Want to turn me into a statist?

You don't appreciate something until you have to do without.

My experience making fire with primitive methods has made me appreciate lighters (even if I feel guilty when I use them- like I'm cheating).

Having to find and prepare my own water has made me appreciate tap water and bottled water.

Eating weeds in the wilds has made me appreciate fast food.

The lesson I get from that is that it is hard to truly appreciate something until you have to do without it.

So, if you truly want me to appreciate The State, keep it far, far away from me until I come seeking it. I won't ever believe it is necessary while it is being shoved down my throat and rubbed in my face. Do you believe I will starve for The State if deprived of its attentions and "services"? Let's give it a try!

.

Please remember!

People's expectations have really withered.

I guess if you are accustomed to daily torture, slightly less torture is an improvement.

But it still isn't ideal.

People who live in America, under the bullies of the United States, have such low expectations of freedom or liberty that they feel grateful to be "allowed" to buy a gun, get a prescription without jumping through too many hoops, get through a "check point" without too much trouble, or board a plane without a strip search.

That's not liberty.

People have forgotten what Rightful Liberty even looks like.

I spend my time trying to remind them- or show them if they have nothing of it to remember.

.

The Odd Beliefs of statists

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Blah blah blah your president blah blah blah..."

"Excuse me, but I don't have a president."

"Sure you do, whether you admit it or not."

"How?"

"Blah blah blah political process, blah blah consent of the governed, blah blah blah even if you don't vote, it is a vote, blah blah..."

"I don't believe in any of those superstitious beliefs."

"It doesn't matter, you are partially responsible for whoever is elected president because of blah blah blah..."

"Well, in that case, you are responsible for President Vladimir Putin, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong-un, and all the other head bullies around the world.
What? You say you didn't vote for them? Hmmm... I thought you were arguing that it didn't matter whether I play the political game or not, I am still responsible for whichever bully claims to be 'in charge'..."

Recently I was talking to someone when he uttered those words: "your president". Why he is my president and not the speaker's president I have no idea. Perhaps it is because the speaker is "conservative" and I am not. Still, Obama is much closer in ideology to the speaker than to me.

In reality, the conversation got derailed by someone else right after he told me, I do have a president whether I admit it or not, so I didn't have the chance to dig deeper into that bizarre delusion. And I'm not one to keep going back to a topic once its moment has passed.

But, it really got me thinking. If I have a president, that would mean I also have a pope. And an Ayatollah. But I don't. And neither do you, unless you explicitly consent.

Statists harbor such odd, magical, beliefs.

.

"Race" or culture?

I know I say sexist things. I honestly believe there are obvious differences between the sexes. Neither is "better", but they are different. And both have their own problems.

I may sometimes say "racist" things.

I don't know if there are real differences between the "races"- or if "race" is even an actual thing. I suspect what most people call "racial" differences are actually differences in culture.

There are definitely cultural differences, and some cultures are simply better than others. You can tell by how they look upon aggression and theft. Statism is a degenerate culture which cuts across all other cultural lines.

I don't concern myself with anything about you other than how you treat others. Do you live by the Zero Aggression Principle? Do you respect the property of others? That's enough- the minimum- to be a decent person. You can stop there and I'll have no problems with you- nor you with me. You might go above and beyond, and if so, I sing your praises.

Your sex, gender, "race", skin color, preferences, sexuality, hobbies, kinks, loyalties, job, or anything else are secondary to that one important thing: do you violate others? None of those things are any of my business unless you make them my business. None of those things can justify violating others. There is simply no excuse.

If your culture "makes" you violate others, I have a problem with your "culture", and I would like to see it changed or eliminated. If you use your "culture" as justification for violating others I would like to see you change or be eliminated. Through acts of self defense- at the scene of the attack. I really have no pity.

.

Safety for the aggressors?

If I should be concerned about "officer safety"- that silly belief which causes so much innocent death- shouldn't I be just as concerned about rapist safety?

If I can't ("legally") carry a gun near cops, due to their cowardice and fear of being shot (in self-defense, no doubt), does this mean rapists also deserve to do their "job" without fear?

Many statists apparently believe so. That's the basis of all those anti-gun "laws". Safety for the bad guys, at the expense of the decent people.

.

Government real chickens here

Government real chickens here

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 17, 2015)

Once upon a time, responsible people raised their own food — gardens and livestock — at home.

Then bad guys who found it too dangerous to be roving bullies formed governments so they could control and loot the production of others, usually in return for claimed protection from others exactly like them, in relative safety. Short-sighted people allowed those bullies to live.

Over time people forgot the origins of government. Governing became so common that people stopped seeing the evil and accepted the bullies and their violations as normal— "how it has always been done"— and otherwise good people began to join the ranks. As soon as they did, however, they were no longer really good, since you can't govern without violating life, liberty, and property, and all government is financed through theft; euphemistically called "taxation".

