Kentucky clerk’s morals fall flat

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 11, 2015)

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

First of all it needs to be understood that everyone has a right to live by their faith, but no one has a right to a government job — a right that can’t exist.

If a job would require you to do things you believe are wrong, don't take the job. If you hold a job and the requirements change so you would be asked to do things you believe are wrong, it is your responsibility to find a different job. No need to raise a fuss to get attention, just resign and move on. It's that simple.

This clerk's morals seem fluid. She has apparently never had a problem with processing divorces. Or with living on money forcibly extorted from the local residents. She seemingly never questioned whether it's ethical to hold a position which licenses basic human rights; activities not subject to government permission.

What if she refused to issue marriage licenses for anyone who had been previously divorced? If she were living consistently by her faith, she would not only be refusing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

What if she were Muslim and her faith forbade her issuing drivers licenses to women? Would her supporters still be standing with her decision?

This is why her claim of standing up for her morals falls utterly flat with me. Her morals seem to be a convenience, giving her an excuse for refusing to do something she doesn't want to do. It's like if I were a janitor, but claimed my morals forbade me cleaning the new toilets.

She wasn't letting anyone else in her office issue marriage licenses, either, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter.

I don't believe in government, and certainly don't believe government has any "authority" to issue licenses for anything, including marriage. Knowing this, should I take a government job which includes issuing licenses and then refuse to do so? Should I still expect to be paid?

But jail? She should not have been jailed for refusing to do her job. It was a ridiculous penalty, calculated to cause maximum drama. If a person won't do their job, they should be fired, not caged.

None of this would be an issue if government were forced out of the marriage business- where it never had any business getting involved in the first place.

-

(Note: I said anyone who doesn't do their job needs to be fired. My editor said no one is "authorized" to fire Ms. Davis. So I changed the wording for the newspaper column. I put the original wording back for the blog. I still believe anyone who doesn't do what they were hired to do needs to be fired. It's not my fault the State sets itself up to fail.)

.

Theories, or justification?

So many "political theories" seem to only exist to justify the "statist quo".

I try to make sure my own political theory doesn't fall into the opposite trap of only existing to justify the opposite of the status quo.

So I test it. I examine it. I pick it apart in my mind. And, when it fails the test, I change it.

So far the result is that I get rid of more and more justifications for statism of any kind.

It's liberating. Give it a try.

.

Give them the chance

People already know they should be libertarian.

They know right from wrong. They know using violence against the nonviolent or those who aren't violating property is wrong. They know violating property is wrong.

Their only problem is they have been tricked into imagining irrational exceptions to these truths. This indoctrination has taken a lifetime to achieve. It takes one honest moment to shed.

They are probably already libertarian in their heart of hearts. The external statist shell is a mask.

By sharing libertarianism with them you are not trying to "trick them into it", you are giving them permission to be honest with themselves. To be what they already know they should be.

They may still try to fight you, but I hope you offer the chance to everyone you know anyway.

.

Lies statists tell:

Not a comprehensive list. of course...

They died for your freedom.
Not all cops are bad.
You must respect the office of president, even if you don't respect the man.
Without government there would be chaos.
Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.
"This system" may not be perfect, but it's the best there is/the best there can be.
I'm not a statist; only those other guys who are nothing like me are statists.
It's for the children.
It's for the good of society.
It's for your own good.
It's a necessary evil.
Your vote counts/matters.


I'll bet you can think of more lies statists tell.

.

"Good", actions, and cops

(Previously posted to Facebook)

"Good" isn't always subjective- there are certain absolutes.

It is never good to violate other people's liberty or property- except in self defense against aggression, or in defense of private property. Period. You may believe it to be "necessary", but it's not good.

If you picked the fight, it is not self defense.

If there is no individual victim, it isn't in defense of the innocent.

If your job requires you to violate other people's liberty or property, you can't be a good person while performing that job.

Police are required to violate people's life, liberty, and property by enforcing "laws" as a condition of keeping the job, and to continue receiving the paycheck (which is financed by violating property through "taxation").

