I doubt the backlash is finished.
The reaction reminds me of my cats watching a bird through the window — lots of chattering and gnashing of teeth.
The situation involved young people, a school board member, an after-prom party, and alcohol.
Bear in mind, as far as I know, no one is claiming the adults present even knew any alcohol was on the rural premises.
I also haven't heard any credible claims the alcohol was being used irresponsibly (at least until law enforcement showed up) or causing any actual problems- all such claims I have seen are simply based on arbitrary age criteria, which is meaningless.
I'm not anti-alcohol; I'm an alcohol agnostic. Like any other substance, you can use it safely, or you can abuse it and cause yourself and others harm. Age is not a magic wand; it can't make wrong right or vice versa.
Obviously laws forbidding people below some arbitrary age (which varies around the globe) to drink alcohol won't stop them. In fact, it probably encourages them more than if the whole thing weren't imagined to be a behavior subject to other people's silly legislative opinions, mistakenly called "laws". There's always an appetite to taste the forbidden fruit, even if the fruit is spoiled. Prohibition is a powerful seasoning.
The extended infantilization of young people today also leaves them woefully unprepared to make responsible choices once they are suddenly expected to be adults upon reaching a particular birthday.
If you live in a bubble-wrapped world where you don't realize teens and alcohol will find a way to be together, regardless of your wishes, there's not much I can do for your misperceptions of reality.
If you don't want your offspring to drink alcohol, lead by example. Don't allow it on your property. Tell your kids the consequences of you finding them using it anyway. The truthful, objective consequences; not nonsense such as the various legal ramifications of being caught.
The fact that some "concerned citizen" called law enforcement just made the situation get instantly worse when the party-goers suddenly found it preferable to flee rather than remain more safely in place. That's just what such an irresponsible and uncivil action as reporting your neighbors to law enforcement always does.
Vices are not crimes, except in the imagination. Even if this were wrong, it shouldn't be turned into a law enforcement situation. It is strictly a family concern, to be handled as the families involved see fit. Very few things, if any, should ever involve laws and enforcement. To me, this is "much ado about nothing".
.
Hating bad guys for their actions, not for who they are
Recently Nemesis was manning a cash register when the local "police chief" came through her line. Somewhere in the small talk pleasantries he mentioned that he knows I don't like him.
Amazingly, Nemesis got it right. She told the cop I don't hate him, just his job*.
Yes. He could quit his "job" today and I wouldn't have any issue with him at all. And I doubt he would ever find himself seriously at odds with me, either. Since, as everyone does, he either lives "libertarian" in his personal life, or he is recognized as a bad guy and opens himself up to self defensive violence.
I don't believe in "authority", and that's all his "job" depends on. He is nothing but a bully as long as he holds that "job", no matter how "nice" he may be (and, apparently, he isn't really that nice).
*She also told him not to judge her by me- which I consider a good thing.
.
Amazingly, Nemesis got it right. She told the cop I don't hate him, just his job*.
Yes. He could quit his "job" today and I wouldn't have any issue with him at all. And I doubt he would ever find himself seriously at odds with me, either. Since, as everyone does, he either lives "libertarian" in his personal life, or he is recognized as a bad guy and opens himself up to self defensive violence.
I don't believe in "authority", and that's all his "job" depends on. He is nothing but a bully as long as he holds that "job", no matter how "nice" he may be (and, apparently, he isn't really that nice).
-
*She also told him not to judge her by me- which I consider a good thing.
.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Good guys live Rightful Liberty- and so do bad guys almost all the time
Almost all people live their lives in a libertarian way.
If they didn't they'd be killed. Quickly.
It's only when they get a position of power over other people that they feel safe in being nonlibertarian/authoritarian.
That power might be a gun held on their mugging victims, or it might be a political position- but I'm making a distinction where none actually exists. Using coercion and threats to get your way is "the political method", as opposed to "the economic method" where everyone wins. "Why" you behave politically doesn't even matter.
Don't initiate force, and don't violate the private property of another.
The thing is, almost everyone already lives their personal life in a libertarian manner, and recognizes those who don't as the bad guys.
It's only when bad guys take advantage and wrap themselves in the superstition of "authority" that theft becomes "taxation", trespassing becomes "code enforcement", rape becomes "cavity search", murder becomes "officer safety", and mass murder becomes "war". I simply choose to not be superstitious. How about you?
.
If they didn't they'd be killed. Quickly.
It's only when they get a position of power over other people that they feel safe in being nonlibertarian/authoritarian.