Most of the bullies started seeing themselves as benefactors— or even the source— of civilization, rather than its enemy. People became addicted to the bribes in the form of jobs and entitlements handed out by government, and became emotionally invested in its existence. Stockholm Syndrome thrived as the violations multiplied.

Among those various violations of life, liberty, and property were "laws" which in some localities outlawed gardens and livestock. In other words, irresponsibility was mandated and enforced.

No real law can forbid such a fundamental human activity, just as no legitimate law can regulate weaponry or self defense in any way. In fact, on a basic level, raising your own food is self defense.

Some of these "laws" forbid front yard gardens. Some dictate what kinds of plants you can grow, often spending billions of dollars faking data to convince people that certain plants are too dangerous to be allowed.

Many places impose rules forbidding even the most basic of livestock: the common chicken. Throughout recent history where there were people, there have been chickens. If you believe anyone has a right to forbid their neighbors raising chickens you'll find a way to justify anything.

When the same bullies who believe they can criminalize chicken raising by their slaves— pardon me, "residents"— keep fowl on their own questionably claimed property, you have a severe case of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.

It's amazing to me what people will tolerate— or even support— once they have been fooled into thinking they need someone else to run their life.

Responsible people still raise their own food-- gardens or livestock or both-- regardless of the "law". Bullies still pretend they have this magical, imaginary quality they call "authority" to somehow trump human rights. Responsible people see the bullies for what they are. Be responsible. Demand they leave the chicken keepers alone. Forever.

.

The biggest danger for travelers

My son recently came for a visit. An incident along the way caused me to post a somewhat cryptic blog entry, which, since he is back home, I now feel safe to explain.

On his way here, just past Oklahoma City, heading west, he saw flashing lights behind his car. He pulled over. The cop informed him that he hadn't been the "required distance" behind a truck in front of him (so I guess that means the cop claimed my son was driving like a cop, since most tailgaters I see are driving those clown cars with the flashing lights on top).

The cop gave him a warning, then as he was "letting him go", noticed he seemed "nervous". Not sure who wouldn't be nervous while in the presence of a member of the Blue Line Gang- a gang which encourages its members to rob, rape, and murder, and then helps them get away with it. I'm sure just about anyone in the presence of those vermin is nervous.

Based upon this "inexplicable" nervousness (haha), the badged tax junkie asked to search the vehicle. Consent was not given. So, the cop called in the drug dog. At the secret signal, the dog "alerted" and the cops took this as "legal justification" to search the vehicle.

No "drugs" were found, but the self-described "pro-gun, conservative" cops were disturbed by the guns my son was bringing along.

So, the cop forced my son to dial me, and took the phone where my son couldn't overhear (he was in their vehicle, in the front seat).

This is where I became involved.

The cop identified himself as Oklahoma Highway Patrol (or "State police", I forget exactly which). Turns out they were actually the narcotics goons, but cops are allowed to lie. He asked if I was expecting a visit from my son. At this point I was terrified there had been a fatal accident, and my mind was racing. I said I was. He said he had pulled my son over for a traffic violation. The cop then asked if I knew my son was bringing firearms. I said I did. (I didn't explicitly know, but my son always brings guns). He said when questioned, my son initially stated he had no firearms with him- I never asked my son if this was true or not, because it's no one's business, and questions like that don't deserve answers. (Yes, I know: Don't talk to cops!)

Now I knew my son was OK- if he could get out of the hands of the Blue Line Gang. My anger started growing. I kept my cool, though. It is a very good thing that my thoughts (usually) get filtered through my brain before coming out my mouth.

So the cop said he just wanted to make sure because "you can't be too careful these days". Then he paused. And waited. And waited some more. I suspect he was waiting for me to slavishly agree with his silly assertion. I didn't. So after a long, awkward pause, he said he supposed I would see my son in a few hours. I said "OK".

Then, after hanging up, I got madder still. I realized that had my son been "Black" or "Brown", his risk of being murdered on the side of the road would have grown exponentially. And copsuckers would have said he deserved it.

It is completely unacceptable that these pirates are permitted to infest the roadways and molest travelers. It's getting to be that the risk of a cop encounter is replacing the flat tire as the road trouble you simply have to plan to put up with.

I (still) hate cops.

.

Back to Screwel?

My appreciation for education explains my opposition to "public" schooling.

Invariably, someone will point out that they went to "public" school, and got a good education. Just as invariably, the person making this claim is a statist- which is exactly the flaw in their claim.

You wouldn't expect to let the Taliban school your child without indoctrinating him, so why is it such a radical observation that when any government controls schooling, the result is a person indoctrinated into statism?

.

Keep your own house in order

Yes, trying to establish a "government" is evil. There's just no excuse for it- at least not an ethical one which holds up under examination.