Therefore, no matter how "nice" a cop may act, he can't be good and remain a cop.

There is no such thing as a "good cop".

.

Giving the bullies a pat on the back

I see news about government employees and happenings as a glowing report on the exploits of beloved bullies and thugs.

To illustrate:

"In local news, Buster broke into a couple of houses over the weekend, and made a sweet haul he plans to share with the community. He intends to give back a portion of each score. Be sure and show him support whenever you run into him around town. 

"Billy Bob had a real fine rape this week. He enjoyed himself immensely and said he plans to look into the possibility of making it a regular thing. Watch out girls! (wink, wink) 

"The local mob discussed allowing residents to vote on whether they will fork over 10% of their property this next year, or 8% this year, with the amount increasing by 10% yearly thereafter. The loot will be used to expand the concentration camp on the edge of town- without which, chaos would ensue. Be sure and vote- it's your right and duty! 

"In international news, crime bosses from both sides of the Atlantic met to work out details of how they will use you as slaves and divide the spoils among themselves. They have promised each other to not take action against each other, personally, and to not rob each others slaves without working out some sort of deal first."

That is how most "news" sounds to me. It's utterly sickening that people believe it is somehow less repugnant when the bullies call themselves "government".

.

It may make you angry, but...

Here's a clue: When someone points out the silliness of your position or otherwise disagrees with your absurd claim, it isn't necessarily a sign they are angry. You may be projecting.

Statists generally seem very angry. They collapse into heaps of profanity and aggression at the slightest prodding.

But, when they see you point out the absurdity of their beliefs, they accuse you of being angry. Often in the midst of their mental breakdown.

Statism is a strange, sick religion.

.

Non-Libertarians cause of trouble

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 4, 2015)


What’s one of the fastest ways to get in serious trouble? By acting in ways libertarians warn against. Can this be right?

Aren’t libertarians supposed to be troublemakers who oppose cooperation and generosity? Aren’t they known as rugged individualists who advocate “every man for himself?”

Think again.

The heart of libertarianism is the principle that no one has the right to use violence- even gently or "for your own good"- against anyone who is neither already using violence, nor violating private property. The principle which goes hand-in-hand with this one reminds you to not violate the property of another. That's really all there is to it. Everything else is just working out details and getting rid of exceptions.

I frequently see people getting in trouble precisely because they aren't living up to libertarian principles. They initiate force- this means they use physical force first. They violate property through theft, trespassing, or by preventing the owner from using the full value of his property. They try to cheat and defraud people. Then, when the consequences come home to roost they often seem to be shocked by the turn of events.

What exactly are these behaviors which are most likely to get people into trouble? Fighting, attacking, raping, robbing, defrauding, trespassing, and murdering. All acts your libertarians friends are constantly reminding others to not commit.

Some people also get in trouble because they neglect to defend themselves from those who commit these anti-libertarian acts. Defensive violence is never wrong- even if it isn't always smart, such as when you are outnumbered or outgunned. You aren't obligated to defend yourself or others, but you'll have more respect for yourself if you do. It's usually the right thing to do.

Of course, today the other fast way to get in trouble might seem contradictory: being libertarian. Living your Rightful Liberty by doing things no one has a right to forbid or control. Things which lawmakers who lack libertarian principles have decided to declare illegal, or subject to rationing, even though those things don't violate person or property. You can't always avoid these bullies and the exceptions they pretend to carve for themselves. Beware of them.

Non-libertarians make excuses for those exceptions as long as they are committed by government employees under the excuse of "law", but it doesn't make the acts of violation right.

Do the right thing. Stay out of trouble for doing the wrong thing. Act libertarian even if you don't believe in the principles.

.

The most ethical way to live

(Previously posted to Patreon)

How would the world be if everyone lived by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP)? It would be Utopia. No one would ever even debate whether an act is aggression or not since even self defense would be unnecessary. This is not a world any of us will ever experience.