That power might be a gun held on their mugging victims, or it might be a political position- but I'm making a distinction where none actually exists. Using coercion and threats to get your way is "the political method", as opposed to "the economic method" where everyone wins. "Why" you behave politically doesn't even matter.
Don't initiate force, and don't violate the private property of another.
The thing is, almost everyone already lives their personal life in a libertarian manner, and recognizes those who don't as the bad guys.
It's only when bad guys take advantage and wrap themselves in the superstition of "authority" that theft becomes "taxation", trespassing becomes "code enforcement", rape becomes "cavity search", murder becomes "officer safety", and mass murder becomes "war". I simply choose to not be superstitious. How about you?
.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
The truth laughs at your objections
You can laugh at it.
You can ridicule it.
You can deny it.
You can hate it.
The truth doesn't change.
The "libertarian" way of living among other people is still the only ethical way. Any other way- every other way- involves slavery. Every other way is evil.
.
You can ridicule it.
You can deny it.
You can hate it.
The truth doesn't change.
The "libertarian" way of living among other people is still the only ethical way. Any other way- every other way- involves slavery. Every other way is evil.
.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Scummy sheriffs
A lot of supposed liberty lovers hate cops, but support the office of sheriff. I suppose if you could find a sheriff who actually respected Rightful Liberty and stood as a guard between his bosses (you) and the bad guys who seek to violate you (freelance and professional politicians) a sheriff might be OK.
But...
I have never lived in a place with a halfway decent sheriff. And I have lived lots of places. All the sheriffs I have had the misfortune of being around were all communistic control freaks; most were "conservative".
In an "open carry" state I was threatened by the sheriff that if he ever caught me out of my house with a gun- unless I had a permit or hunting license- he would arrest me. In violation of "state law". Obviously I ignored his threats.
In another state the sheriff refused to even consider my request for a permit to sell black powder. He wouldn't even speak to me about it or acknowledge my request. Yeah, asking for permission is slave behavior, but you know the drill, especially when suppliers demand proof you got permission.
Another place I lived had a sheriff who threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way and handcuffed some of his victims to a fence until the politicians gave in to his demands. He was celebrated as being "tough on crime".
And here, the sheriff will arrest people for "illegal weapons" and drugs at the drop of a hat, and opposes any change in the "laws" that empower him to do so, and doesn't even acknowledge that he is a bully for doing so.
They are all scum.
.
But...
I have never lived in a place with a halfway decent sheriff. And I have lived lots of places. All the sheriffs I have had the misfortune of being around were all communistic control freaks; most were "conservative".
In an "open carry" state I was threatened by the sheriff that if he ever caught me out of my house with a gun- unless I had a permit or hunting license- he would arrest me. In violation of "state law". Obviously I ignored his threats.
In another state the sheriff refused to even consider my request for a permit to sell black powder. He wouldn't even speak to me about it or acknowledge my request. Yeah, asking for permission is slave behavior, but you know the drill, especially when suppliers demand proof you got permission.
Another place I lived had a sheriff who threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way and handcuffed some of his victims to a fence until the politicians gave in to his demands. He was celebrated as being "tough on crime".
And here, the sheriff will arrest people for "illegal weapons" and drugs at the drop of a hat, and opposes any change in the "laws" that empower him to do so, and doesn't even acknowledge that he is a bully for doing so.
They are all scum.
.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Random Acts of Anarchy Day!
Don't forget Random Acts of Anarchy Day today. Do something right, without asking permission. You'll be glad you did.
Support?
.
-
Support?
.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Don't be stupid
I admit it. I'm a softie. It makes me sad when people hurt themselves. And when, over and over, they keep making the same mistakes with the same tragic results.
Or when, because of stupidity, they keep harming others- although this is more likely to make me angry.
And nothing is so stupid (and blatantly inconsistent) as supporting statism. It pains me to witness it.
It doesn't help anyone to avoid saying it is stupid, either.
Support?
Or when, because of stupidity, they keep harming others- although this is more likely to make me angry.
And nothing is so stupid (and blatantly inconsistent) as supporting statism. It pains me to witness it.
It doesn't help anyone to avoid saying it is stupid, either.
-
Support?
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Laws are just opinions of bullies
Laws are just opinions of bullies
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 15, 2015)
If you were sitting alone in your own home, would you seek permission to read one of your books? Or to write one? Would you be concerned with whether you are allowed to scratch an itch?
Would you wonder if you need a license to watch TV? Don’t laugh — TV licensing is a reality in Great Britain and many other places.
Might you call an inspector for a permit before you make a sandwich?