But, what if you "really, really WANT a government"?

Does anyone have the right to form a government? Only as applies to their own life- not to others. "Govern yourself" is another way of saying self control. If your governing is imposed on others, you have become an aggressor and a thief. You have become the bad guy. And since you can't establish a "State" of one, without violating someone else, there is no possible ethical way of establishing a State.

No one has a right to establish a government or a State over others. The "right to rule" can't exist.

Keep your own life in order, and defend it as necessary. If you are able and willing, offer to help others with their defense. But, don't be part of the problem. Don't govern or ask anyone to do so on your behalf.

.

Trying to establish a government is evil

There is no more hideously evil act than trying to establish a government against a free society. Or anywhere. Some other actions are equally evil, but none more so.

And make no mistake- every "government" is against a (possibly hypothetical) free society. You have freedom- and civilization- in reverse proportion to the amount of "governing" imposed on your society. Some of the effects of "government" can be mistaken for civilization, but if that's all that gives the illusion of civilization, then you have no civilization.

Sure, if everyone in a society is evil, then less freedom might be good. But where do you get these people who will govern? And how do you keep them from becoming evil? (You can't) At best you are switching out one evil for another.

In this case, "best" isn't good enough. It isn't good at all. In some cases self defense or escape are the only reasonable options. Establishing a "government" never is.

.

"Authority", evil, and Philip Zimbardo

In a recent Skeptic.com email I read an interview with Philip Zimbardo, famous for the Stanford Prison Experiment, and what it taught some people about the dangers of believing in "authority" and such.

Using the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is also the subject of a movie coming out soon, he discusses whether we all have the potential to be evil. I tend to believe we do- I can feel the stirrings of it inside me under certain circumstances.

But, how exactly does Zimbardo define "evil"?

Zimbardo defines it in The Lucifer Effect thusly: “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.”

So he goes even further than I have when I say evil is: "any act which intentionally harms any person who isn't currently initiating force or violating private property; someone who does not deserve to be harmed at this moment". I approve of his inclusion of those using "authority" to influence others to be evil under the umbrella of evil.

He talks about one of the Abu Ghraib monsters:

In this model, Zimbardo told me that before he went to Iraq, Chip Frederick was an all-American patriot, “a regular church-going kind of guy who raises the American flag in front of his home each day, gets goose bumps and tears up when he listens to our National Anthem, believes in American values of democracy and freedom, and joined the army to defend those values.”

I don't see anything good there. Instead I see the seeds of evil in almost every morsel of the above description. I see nothing in Frederick that recognizes Rightful Liberty and human rights. Instead I see a person deeply brainwashed by a religion (statism) and willing to do horribly evil acts on its behalf. That he became a monster doesn't surprise me in the least.

Yes, we all probably have the capacity for evil behavior, but some superstitions make it more likely to happen. Some make it almost inevitable.

.

The years-long do-si-do of maturing into zero aggression

Babies start off not understanding the Zero Aggression Principle. But it's one of the first "social" things they learn.

Then it takes years to teach them it doesn't apply. Or at least, that bullies and bully groupies want them to believe it doesn't apply when the bully calls himself "government".

For those who continue to mature, they eventually re-learn the ZAP and see that the exceptions really aren't. Consistency matters. Bullies are bullies no matter their "job" or justification. And nothing justifies initiating force.

.

What you do is no one's business

Yes, please do.

What you do is no one's business

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 10, 2015. This one never got put online at the CNJ website, as it had the misfortune to be published the day they are cyberattacked. But here it is now.)

Everyone is looking for more of the things they love; things to bring some joy into their life. Everyone's joy, and the things which trigger it, is different, and that's not only OK, it's great.

I love a lot of things, including, but not limited to, certain people, wildlife, karaoke, wilderness trails, mountains, deserts, forests, liberty, functional antiques, guns, knives, and swords. And, if you know me, I'm sure you already suspected I love hats.

Whatever it is you love, it is wonderful to find people who love some of the same things-- to have someone with whom to share your enjoyment. Shared joy is one of the greatest human experiences. Sometimes others can also introduce you to things you never thought about exploring, and when you're lucky you might even find something new to love.

If not, thank them for their time and move on.

No matter how different we are, you and I probably share some common interests. We may even love some of the same things, or one of us may be waiting for an introduction to something we don't yet know we would love, and which we would then have in common. You never know until you try. Discovery is one of the great things about being alive.

But even if I don't love something you love, I am perfectly happy to not interfere with things which bring you joy. I have no desire to regulate away your fun, even if it's something I really don't like. Not even if it annoys me in some way. Because as long as you don't violate someone or their property you have the absolute right to do whatever you want, regardless of my opinion or the law. No matter whether I understand it or your attraction to it, or even if I think a person would have to be crazy to like what you like.