What if, instead of thinking about that Utopian scenario, we just think what would happen if most people followed the ZAP most of the time? Because this is the real world you and I already exist in. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but with the potential to be much better.

People already understand they have no right to initiate force. Most people follow this pretty well. They buy instead of steal, and request rather than punch. People already know the ZAP is the right way to live, even if they don't know how to put it into words.

If it were not the case, even statism would quickly collapse. It is the reluctance to initiate force which keeps bullies safe. If no one were concerned about whether an act justified a violent response, no IRS agent would survive his first audit. No cop would survive his first day molesting "speeders". Yes, even tyrants and bullies rely on people following the ZAP while pretending they are exempt due to their "job".

The only way to make things better would be to stop pretending there are people and "jobs" which qualify for that imaginary exemption. Stop calling acts of theft or aggression by the statist euphemisms that seem to excuse them.

But, switching gears a bit... What if no one ever followed the ZAP? Civilization would be impossible. Society would collapse. No peaceful encounter would be possible.

Looking at these 3 possibilities clearly illustrates that to live by the Zero Aggression Principle is the most ethical way to live- bar none.

.

First they ignore you...

One of the quotes I see used the most often to give hope to people like you and me, is this one from Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

What isn't mentioned in that quote is you have to be grounded in reality first. Skip that important part and "they" will probably never move beyond laughing at you. Or, if you do "win", it will be a fleeting victory.

If you are grounded in reality, you have won before they have even moved beyond ignoring you, they just don't know it yet.

.

Statists' false choices

Statists love the false choice:

Either accept theft and aggression, or live without roads.
Either accept theft and aggression, or see the end of education.
Either accept theft and aggression, or you'll be a helpless victim of theft and aggression. (?!?)
Either accept theft and aggression, or do without wild spaces.
Either accept theft and aggression, or say goodbye to justice.

Sorry. That isn't how reality works.

.

How to be popular

Being rabidly statist is a good way to become well-respected and popular. To be looked upon with regard in your community. This is just the result of being a believer in the main religion of your locality. Of being an ardent follower.

Or even a "leader".

Being a non-believer results in marginalization. Non-believers aren't taken seriously. They are pushed aside and not given any consideration. Relegated to the position of "no one".

Statism is still the primary religion, globally. Other religions take a back seat to statism. Other religions seem to be mostly useful as excuses to prop up statism and give it a veil of legitimacy.

But, the believers are still wrong. Their religion is empty and evil. If you can lower yourself that much for popularity, I suppose you deserve it.

.

Hard truths on guns

Here are some of my random thoughts on the recent college massacre, and my reactions to the knee-jerk demands of the anti-liberty bigots:

So, another mass murder in a place where guns are banned, and so the anti-liberty bigots will be blaming the gun and the people who didn't do it.

Dig in your heels and get ready for the attack of the idiots.

Added: OK, so according to some, maybe the college was "gun friendly"- at least to those with the proper state papers. Still, if your policies make it harder for good people to be armed- which is ALWAYS the result of making up rules and requiring "permits"- bad guys will still always have the upper hand. YOU have a responsibility to defend yourself in spite of onerous rules and "laws". Everywhere you go. If someone doesn't trust you with a gun (or requires "permits") they don't trust you. Don't trust them.

-

If you believe anti-gun "laws" will prevent murder, you haven't been paying attention.
If you believe anti-gun "laws" in other countries ended murder, you are in denial.

-

Here is an old post about School Shootings

-

What kind of "gun safety laws" do anti-liberty bigots imagine would work?
Go ahead- tell me.
Then I will explain why your suggestion would make the situation worse.

Anything that keeps guns out of the hands of a determined mass murderer will inevitably make it harder for good people to be armed. That will result in more mass murder- as well as more individual murder.

Whether the college where yesterday's massacre occurred was a "gun free" slaughter zone or not (and the reports conflict on that account), the fact is that apparently no good guys had jumped through all the artificial hoops put in place to make sure "the wrong hands" didn't have a gun. And death was the result. Because "the wrong hands" will ALWAYS be armed.