As long as you weren't violating anyone's person or private property would you feel guilty about sipping a glass of tea?
So why would you feel guilty about sticking a gun in your waistband, going out to your unregistered car, driving to a friend's house and buying some marijuana- peacefully, without first seeking someone's permission or finding out whether it's allowed?
If you'd feel bad about it, I'll bet it has to do with those things being against the law.
"Laws" are nothing but the opinions of bullies. Opinions thought of as legitimate only because of the power of those bullies to impose their opinions on everyone else through their hired guns. Sometimes their opinions match reality, such as their opinion that you shouldn't murder or commit a robbery.
Most of the time, however, their opinions don't align with reality at all, such as when they hold the opinion you should pay a yearly ransom on your house, get their permission to own and use a car, claim you can't be permitted to buy or sell certain things, or you can't be allowed to smoke anything you want. No one has the right to force their opinion as to whether you can operate a business out of your home on you, nor about what price you can negotiate for anything you are willing to sell-- including your labor.
Opinions called "laws" are always either unnecessary or downright harmful.
The only reason the harmful opinions aren't ignored even more completely than they already are is because of the prevalence of a superstition: the belief in "authority". It's equivalent to a belief in astrology, but is actually much more harmful to the individual and, by extension, to civilization.
As long as your actions don't violate the person or property of another, no one-- not one person on the planet-- has the right to stop you. It's not that you have a right to do those things, it's that the right to stop you can't exist. It's based on this myth of "authority". Even if your actions and choices offend other people, or they use the excuse of "the common good", it changes nothing. Widespread civil disobedience is long overdue.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 15, 2015)
If you were sitting alone in your own home, would you seek permission to read one of your books? Or to write one? Would you be concerned with whether you are allowed to scratch an itch?
Would you wonder if you need a license to watch TV? Don’t laugh — TV licensing is a reality in Great Britain and many other places.
Might you call an inspector for a permit before you make a sandwich?
As long as you weren't violating anyone's person or private property would you feel guilty about sipping a glass of tea?
So why would you feel guilty about sticking a gun in your waistband, going out to your unregistered car, driving to a friend's house and buying some marijuana- peacefully, without first seeking someone's permission or finding out whether it's allowed?
If you'd feel bad about it, I'll bet it has to do with those things being against the law.
"Laws" are nothing but the opinions of bullies. Opinions thought of as legitimate only because of the power of those bullies to impose their opinions on everyone else through their hired guns. Sometimes their opinions match reality, such as their opinion that you shouldn't murder or commit a robbery.
Most of the time, however, their opinions don't align with reality at all, such as when they hold the opinion you should pay a yearly ransom on your house, get their permission to own and use a car, claim you can't be permitted to buy or sell certain things, or you can't be allowed to smoke anything you want. No one has the right to force their opinion as to whether you can operate a business out of your home on you, nor about what price you can negotiate for anything you are willing to sell-- including your labor.
Opinions called "laws" are always either unnecessary or downright harmful.
The only reason the harmful opinions aren't ignored even more completely than they already are is because of the prevalence of a superstition: the belief in "authority". It's equivalent to a belief in astrology, but is actually much more harmful to the individual and, by extension, to civilization.
As long as your actions don't violate the person or property of another, no one-- not one person on the planet-- has the right to stop you. It's not that you have a right to do those things, it's that the right to stop you can't exist. It's based on this myth of "authority". Even if your actions and choices offend other people, or they use the excuse of "the common good", it changes nothing. Widespread civil disobedience is long overdue.
How to be a statist
How do statists not feel horrible about themselves? Look at the awful things they condone. How can they not see themselves as bad guys?
Well, they follow a particular ritual to hide what they do: They change the name of certain evil acts so they can pretend to be moral while condoning those acts under the euphemisms while simultaneously condemning the same acts with different (honest) names.
To a statist theft is wrong, but "taxation" is OK- even though the acts are identical. And the examples are seemingly endless.
This is how otherwise good people end up supporting hideous acts and those who commit them.
Support?
.
Well, they follow a particular ritual to hide what they do: They change the name of certain evil acts so they can pretend to be moral while condoning those acts under the euphemisms while simultaneously condemning the same acts with different (honest) names.
To a statist theft is wrong, but "taxation" is OK- even though the acts are identical. And the examples are seemingly endless.
This is how otherwise good people end up supporting hideous acts and those who commit them.
-
Support?
.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Upsetting the Muslims
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Muslims get very upset when they are treated differently than other religious people. But they have to understand why. They are consciously, willingly associating with a group which encourages its more radical members to maim and murder.