I would never send the law after you for doing something which "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Thomas Jefferson said. All he meant by this is that if what you do doesn't aggress against anyone nor against their private property, it isn't anyone's business. I am content to let you pursue your happiness. Even, in many cases, if you don't respect the same liberty in others. Someone has to take the first step toward being civilized, after all.

If what you enjoy involves violating people or property, though, I think you need a new hobby, and I hope someone defends themselves from your aggression. There is a universe of great things out there. Don't waste your time violating others.
.

Wherein I say something racist

As of about an hour ago, if my son were "Black", he'd probably be dead- or at least caged- at the hand of cops.

He's OK.

This is why I don't care who you are, I don't want cops committing enforcement against you (molesting you). Ever. If you are OK with it when the cops molest "those people", whoever that might be to you, you are not on the side of liberty- you are siding with bullies.

F'ing Nazis.

But why did I have to be born into a police state? Some people are fine with that. I am not.

.

You are what you do

When you get to the bottom of it, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad person. There is only what you are doing right now.

Of course, there is also the weight of what you choose to do the most- your history. Your acts add up to you.

But, if you are a cop you are always living on stolen money and living under oath to enforce counterfeit laws. So at best, even when doing something good, a cop is still committing evil at the same time.

The best a cop can ever be is neutral- and that's if he is doing a LOT of good constantly.

Stop being a cop and throw off that yoke.

.

Economic lesson learned

A giant corporation (business + government) is messing with my household finances.

Nemesis works for one of the most popularly hated corporations. They owe her around a thousand dollars for some vacation time she took months ago. The mismanaging manager (who has since been promoted) neglected to do the final step to pay employees for vacation time which had already been approved. There are apparently 8 other employees in the same position- some owed much more.

When the mismanaging manager was promoted, and couldn't be reminded any more about the vacation pay, Nemesis went to a regional manager to beg for her money. He looked into the situation and said everything was in order, and he doesn't understand why she was never paid. Then while looking into the problem he discovered all the others who were also owed for vacation time (and numerous other employee-harming "oversights")

Seems like it would have then been a simple matter to pay the money that was owed.

But, no.

That was a couple of months ago, at least. The "process" is still ongoing, with phone calls to the head office (to speak one-on-one to the "Big Deals") scheduled next week, to get to the bottom of this problem. But still no estimate of when the money might be paid.

In the meantime, in the real world, bills go unpaid, and no one owed is concerned about the why of it. As much as I try to not get wrapped up in the drama of it all, I find myself irritated. Partly at Nemesis' choice of employer (but it could be worse, she keeps talking about applying at a "public" school), but mostly by people not keeping their end of a deal and starting a domino effect of problems.

But, avoiding corporations doesn't ensure there won't be a problem.

I have mostly avoided corporations for employment, I have almost exclusively worked for small, family businesses. That has it's own dangers.

Years ago, the business I was working for hit hard times. I loaned the owners some money to get over some bumps and then I allowed them to fall behind paying me for my hours worked. Eventually they got 6 weeks behind on my paycheck, and I said I couldn't keep working without pay, so they started trying to catch up. They would pay me out of the register for each day at the end of the day, and would write checks every week or so to catch up on the back pay. I kept careful track of where I stood. When they claimed we were caught up, I am certain they still owed me for a full week of pay. I showed them all the records I had kept, but they disagreed. I never got the money.

(Year later that same business was intimately involved in the complete and utter trainwreck that almost destroyed me, and they tried really hard to destroy my reputation along with my financial life.)

But it isn't only me.

A few years back, Nemesis was working "home health" for a woman. She allowed the woman to owe her for a few weeks' pay. She never got that, either. If I had known what was going on at the time I would have shared my experience with allowing employers to fall behind. Not that I would have been listened to.

If you allow yourself to be owed money, you are best off to consider it a loan and never expect to be repaid. If you can't afford that, don't let anyone owe you- especially not your employer.

.

Statists by any other name would advocate governing

[Previously posted as a status on Facebook]

Some people who advocate governing others don't like to be called statists. Seems odd to complain about reality, but OK.

They advocate the existence of States, but are upset at being called on it. They say the word "statist" applies only to near totalitarians. Of course, it's only a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. But, if the word hurts their feelings, let's make up a word just for them. Maybe I'll call them "gentlists". That sounds gentle, harmless, and sweet, right?

So, a gentlist would be anyone who believes governing others is a legitimate human endeavor. It says nothing about how they advocate doing it, or the level of governing they approve.

So, maybe some gentlists only want a little bit of control over the non-aggressive acts of others. Maybe they only want a little bit of aggressive theft committed under the euphemism "taxation". Maybe they only advocate kidnapping those engaged in free market economic trades sometimes; if the trades are disliked by a vocal subset of the population. Maybe they turn their heads and pretend their gentlism isn't enforced by the implied threat of murder in every single case- especially if people comply so universally under the threat that death rarely results. We could call these "min-gentlists"- they want what they consider to be the minimum level of gentlism.