That's the reality. You can deny it or you can accept it. Reality doesn't care which- but your survival depends on you making the right choice.

-

The anti-gun position is delusional. The "debate" is dishonest. It is based upon false premises.

Even if anti-gun "laws" saved lives, you have zero right to forbid anyone else from owning or carrying a gun. None, whatsoever. No matter who you are.

You can't delegate to anyone else a right which doesn't exist.

If you pretend you have that right anyway, and tell a politician (or cop) to "control" other people's guns on your behalf, then you are a violator of fundamental human rights. You have become a bad guy just like the person who violates fundamental human rights by murdering. You aren't different in kind, but only in degree, from a mass murderer.

I am watching you, with suspicion, in self defense.

-

I understand the desire to make the world safe. It's not crazy to want that.

What is crazy is advocating things that can be shown to make the world less safe. Like anti-gun "laws".

The places in America where guns are most heavily regulated are consistently the places which are most dangerous- and the danger followed imposition of the anti-gun "laws", not the other way around.

If you figure America's murder "by gun" rate- but take those anti-gun cities out of the calculation- America's "gun murder" rate drops to one of the lowest in the world.

Places around the world where guns are banned are much more violent than America; the attackers just use tools other than guns. Is it somehow "better" to be murdered with a machete or a 2X4 or a baseball bat than with a gunshot? Only a crazy person would believe so.

If a person wants to murder, no "law" will stop them. Keeping guns away from them- even if possible- won't stop them. And, if they want to kill a lot of people, they will very likely seek out a place that advertises itself as a "gun free zone". "Gun free zones" are more honestly known as slaughter zones- they invite tragedy.

Believing anti-gun "laws" will solve anything is crazy.

It's OK to be crazy; it isn't OK to impose your crazy on others. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own reality.

The reality is that anti-gun "laws" are a danger to those who obey them.

.

Looking at "taxation is theft" from both sides

(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise)

Statists hate the "libertarian shibboleth" of "Taxation is theft". It makes them lose their minds and fling poo before running away screaming profanity.

As amusing as making them that crazy is, it may not be constructive... so, let's really examine the idea.

"Theft" is the act of taking property that belongs to another without their consent- with or without the threat of violence.
"Theft" is almost universally condemned. No one claims the future use of the stolen property justifies the theft.
"Taxation" is the act of taking property (money) that belongs to someone else without their consent- enforced by the threat of violence.
"Taxation" is almost universally justified by imagining what the stolen money will (might) be used for.
Therefore, "taxation" is theft.

Or... let's turn it around and look at the argument from the statist perspective:

"Theft is the taking of property non-voluntarily.
Taxation is voluntary; people would pay even without penalties.
Therefore, taxation is not theft."

Which one holds up better to scrutiny? How true are the individual premises and conclusions in each?

.

Professionalism in action

If someone violates you in a "professional" way, is that somehow less of a violation?

I occasionally see copsuckers defending police by saying that in every encounter they have ever had with them, the cops acted very "professional".

I just can't see this as a good thing.

I'm sure many hangmen were very professional toward their innocent victims.

Same goes for Nazi gas chamber attendants.

Being "professional" while committing evil isn't a justification. It doesn't make the act you are committing ethical or moral. It just means you are able to violate others without it "getting to you" and making you behave like a human being.

.

Cherry picking the Bill of Rights

Anti-liberty bigots rarely fight against the 4th and 5th Amendments like they do the 2nd. You almost never hear them claim their city is exempt from those amendments due to "home rule" or some other such nonsense.

Even Constitutionalists who make a big deal of pointing out that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Feds, when excusing local violations of gun rights, never (as far as I've seen) make a similar claim about the 4th and 5th Amendments. The rights are basic; it doesn't matter who is violating them.

Of course, in practice cities and states (including the feds) violate every amendment whenever they feel like it anyway.