I'm sorry, but I want social pressure put on people like that. I want them to be made uncomfortable for whom they choose to associate with.
Just like I want cops to be treated badly unless they turn from their gang.
Or how I'd like to see DemoCRAPublicans treated badly until they reject statism.
Bad choices deserve uncomfortable consequences.
If you associate yourself, willingly, with a group whose "members in good standing" do bad things (initiate force or violate private property) that are consistent with the "principles" of the group- even if you object that you don't do those things personally- I would like to see you made uncomfortable.
I'm not saying anyone should initiate force against you, or violate your property, but shun you and talk about you; embarrass you and pressure you to leave the evil group behind. Or cause you to loudly advocate change by rejecting- without condition- the evil practices and by transferring your discomfort to the bad guys in your group, while working to change the twisted "principles" that lead the members to do those bad things.
And, if you can't change the group, the only right choice is to abandon it and become its enemy. If that means you don't get into your "Heaven", or get your cop pension, well... some rewards are not what they appear to be.
Support?
Muslims get very upset when they are treated differently than other religious people. But they have to understand why. They are consciously, willingly associating with a group which encourages its more radical members to maim and murder.
I'm sorry, but I want social pressure put on people like that. I want them to be made uncomfortable for whom they choose to associate with.
Just like I want cops to be treated badly unless they turn from their gang.
Or how I'd like to see DemoCRAPublicans treated badly until they reject statism.
Bad choices deserve uncomfortable consequences.
If you associate yourself, willingly, with a group whose "members in good standing" do bad things (initiate force or violate private property) that are consistent with the "principles" of the group- even if you object that you don't do those things personally- I would like to see you made uncomfortable.
I'm not saying anyone should initiate force against you, or violate your property, but shun you and talk about you; embarrass you and pressure you to leave the evil group behind. Or cause you to loudly advocate change by rejecting- without condition- the evil practices and by transferring your discomfort to the bad guys in your group, while working to change the twisted "principles" that lead the members to do those bad things.
And, if you can't change the group, the only right choice is to abandon it and become its enemy. If that means you don't get into your "Heaven", or get your cop pension, well... some rewards are not what they appear to be.
-
Support?
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Unethical ethics for immoral moralists
I am honestly astonished by the contortions statists will go through when their statism is challenged.
I actually had one claim that slaves should have obeyed the "law" and been good slaves until the "law" could be changed, because there was no "law" prohibiting slavery.
How do you even respond to that?
(This was in response to Ross Ulbricht's horrifyingly unjust caging and life sentence. He was a "criminal" who got caught- he should have obeyed the "law", according to her.)
Support?
.
I actually had one claim that slaves should have obeyed the "law" and been good slaves until the "law" could be changed, because there was no "law" prohibiting slavery.
How do you even respond to that?
(This was in response to Ross Ulbricht's horrifyingly unjust caging and life sentence. He was a "criminal" who got caught- he should have obeyed the "law", according to her.)
-
Support?
.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Bless their hearts...
Tim McGraw recently showed himself to be an idiot, by taking an extreme anti-liberty position against gun ownership.
Not the first celebrity to do so- including a lot of them who ought to know better. Such as Reba McEntire, Steve Earle, and others. It's a crowded bandwagon, slippery with drool. (And I like country music.)
I mean, I can understand someone coming from the cultural desert of NYC or Chicago making fools of themselves by outing themselves as anti-liberty bigots, but a lot of the others didn't have such a backward upbringing and should have been exposed to rationality and reason. Exposure doesn't mean it'll stick.
I guess it takes a "certain kind" to become a celebrity- which is why I ain't one.
I suppose celebrities embrace anti-gun and anti-liberty positions because they imagine it makes them look enlightened. It doesn't. Not to anyone beyond the ignorami they are trying to impress, anyway.
Support?
Not the first celebrity to do so- including a lot of them who ought to know better. Such as Reba McEntire, Steve Earle, and others. It's a crowded bandwagon, slippery with drool. (And I like country music.)
I mean, I can understand someone coming from the cultural desert of NYC or Chicago making fools of themselves by outing themselves as anti-liberty bigots, but a lot of the others didn't have such a backward upbringing and should have been exposed to rationality and reason. Exposure doesn't mean it'll stick.
I guess it takes a "certain kind" to become a celebrity- which is why I ain't one.
I suppose celebrities embrace anti-gun and anti-liberty positions because they imagine it makes them look enlightened. It doesn't. Not to anyone beyond the ignorami they are trying to impress, anyway.