Other gentlists might want almost total control of your every action. They might demand you give all your property to them, and dole it out according to a central plan. These totaligentlists would obviously be more extreme than the min-gentlists, but again, it is not a difference in kind, only in degree.

The foundational beliefs are identical- that there exists somewhere a right to control other people and take their property when it suits those who have been put in charge. The only difference is in how blatant they are willing to be about it, and how quickly they want to escalate their violence, and perhaps, where they plan to focus their governing. But the end is the same. And what you call it is really pretty irrelevant in the end.

So, be a whiny statist if it makes you somehow feel better.

Or, suck it up. If you advocate something, own it. Otherwise you look like a fool who knows he is advocating evil and wants to avoid being ashamed for doing so. It makes you look like someone who needs to change, and deep down inside, KNOWS it.

.

Cop talk

[Cop approaches person who is neither initiating force nor violating property]

Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"

Human: "Just who do you think you are, molesting me in this way?"

Cop: "I'm a police officer."

Human: "So? That doesn't answer my question."

Cop: "I am an officer of the law and I have the authority..."

Human: "You have what?"

Cop: "Authority..."

Human: "Where do you believe it came from, this 'authority'?"

Cop: "The people..."

Human: "Where did these 'people' get it, and how did they transfer it to you?"

Cop: "As a society, we..."

Human: "Who is 'we'? I didn't consent to any of this."

Cop: "If you don't like it, change the law or move to Somalia."

[Just kidding. You know the cop would have shot before this point.]

.

Making a mess of things, and demanding thanks for it

Cops and other worthless government bullies can only make themselves seem useful by creating problems and getting in the way of you solving them.

Remove them and the problems they create, and you wouldn't believe you "need" them.

As they say, bullies of government break your leg, force others to pay for your crutches, and then tell you how grateful you should be that they were there to help you.

I'm not falling for it.

.

Definitions based on feelings

Every word seems to have at least two opposing definitions. A definition preferred by those who love it, and one preferred by those who hate it.

See: Anarchy.

See: Socialism.

I'm not saying both definitions aren't 100% accurate- they may be. Just that, depending on how you feel about a subject, you will choose to use the "official" definition you prefer.

And, as long as you inform people which definition you are using, I have no problem with that.

.

Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks

Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 3, 2015)

If you enjoy watching people flailing around over different ways to control each other, the past couple of weeks has probably been entertaining for you.

I'm talking about the conflicting reactions coming from Terribly Sincere People over a spate of recent events. It would be comedy gold if people didn't take these silly things so seriously and then use them against each other.

On one hand, you have people who hate a flag which flew for a few brief years over some slave states, continuing to worship a flag which flew over slave states before, during, and after the controversial flag became, quite literally, history. This triumphant federal flag continues to fly over expanded slavery even today.

People conveniently refuse to notice Lincoln didn't free one single slave, anywhere. Instead he enslaved everyone more or less equally. Regardless of which version of the story you believe, the Confederate States ended a relationship which was never supposed to be a "'til death" pact (the union would never have formed in the first place if it were) and were viciously told "No, you can't leave". This echoes an abusive spouse beating the one who tries to get out of the marriage, violently forcing them to stay.

Then, speaking of marriage, you have people celebrating being allowed to seek government permission to marry, when government never legitimately had the power to regulate marriage in the first place. The proper course would have been to recognize that fact and ditch the whole marriage license scam, rather than expanding it to include more people. Yes, I understand it is nice to not have bullies able to use "law" as their excuse for violating you, but the root problem is the bullies and their "laws", not the fact that their "laws" didn't cover everyone.

And you still have people working diligently to divide people of different "races", based on an evil murderer's acts which were supposedly inspired by the aforementioned Confederate flag, so we'll see each other as enemies instead of seeing who the real enemy is.

Bullies who want to tell you how you are allowed to live love when you focus on trivial things they choose for you to think about instead of seeing what really matters. If they can get you to hate other people based upon their symbols, their genes, or who they love, they can get you to ignore the fact if you exercise your Rightful Liberty, then, according to their rules, you are a criminal. Like a stage magician they get your attention with sparklies, then like a pickpocket, they steal your life, liberty, and all of your property.

.

Socialism

Frequently when I mention socialism in a negative way, someone will complain. Recently, I said something about socialism, equating it with statism, whether it was the pope, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Republicans, or some other type of statist promoting it.

Specifically:

Democrats, Republicans, and anyone else who believes "society" is a thing superior to the individual is a socialist. 

If you believe in "laws", "national borders", "public schools", "taxes", "gun control", marriage licensing, drivers licenses, or any other nonsense which violates Rightful Liberty, you are a socialist of some sort. 