That's why I prefer to stand on basic human rights, not on documents and empty promises. Again- the rights are basic; it doesn't matter who is violating them.

If one group of individuals is not within its rights to violate your rights, then no group of individuals is. No individual has that right, so grouping individuals together can't manufacture the right to violate your rights out of nothing. If you don't own a particular piece of property, you can't control what anyone does on it. And, governments NEVER own any property.

Even if you really do own a piece of property, you are not being "nice" to violate people's rights on it.

If I don't trust you to be in my presence armed, then the truth is I simply don't trust you. Not in my business; not in my home. Not near me in public, And it goes without saying if you don't trust me armed, I understand you don't trust me.

This is why I don't want cops armed. I don't trust them even unarmed, so I sure don't ever trust them armed.

.

Liberty only lost when given up

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 28, 2015)

How well do you think it would work if a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. controlled your thermostat?

If they cared to, they could check the current temperature and humidity to decide whether they would turn on your air conditioning or heating. More likely, they’d just guess by region, if they bothered doing anything about your comfort. The Southwest is supposed to be hot, so you'll get some air conditioning whether you want it or not.

You'll have to pay either way.

What about letting someone in the state capital control your comfort? They'd be closer and might understand conditions better. Right?

Or, maybe city hall should be given control. They are closer still, and know what the weather is like here right now. They aren't going to accidentally get confused if it is snowing in the mountains above Red River, believing the weather must automatically be the same at your house.

Besides, you can't really be trusted to control your own thermostat, can you? Comfort isn't the only consideration. What if you use too much electricity or gas? Could you afford the bill? Who will watch out for you?

On the other hand, you live in reality so you understand that even in a house with only two people, the comfort levels differ. Comfortable to one person is cold to another and sweltering to a third. There may even be medical issues. You will need to compromise among the residents of your house.

You can adjust your thermostat to limit the amount of energy you use. Who knows better than you what you can afford and what you can live with?

Maybe the thermostat isn't the problem. Should you allow your toilets to be flushed by remote control on a set schedule from some bureaucrat's office? How do you think that would work?

It's really no different to pretend government employees have any business controlling anything else about your life. Your medications, your food, your money, your lawn, your chickens, whom to bake a cake for, or which flag to fly- these are all your business, and your business alone.

In each of these cases, if someone else has control, you are handing your life to people who are not qualified to control anything. The only reason they are able to take away your liberty is because you, and too many of your neighbors, hand it over to them. Why on earth would you do something so foolish and self-destructive?

.

If you don't trust me with a gun...

If you don't trust me with a gun, you don't trust me.
If you don't trust me, why would I trust you?

A good question, don't you think? I may print up some cards...

Assume the best, expect the worst

While I assume liberty, I also expect statism.

Most people are no more guilty for being statists than Pleistocene humans were guilty for being ignorant about cosmology or genetics. It's just who they are in the environment in which they live.

I even understand why they fight against the scary truth which threatens their comfortable delusions. This doesn't mean they are right, or that their statist opinions are valid. I can not pretend they are right, although I won't try to teach every person I hear repeat the familiar myths.

I'll keep speaking up, and I expect to keep being ignored, called names, ridiculed, and occasionally despised for my efforts. But I won't stop because the truth matters.

.

Being Popular

Back when I wrote for Examiner, a common complaint among the serious writers was the dominance (and page views/pay) of those who wrote celebrity fluff.

But you don't even have to sink that low to rise to the top. Or, at least stay off the bottom.

If I wrote a column or blog in advocacy for some religion (including statism) my writing would be much more popular and might get noticed a lot more. People like to hear that sort of thing. It reinforces their beliefs and doesn't threaten them.

That is just a bit discouraging.

It's not that I want to be Mr. Popular. but enough popularity to bring in a bit more money would be really nice. And I admit not feeling like the freak during social gatherings might be nice, too.