-
Support?
Thursday, June 11, 2015
"You libertarians want a 'Lord of the Flies' world!"
Odd to me that the fears over "Lord of the Flies" scenarios resulting from Rightful Liberty all center around people acting like government. Killing, stealing, raping, etc. You know, living by the "political means" rather than by the "economic means".
This is why "we need government"? To protect us from people behaving like "government" employees behave?
Really?
What other fantasies do you entertain?
Support?
.
This is why "we need government"? To protect us from people behaving like "government" employees behave?
Really?
What other fantasies do you entertain?
-
Support?
.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Looking for trouble
People always seem to be looking for problems that the Zero Aggression Principle, or libertarianism in general, can cause.
That seems twisted.
I've never experienced- or even seen- any problems caused by refusing to initiate force or by respecting the property of others.
Problems come when I don't live up to the ZAP or when I violate other people's property. That's the real world, not the statist world of "what if?".
You can dream up "what if"s all day long. I can make up imaginary animals, too, but I'm not going to live my life fearfully searching for them.
Support?
.
That seems twisted.
I've never experienced- or even seen- any problems caused by refusing to initiate force or by respecting the property of others.
Problems come when I don't live up to the ZAP or when I violate other people's property. That's the real world, not the statist world of "what if?".
You can dream up "what if"s all day long. I can make up imaginary animals, too, but I'm not going to live my life fearfully searching for them.
-
Support?
.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Bullying by statists will continue
Bullying by statists will continue
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 8, 2015)
If, like me, you are unconvinced that coercion, theft, and aggression are proper behaviors to organize a society around (assuming societies can be organized at all) there are a few automatic responses you will repeatedly encounter as people attempt to belittle your position. Besides the standard quip "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" there is also "If you think taxation is wrong, stop driving on roads!"
If only it were that simple.
It isn't only about roads, though. There are a great many services provided by this enforced monopoly I am forced to pay for against my will. Services I may not want, and may never use. For the services which are wanted, in many cases, if you try to offer people a free market alternative, you will be ordered to cease and desist; facing arrest if you don't comply. Breaking the monopoly is said to be "illegal". Even in cases where free market solutions are allowed, you are forced to continue paying for the theft-funded service, too-- government schools, for example.
I believe if you pay for something-- even if forced to do so-- you have every right to use it. How can anyone believe otherwise? Since you pay for "government" roads, even if you would prefer not to do so, you have as much right to use them as the most enthusiastic fan of government coercion.
I would prefer being able to voluntarily pay the road provider I choose, instead of the one which is imposed upon me. Obviously, I would avoid roads provided by those who think it's a good idea to fill their roads with armed pirates with flashing lights, hired to accost travelers; extorting property from them by using the excuse that some arbitrary rule was violated-- but you might not. As long as you and I are given no choice in the matter, no one will know which way works better.
No one should ever be forced to pay for something they don't want and would rather not use. Nothing is so important that people should be forced to finance it, and if people do have to be forced, it's probably an inferior service anyway.
The other side of the coin is those who use a service or product should be willing to pay for doing so, or expect to be shut out.
This isn't good enough for pro-government extremists, who want to ensure there is no real choice offered. Once again liberty lovers are told by statists "If you don't like being bullied, we'll just have to agree to disagree." By which they mean the bullying will continue and intensify.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 8, 2015)
If, like me, you are unconvinced that coercion, theft, and aggression are proper behaviors to organize a society around (assuming societies can be organized at all) there are a few automatic responses you will repeatedly encounter as people attempt to belittle your position. Besides the standard quip "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" there is also "If you think taxation is wrong, stop driving on roads!"
If only it were that simple.
It isn't only about roads, though. There are a great many services provided by this enforced monopoly I am forced to pay for against my will. Services I may not want, and may never use. For the services which are wanted, in many cases, if you try to offer people a free market alternative, you will be ordered to cease and desist; facing arrest if you don't comply. Breaking the monopoly is said to be "illegal". Even in cases where free market solutions are allowed, you are forced to continue paying for the theft-funded service, too-- government schools, for example.
I believe if you pay for something-- even if forced to do so-- you have every right to use it. How can anyone believe otherwise? Since you pay for "government" roads, even if you would prefer not to do so, you have as much right to use them as the most enthusiastic fan of government coercion.
I would prefer being able to voluntarily pay the road provider I choose, instead of the one which is imposed upon me. Obviously, I would avoid roads provided by those who think it's a good idea to fill their roads with armed pirates with flashing lights, hired to accost travelers; extorting property from them by using the excuse that some arbitrary rule was violated-- but you might not. As long as you and I are given no choice in the matter, no one will know which way works better.