Statism equals socialism. And it is slavery by another name.

Someone objected. I was accused of "rewriting the dictionary". He also said:

"Socialism has a particular definition that fits specific criteria. Not all statism is socialism."

OK... let's work this out.

Socialism's "particular definition":

noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

 I see nothing in that definition which would go against what I said. "Communities" can not own property just by virtue of it being in their area. To own property you either need to buy it from the rightful owner, be gifted with it, or homestead it. Sure, if a "community" joins together, voluntarily, to buy property- and no one is forced to participate against their will- you would have non-aggressive socialism. But that's not the reality of how it comes about.

Instead, socialists believe they are entitled to control your property whether you agree or not. That control might come in the form of outright theft of your property- especially if it is seen as a "means of production". It often manifests as "taxation". Or it might come in the form of sneakier theft, such as "regulations" which control how you choose to use your property (including your body and life). It might come in the form of licenses which limit what you are permitted to do with your life, liberty, or property- sometimes based upon the flimsy excuse of "public property access". Like roads.

When you choose to opt out, you are attacked. Robbed, molested, kidnapped, and maybe even murdered.

Now, let's look at the claim that "not all statism is socialism".

Every form of statism takes private property from the individual owners, exactly as I laid out above. It's simply what statists do. There couldn't be statism without socialism, even if there could hypothetically be socialism of a voluntary sort. Statism gives the stolen property (stolen by "taxation", regulation, red tape, or whatever) to The State, which is claimed to be "the community as a whole" in just about all cases of "gentle statism". The more brutal forms of statism don't even try to claim government is the people.

All statism is socialism, but not all socialism is necessarily statist in nature. Just most of it, and all of it when it isn't by unanimous consent.

Socialism sucks, but as long as you do it voluntarily, without forcing anyone to participate, and have no penalties for opting out, go right ahead. I'll still choose Liberty.

.

Has the orgy pit been scraped and buttered?

Because the orgy is coming.

You might call it "the election", but what it is is an orgy of socialism. People are allowed to choose who will claim ownership of their life, liberty, and property. Liberty and freedom aren't even on the ballot.

And, yet, most people are excited about it, fighting over which "floater" is the best choice to run your life.

You life doesn't need to be run by anyone but you.

Sure, no matter what you choose to do about this orgy, some floater is going to be declared "the winner" for every contest. But do you really want to get your hands dirty picking the floater? How can you choose a favorite deadly disease? Who's your favorite slave master?

There is one socialist getting a lot of attention for admitting he is a socialist. The rest may deny it, but they are socialists, too. They all believe "society" is entitled to your property- they just may bicker over which segment of "society" deserves it more.

Well, this orgy holds nothing that appeals to me, so I'll sit it out. Enjoy the buttery slipping and sliding, though.
_

Still looking for feedback.

.

Latest issue of SI

I know a lot of people who would probably like a gift subscription- or would be offended by one. I forget which...

Click for embiggenization

Articles include :

"Voting: Do it Harder"

"The Pledge of Allegiance- Does it Make You Cry, Too?"

"How Government Invented Roads"

"Count the Ways Laws Keep You Alive"

"Government's Greatest Gift- The Internet- and Regulating it"

and 

"Utopia is Just One More Law Away".

.

Dealing with strong willed, stupid childish people

Statists are like strong willed children. Pat them on the head, wink at them and their stubborn insistence on clinging to their insane notions, and then go your own way, leaving them to do the same. As long as they don't try to stop you.

Unfortunately, they are also like somewhat stupid children.

They are scared, so they dream up fantastical scenarios of horror. They don't understand your reality-based reassurances, so they get angry. They don't understand the words you use, so they assign their own meaning to the words to reinforce their fears and superstitions. They throw tantrums because they don't understand and they don't want to listen to those who know better.

I suppose this means I should have a lot of patience with them- being like strong willed, stupid children and all. And I think I usually do.

But, beyond patience, what might actually get through to them? To insert a germ of reality into their brains, where it might eventually grow?

What approach would work best with someone like that? Other than simply killing them all, I mean.

.

Decisions, decisions...

I'm trying to decide whether to continue paying to keep KentForLiberty.com online.

The quarterly bill is due the middle of this month, and this month has a lot of extra expenses I need money for. I'll need to decide before the bill comes due*.

I have reproduced all the pages here at the blog, so they wouldn't exactly be lost, but all the links to pages on the website which I have put different places over the years would be dead- including those in all the blog posts here. Plus, the link to this blog would revert back to what it was before it was "blog.kentforliberty.com", which would cause more trouble and confusion.

I average just under 100 visits per day at KentForLiberty.com.

Is it worth keeping online? I don't really know.

Weigh in with your thoughts.