But I chose this path. I have only myself to blame. I can't pretend to agree with nonsense (the best I can do is keep my mouth shut), and that comes at a price. I have since realized I should have probably kept my anonymity while blogging- it would have left me more options.

On the other hand, why should I expect anyone else to stand up for liberty if I won't do it myself?

They say "freedom isn't free". They are right, but not about what the price truly is. The price is not being as popular as you might otherwise have been. It is not having the money you might otherwise have had. It probably means fewer friends.

It's still worth it.

.

Opinions

If you can back your opinion up with facts and examples, it ceases to be "just an opinion".

If you can't back up your opinion with facts and examples, it remains "just an opinion".

Not all opinions are equally valid. Some are not valid at all.

Most opinions are neither right nor wrong. Red cars aren't better than blue cars. Chocolate isn't better than vanilla. Star Wars isn't the best movie, nor is Firefly the best TV series. My personal opinions on those matters are my opinions, and don't have any foundation in reality. No matter how strongly I believe them, and no matter how real those opinions are to me.

But the initiation of force is not your right. It's not "just an opinion". Your contrary opinions don't change the fact.

"Laws" violate people. States are harmful. Prohibition is devastating to civilization. Anti-gun policies KILL. Those are facts which can be- and have been- backed up by volumes of examples and history. You may have a differing opinion- and that's your right- but your opinion would be wrong. It is counter to reality.

If you're OK with that, then don't worry about it. Go your own way, think what you think, do what you do.

.

Thinking- too much trouble?

It bothers me that people don't want to think.

Even if they come to conclusions opposite to mine, as long as they can explain why they reached that conclusion I can respect that they gave it thought.

But so many don't want to think, don't want to show their mental work, and then want to claim their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's "opinions" (which are often not actually opinions).

Why do people not like to think?

.

Troublemaker neighbors

A new family has moved into the neighborhood. I see trouble on the horizon.

This family has an indeterminate number of kids- somewhere between 3 and 5. Mostly pre-teen, it appears. And the kids have no respect for property. At least, no respect for anyone else's property. I have seen them rummaging through 2 neighbors' outdoor things. Including being under one neighbor's car port- riding the exercise bike.

The kids roam wherever they feel like, doing whatever they decide to do, without any thought of property lines.

This new family also doesn't understand how the dumpster works- tossing bags of trash near the dumpster (which wasn't even near full) rather than in it. Then the bags got ripped open by dogs and the contents scattered all over another neighbor's back yard. I picked it all up for her.

My next door neighbor is much more confrontational than I. She has already said she will tell them that behavior is not going to be tolerated in this neighborhood. And I believe her.

Apparently they are buying the house. Not good news. Thankfully, most of my neighbors are very good at minding their own business, but are not going to sit by and watch our own properties violated, nor watch as these kids violate the property of others. It may get interesting.

.

Good, bad depend on cooperation

Good, bad depend on cooperation

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)

Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.

By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception. The exceptions get noticed precisely because they are exceptions. People tend to not notice what is most common.

Even truly bad guys are only evil part-time. No one could get away with violating everyone they encounter. Regardless of how safe they might believe their special case makes them, someone would put an end to them sooner or later. Probably sooner than later. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. This truth is no threat to decent people, and keeps most bad guys somewhat constrained.

Then you have the cooperative nature of humans.

Most people want to get along. Those who believe people won't try to get along are ignoring the majority of life and focusing on the exceptions.

Cooperation is practically universal, but it is a double-edged sword. When you think of cooperation, you probably think of cooperation's light side. You imagine people joining together to repair a neighbor's damaged house, or pitching in to get a desperately ill kid the medical care she needs. This is healthy cooperation, and it is wonderful.

However, cooperation also has a dark side. Much evil depends on the cooperative nature of people, perverted. Gangs wouldn't cause trouble, and wars of aggression couldn't happen, without the cooperation of large numbers of people joining together to violate others on a massive scale. It's not only the bad guys who cooperate in unhealthy ways, but normal people, too. No dictatorship could stand without the victims cooperating with the majority of the tyrant's commands. Humans are highly cooperative, even when it isn't in their own interest.