No one should ever be forced to pay for something they don't want and would rather not use. Nothing is so important that people should be forced to finance it, and if people do have to be forced, it's probably an inferior service anyway.
The other side of the coin is those who use a service or product should be willing to pay for doing so, or expect to be shut out.
This isn't good enough for pro-government extremists, who want to ensure there is no real choice offered. Once again liberty lovers are told by statists "If you don't like being bullied, we'll just have to agree to disagree." By which they mean the bullying will continue and intensify.
.
The Truth in Headlines Project
Just for fun, and just when a headline strikes me as particularly dishonestly statist, I sometimes like to re-write it to be more truthful.
Such as:
"Government files for asset forfeiture of firearms seized in raid" should be "Thieves ask themselves for permission to keep property they stole in armed robbery"
Or "U.S. thinks China is behind big data breach" needs to be "World's largest gang of bullies accuses other gang of stepping on its turf".
Feel free to join me. Just write your more truthful headline and "sign it":
"-The Truth in Headlines Project".
Support?
Such as:
"Government files for asset forfeiture of firearms seized in raid" should be "Thieves ask themselves for permission to keep property they stole in armed robbery"
Or "U.S. thinks China is behind big data breach" needs to be "World's largest gang of bullies accuses other gang of stepping on its turf".
Feel free to join me. Just write your more truthful headline and "sign it":
"-The Truth in Headlines Project".
-
Support?
Monday, June 08, 2015
Extraordinary claims with zero evidence
If you were living on a planet, and a ship landed with beings on it who told you they were now the government and you were obligated to live according to their opinions, would you?
If they killed to discourage disobedience would that somehow make their claim legitimate?
So, why do people believe the same lie when it's members of their own species (supposedly) making the outlandish claim?
Their claim doesn't even make sense- it's nonsensical from every angle- so they can't prove anything. Yet, instead of laughing and defending themselves from these parasites, people let themselves be bullied.
.
If they killed to discourage disobedience would that somehow make their claim legitimate?
So, why do people believe the same lie when it's members of their own species (supposedly) making the outlandish claim?
Their claim doesn't even make sense- it's nonsensical from every angle- so they can't prove anything. Yet, instead of laughing and defending themselves from these parasites, people let themselves be bullied.
.
Sunday, June 07, 2015
Being poor shouldn't be a crime
One of my earliest anti-government/pro-liberty thoughts, back when I was a kid, was the realization that government made it basically illegal to be poor. Which was sort of bad news to me, because making money wasn't high on my list of priorities.
I was thinking of all the things I wanted to do with my life which didn't really require money... until you got "laws" involved.
You couldn't "legally" just make a life for yourself on some unowned land- because if it wasn't individually owned, some government pretended to own it and would kick you off and destroy your house and all your work if they caught you living there.
Even if you had enough money to otherwise survive in town, "taxes" would increase your costs, and if you couldn't pay, you'd be jailed, again losing all you had worked for. Silly property codes often make gardens and affordable houses "illegal", and of course, transportation is a big problem.
If you don't have the money to do certain things for your kids- things beyond what is needed for a good life- they'll be kidnapped by employees of the State, claiming "neglect and abuse".
If you can't afford certain bribes ("licenses", "permits") you'll be forbidden to start a business- at least openly- to improve your circumstances. And even if you somehow manage, the theft-by-government has only just begun.
And, really, if you think about it, the list of potential "infractions" goes on and on. All due to a lack of money to keep "government" thugs off your back.
I don't resent money, or those who have a lot. I resent those who make sure to punish those who choose to not spend our lives in pursuit of money, in order to pay their bribes and extortion.
.
I was thinking of all the things I wanted to do with my life which didn't really require money... until you got "laws" involved.
You couldn't "legally" just make a life for yourself on some unowned land- because if it wasn't individually owned, some government pretended to own it and would kick you off and destroy your house and all your work if they caught you living there.
Even if you had enough money to otherwise survive in town, "taxes" would increase your costs, and if you couldn't pay, you'd be jailed, again losing all you had worked for. Silly property codes often make gardens and affordable houses "illegal", and of course, transportation is a big problem.
If you don't have the money to do certain things for your kids- things beyond what is needed for a good life- they'll be kidnapped by employees of the State, claiming "neglect and abuse".
If you can't afford certain bribes ("licenses", "permits") you'll be forbidden to start a business- at least openly- to improve your circumstances. And even if you somehow manage, the theft-by-government has only just begun.