*The cost has been covered- thank you. So it will stay online for at least another 6 months. But, I would still like any thoughts as to whether the website is worth it.

.

Nip it in the bud, or look where it leads

I've been watching the show "Hell on Wheels" on Netflix. It's pretty violent, but mostly enjoyable- although there are several nasty characters I want to see die horribly.

Anyway, an episode I watched recently really got my hackles up. In it a very small group of "government" shows up and kills (hangs) a guy for shooting a card cheat.

This government is outnumbered, no one present (other than them) believes the guy deserves what they are doing to him, but everyone just stands by and lets them get away with it. The "execution" could have been stopped if even one person had the courage or principles to stop it.

Sure, it's fiction, but it illustrates the problem pretty accurately: The Tiny Dot ruling everyone else.

I just think that if every time some bullies moved in and said "We are government- you are now going to obey us" they had been shot (speared, knifed, clubbed, eaten, pushed over a cliff, etc.) for their act of aggression (make no mistake, attempting to establish a government IS an act of aggression), this cancer now eating away at civilization would never have gotten a toehold.

It's now too late to nip it in the bud, and that's going to cause a lot of trouble in the future.

.

Self trust

I have seen many pathetic excuses for anti-gun "laws" and attitudes, but one of the most pitiful is the "I don't trust myself" excuse.

I've known people who said they "shouldn't be allowed" to drive or carry a gun, because they get too angry and would hurt someone.

Seems like in this case, it isn't the car or gun that is the problem- it is the anger issues and the lack of self control to avoid aggressively acting out on that anger. It's also pretty clear to me that if a person can't be trusted, the tool they possess doesn't matter. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with a car, or a hammer, or a job, or around kids, or... well, they can't be trusted- period.

However, what I have usually found is that when one of those "untrustworthy" people actually starts carrying a gun, the self control takes root and starts to grow. Expect nothing, and that's what you'll usually get. Expect responsibility, and it has a chance to develop. The hothead either learns to control it, or they end up in "legal trouble" or dead. With dead being the preferable outcome in that case.

I'm sure not everyone would develop self control and responsibility, though. Maybe even in those hopeless cases it would be good for those people to arm themselves and let the problem solve itself. Darwinization works- it's just that, unfortunately, the irresponsible among us do sometimes take some decent people with them. Which is why I learned to avoid certain people.

.

"Soft statists" and the irredeemable statists

I have nothing but contempt for "government" and those who support it.

Well, that's not quite true.

I have a lot of pity for most "soft statists"- the people who are just statists because no one has ever expected more of them. The ones who are what they are because it's the "culture" they grew up in, and no one ever pointed out to them how inconsistent and hypocritical it is. And how it doesn't work because it can't work- new "laws" are clear evidence of this. They can be reached, with opportunity,  time, and patience.

I also have pity for elderly statists who can't seem to change a lifetime of indoctrination at this late date. They can't be reached, and do a lot of damage, but their time is running out.

My contempt is reserved for those who have been shown the nature of statism and still won't reject the evil. They've been shown a better way and still refuse to grow up. Those who look for any objection they can muster to keep stealing and committing acts of enforcement- or asking others to commit those acts of their behalf. And, yes, I realize a lot of it is grounded in cowardice- due to them being afraid to take responsibility for their own life. Or imagining horrible outcomes of Rightful Liberty while glossing over horrible outcomes of statism which are occurring all around them right now- no speculation required.

So, contempt and pity for statists. Pity for those never given the chance to reject statism, and contempt for those who have been shown better and still refuse to grow up.

.

Not in best interest to be disarmed

Not in best interest to be disarmed

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 26, 2015)

Once again a group of disarmed people has fallen victim to a murderer. Peaceful, friendly people attending church, while convinced by "authority" to be sitting ducks, welcomed the murderer into their midst and were gunned down. Words can't convey how evil that premeditated act was.

The blood dancing monsters of the various "gun control" groups, more honestly referred to as "mass murder cheerleaders"- and governments- have blamed the people who didn't commit the murder, and sought to violate the innocent for the hideous acts of a thug. The president lies by claiming this doesn't happen in other countries to convince people to demand to be disarmed.

The truth is an attack can come anywhere at any time. Even where you feel safe. Those attacks are more likely to be attempted- and to succeed- in places where people have been forbidden from carrying guns.

Yes, that's right. Every single "no guns" sign you see, such as at the mall here, is going to be completely ignored by anyone whose mind is made up to murder. If obeyed at all, it will only be obeyed by people who have no murderous intent. People who are already plotting to break the supreme law and commit murder won't hesitate breaking a rule forbidding guns on premises. Even if there are metal detectors at the door, the bad guy will just go in shooting rather than waiting until he is inside.

A "no guns" sign or policy only weeds out the people who might stand between a mass murder and his targets. Instead of enhancing safety, it sacrifices it on the altar of appearances. A "no guns" sign is a warning that your life doesn't matter at all to the property owners.

Anti-gun mouthpieces blame the guns. Racists blame race problems. The superstitious blame a flag. Some even blame the victims for not ignoring the rule and arming themselves anyway. The observant notice the medications the vast majority of mass murderers have been prescribed. Too few blame the murderer.

I am glad to see some people responding to this latest attack by promising if something like this is attempted again, they will shoot back. Maybe they remember Luke 22:36-- "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Today's sword is the personal firearm. It's terrible it took this attack to inspire them to take responsibility for their own safety, but better late than never.

No one ever disarms you with your best interests in mind. Anyone wanting to disarm you, under any pretext, is your mortal enemy. If you cooperate you are only offering yourself as a sacrifice to their scheme.

.

"Mandatory" is the deal-breaker

A while back I signed an online petition against mandatory vaccinations.

I am not "anti-vaccines"; I am anti-mandatory vaccines. And just about anything else, too.

Well, today, the "White House" staff sent a response to all the petition's signatories.

Here it is (feel free to skim- I did):

A Response to Your Petition on Vaccines

Thank you for signing this We the People petition on mandatory vaccines.

The evidence about vaccines' safety and benefits is both strong and consistent -- but don't just take our word for it. We reached out to the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy -- the Nation's Doctor -- who wanted to respond to you personally on this issue.

Here's what he had to say:

 

We all want our children to be safe and healthy, and nothing is more important than that -- and the United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history.

When it comes to laws regarding vaccines, there are two important things to keep in mind.

First, states and localities determine these kinds of vaccine requirements and exemption policies. Right now, all states require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance, and there are some employers, such as health care facilities and day cares, that require vaccination to protect their employees as well as their customers (for example, hospitalized patients, people living in long-term health care facilities, and infants attending day care).

Second, the science is quite clear that vaccines are vital to our fight to quell and eventually eliminate highly contagious diseases. Vaccines undergo rigorous scientific study and testing for both safety and efficacy before they are approved for use. Following licensure and use among the U.S. population, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration continue to monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Over the years, billions of people have received vaccines, which have, in turn, saved hundreds of millions of lives in the United States and around the world. For example, prior to the development of the measles vaccine, many children died in the United States as a result of measles and many more were hospitalized each year. After the introduction of the measles vaccine, the number of infections and deaths dropped precipitously.

While the vast majority of people in the United States get vaccinated, there are some communities where vaccination rates are low, and this can increase the risk for vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. If we continue to see growing pockets of people who are not vaccinated, measles and other contagious diseases will regain a foothold in our country and spread.

Many of the most contagious illnesses can be prevented thanks to vaccines -- and as a result, one of the most important things people can do to protect themselves and their children is to get vaccinated.

It's also important to note that not vaccinating your children doesn't just affect your own kids. It affects your neighbors, your children's classmates, family members -- your community. Some people cannot get immunized for medical reasons (for example, due to an allergic reaction or compromised immune system), a small percentage of people won't develop immunity even though they receive a vaccine, and babies are too young for certain vaccines. These children and adults rely on the rest of us to be vaccinated in order to protect them from exposure to life-threatening illnesses. The recent death due to measles of a Washington state woman with a suppressed immune system illustrates the importance of immunizing as many people as possible to provide a high level of community protection against measles.

We encourage all parents to talk to their doctor or health care professional about vaccinating their children. There are cases in which some specific children will have a medical reason to delay or not get certain vaccines, and your doctor will be able to help guide you in these matters.

We all have a role to play. Vaccinations are one of the great triumphs of science and public policy, and we should make their benefits available to everyone.

As the Surgeon General makes clear, "Vaccines are safe and effective ways to prevent disease and death. They are necessary. They save lives."

And as the President himself said earlier this year, "There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."

If you're concerned about your health, the science is clear: Vaccinate yourself and your children.

For more information about vaccination, please visit www.vaccines.gov.

Well, isn't that special.

Against my better judgment, I replied (not that I believe it will be read):

So basically no one on your side is smart enough to figure out that the issue isn't vaccines, it's MANDATORY vaccines.

I would be opposed to mandatory food.

No one has the right (and certainly not the "authority" since "authority" is nothing but a superstition) to control the body of another. It's really sad that someone you call "The Nation's Doctor" isn't smart enough to understand that. No thank you- I'll find my own doctor. One who puts healthcare over politics.

Edit- Later:

Hello,

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent.

To contact the White House, please visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Thank you.

So, you set up an email address, it gets "too much" email, so you ignore it all. Nice. Idiots.

.

Here, have a tiny slice of "liberty"

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.

.

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.

.

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.

• 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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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!.

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.

.

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?
.

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?

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.

.

Statist lies vs the reality

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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?
.

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.

.

"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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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...