And, really, if you think about it, the list of potential "infractions" goes on and on. All due to a lack of money to keep "government" thugs off your back.
I don't resent money, or those who have a lot. I resent those who make sure to punish those who choose to not spend our lives in pursuit of money, in order to pay their bribes and extortion.
.
Saturday, June 06, 2015
Becoming one with your brokenness
I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.
I know people who get their identity from their damage.
Either they have a medical condition which becomes their identity- even to the point of getting tattoos commemorating it, having it as their "profile pic", and posting endless links about it- or they were the victim of a violation and it becomes their identity in the same way. It is them on some deep level.
I understand that damage can get into your mind, but is it really healthy to obsess over your victimhood or brokenness? And seemingly celebrate it?
Well, I see "patriotism" in the same light. It's like Stockholm Syndrome gone cancerous. Not only identifying with your violator, but letting your violator become your entire world. Tattooing yourself with the violator's symbols and words, flying his banners, being proud of his claim of ownership over your life and body.
It's one thing to accept past damage or current circumstances you can't change. It is quite another to celebrate it and let it become your meaning in life.
.
I know people who get their identity from their damage.
Either they have a medical condition which becomes their identity- even to the point of getting tattoos commemorating it, having it as their "profile pic", and posting endless links about it- or they were the victim of a violation and it becomes their identity in the same way. It is them on some deep level.
I understand that damage can get into your mind, but is it really healthy to obsess over your victimhood or brokenness? And seemingly celebrate it?
Well, I see "patriotism" in the same light. It's like Stockholm Syndrome gone cancerous. Not only identifying with your violator, but letting your violator become your entire world. Tattooing yourself with the violator's symbols and words, flying his banners, being proud of his claim of ownership over your life and body.
It's one thing to accept past damage or current circumstances you can't change. It is quite another to celebrate it and let it become your meaning in life.
.
Friday, June 05, 2015
Reacting to statism
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Believe it or not, in person I really try to not be that person who has to respond to every insane statist word that comes out of someone's mouth during conversation. I try very hard to listen without immediately trying to think of a comeback, or of how to put the final nail in their mind's coffin.
Sometimes, during a pause, I just hold my tongue and think things I'd like to say, but won't. That has led to awkward pauses.
I suspect I often get that deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.
To me, saying something statist is about as reasonable as claiming that goats rule the world. Or suggesting we should all start sacrificing children to Cthulhu. (Although I've known a few children who make that idea seem less crazy.)
I sometimes wonder which is worse: the expression on my face when someone says something utterly statist, or verbally responding to them.
I suppose it depends on the individual.
For the person who is fully vested in statism, reason probably won't help. After all, they have had a lifetime of practice ignoring reason and reality in order to stay statist. For them, the discomfort of having someone silently look at them like their flesh mask just slipped a bit, exposing their insectoid self, might eventually get to them.
As I say, it isn't something I do intentionally. It's automatic- just as the look of horror would be if they actually did let their human mask slip. Something hideous was unexpectedly exposed- how am I supposed to react?
Statism is as anti-human as an insectoid alien might be- if the alien noticed humans at all. Statism sees people as food, fuel, or fertilizer. If it doesn't stun and shock you, you don't understand it.
.
Believe it or not, in person I really try to not be that person who has to respond to every insane statist word that comes out of someone's mouth during conversation. I try very hard to listen without immediately trying to think of a comeback, or of how to put the final nail in their mind's coffin.
Sometimes, during a pause, I just hold my tongue and think things I'd like to say, but won't. That has led to awkward pauses.
I suspect I often get that deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.
To me, saying something statist is about as reasonable as claiming that goats rule the world. Or suggesting we should all start sacrificing children to Cthulhu. (Although I've known a few children who make that idea seem less crazy.)
I sometimes wonder which is worse: the expression on my face when someone says something utterly statist, or verbally responding to them.
I suppose it depends on the individual.
For the person who is fully vested in statism, reason probably won't help. After all, they have had a lifetime of practice ignoring reason and reality in order to stay statist. For them, the discomfort of having someone silently look at them like their flesh mask just slipped a bit, exposing their insectoid self, might eventually get to them.
As I say, it isn't something I do intentionally. It's automatic- just as the look of horror would be if they actually did let their human mask slip. Something hideous was unexpectedly exposed- how am I supposed to react?
Statism is as anti-human as an insectoid alien might be- if the alien noticed humans at all. Statism sees people as food, fuel, or fertilizer. If it doesn't stun and shock you, you don't understand it.
.
Supporters and other Superheroes
I would really like to get at least $200 more per month in supporters. Either through Patreon or Paypal subscriptions (link to the right). I know, we'd all "like" something, but if you don't ask...
It would take a lot of financial pressure off me.
Plus my birthday is less than two weeks away. So, if you've been considering it becoming a patron or subscriber, just think of it as an early birthday gift.
Added- I discovered a bill someone else was supposedly responsible for, but which wasn't paid. I am paying it, and it's gonna be rough.
Thank you!
.
It would take a lot of financial pressure off me.
Plus my birthday is less than two weeks away. So, if you've been considering it becoming a patron or subscriber, just think of it as an early birthday gift.
Added- I discovered a bill someone else was supposedly responsible for, but which wasn't paid. I am paying it, and it's gonna be rough.
Thank you!
.
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Rejected, but not dejected
Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do. After not having trouble with either of the papers rejecting columns in quite a while, it happened. The owner/publisher of the State Line Tribune rejected my newest Liberty Lines submission.
He said it was "extreme"; building permits and property codes are not "anti-American" and DC politicians are not "vermin", so he couldn't publish this one. And this is coming from someone who constantly complains about the politicians in DC. However, he wants them to do more of what he thinks they should do- using the power of their hired bullies to impose their opinions (which he hopes mesh with his) on everyone else.
This illustrates exactly why "we" are in this situation: people too scared to call a spade a spade, and refusing to address the root of the problem; instead, offering SpongeBob bandaids to hide boo-boos so they don't have to face reality.
Also, he said my previous column on the matter was enough. Funny, but apparently the city council can still discuss the matter and use his newspaper as their forum, but no one who doesn't believe in their "authority" is allowed to do so. Well, his property- his choice, and he can fawn over the local vermin to his heart's content, but he shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite him. I'd stick up for him anyway.
I understand- he owns a newspaper and a large amount of his content depends on coddling and paying undue positive attention to the local political parasites, whether he really respects them or not.
No, I'm not angry. But I do believe this is important and am bothered that few of my Farwell neighbors will be able to read it. If I had the money I'd start my own local paper to tell the Liberty side of the story- every story- and focus on what real people do and only write true headlines calling the cops, politicians, and bureaucrats what they actually are. I guess it's a good thing I am so broke.
Instead of just posting the rejected column here, I changed it up slightly (to fit a different paper) and submitted it to the CNJ. It got rejected again, but for entirely different reasons. So, I resubmitted a more "generalized" version, with everything intact except the opening paragraph which was very town-specific (and not very relevent to the majority of the CNJ's readers). After the editor changed a couple of things, it was approved. You can read his edited version tomorrow, and in a month you can read the final draft I submitted to the CNJ before it was edited- if you care to see what was changed.
.
He said it was "extreme"; building permits and property codes are not "anti-American" and DC politicians are not "vermin", so he couldn't publish this one. And this is coming from someone who constantly complains about the politicians in DC. However, he wants them to do more of what he thinks they should do- using the power of their hired bullies to impose their opinions (which he hopes mesh with his) on everyone else.
This illustrates exactly why "we" are in this situation: people too scared to call a spade a spade, and refusing to address the root of the problem; instead, offering SpongeBob bandaids to hide boo-boos so they don't have to face reality.
Also, he said my previous column on the matter was enough. Funny, but apparently the city council can still discuss the matter and use his newspaper as their forum, but no one who doesn't believe in their "authority" is allowed to do so. Well, his property- his choice, and he can fawn over the local vermin to his heart's content, but he shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite him. I'd stick up for him anyway.
I understand- he owns a newspaper and a large amount of his content depends on coddling and paying undue positive attention to the local political parasites, whether he really respects them or not.
No, I'm not angry. But I do believe this is important and am bothered that few of my Farwell neighbors will be able to read it. If I had the money I'd start my own local paper to tell the Liberty side of the story- every story- and focus on what real people do and only write true headlines calling the cops, politicians, and bureaucrats what they actually are. I guess it's a good thing I am so broke.
Instead of just posting the rejected column here, I changed it up slightly (to fit a different paper) and submitted it to the CNJ. It got rejected again, but for entirely different reasons. So, I resubmitted a more "generalized" version, with everything intact except the opening paragraph which was very town-specific (and not very relevent to the majority of the CNJ's readers). After the editor changed a couple of things, it was approved. You can read his edited version tomorrow, and in a month you can read the final draft I submitted to the CNJ before it was edited- if you care to see what was changed.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)