Cooperation isn't the problem; using it badly is. Don't cooperate to violate person or property, but only to build up others and protect people and property. Don't cover for those who cooperate with the wrong things.

I try to cooperate for good, while being prepared to encounter those who won't. I have picked up hitchhikers and helped stranded strangers. I have given money to people I knew were in need- and some whose needs I suspected money couldn't fill. I don't regret even the times it didn't go exactly to plan. For the most part, people are amazing. Now, if they would only see where they are being inconsistent and self destructive, and understand when to cooperate, and when they shouldn't, they would be even better.

.

Making an issue of Jenner

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Someone recently shared a silly "conservative" meme which included a picture of Caitlyn Jenner, saying this is a woman only in "Liberal America".

I have never really commented about the Jenner gender issue because I can't see any relevance to my life whatsoever. I'm not seeking a sexual relationship with Jenner. And if not, how could it affect me?

I feel the same with Chelsea Manning for that matter.

I don't even know her. Or him. Or whatever. We'll never meet.

But, it made me think. What exactly is a woman? Are we talking about chromosomes? In that case, you would be right to say Jenner is not a woman. A DNA sample would clearly indicate "male".

Are you talking about morphological features- body shape? Then maybe Jenner is now a woman by that standard. Considering the wide variability of body shapes, maybe some DNA women aren't "really" women.

Are you talking about how Jenner thinks of herself/himself? Let Jenner think of Jenner however Jenner wants to think of Jenner. It's not your concern, and only a jerk would insist on making an issue of it in person. I constantly encounter people who think of themselves as ethical or smart, when the evidence is quite clear they aren't. Unless there is some specific reason it needs to be refuted, why bother?

Body modification is very popular these days- tattoos, piercings, inserts, etc. Maybe this is a special type of body modification. Less shocking than some, to my way of thinking. How does it harm you?

On the other hand, the body is the lowest layer of what "we" wrap ourselves in. In that case it is similar to clothing or a uniform. We constantly identify people by their clothing or uniform. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with the body being changed like a suit of clothes.

It's not for me, but why would I concern myself with what others do?

So, the reason I haven't made an issue of Jenner's transformation before now is that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Jenner is happier now, good for her.

.

The situation

Someone I met a while ago mentioned something that has really stuck with me. They said most people who hold non-libertarian views aren't very good at explaining what they do believe, or any principles their beliefs might be based upon.

She was right.

My view of the situation is more simplistic:

The libertarian point.                                                     The statist response.

.

"Legalize"? No need. Just stop illegalizing.

All the words used to describe making something which was once made "illegal" legal again miss the mark for me.

"Legalize", "decriminalize"... eh. I don't care for the words because they seem to carry the idea that "law" is a real thing.

I would rather see things completely removed from the province of "law", where they should never have been shoved in the first place.

That "-ize" suffix seems to imply a certain made-upness. If something isn't really random, you can make it seem random by "randomizing" it. So, if something has been deemed "illegal" you can give it the appearance of "legality" by "legalizing" it. But, the "law" was the bizarre act, not removing the "law".

That way of speaking seems to make the artificial condition- the propped up state- become the foundation which anchors the discussion. It makes the natural condition seem like the unnatural one. It is putting the illusion above reality; the lie above the truth.

The "law" is the illusion. The made up condition. If something isn't really wrong you can make it appear so (to some people) by making up a rule. You have "illegalized" it, in spite of reality and ethics. At least the word "criminalize" takes this into account, although most people don't seem to notice its artificiality.

I think I will strive to avoid talk of "legalizing" or "decriminalizing" and try to speak with the assumption of liberty.

.

Oh, the contradictions

I'm libertarian.

According to characterizations I have been subjected to, this means I must be a young, old rich white "bleeding heart liberal", knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "conservative" male who is idealistic, Utopian, Dystopian, pessimistic, too trusting and paranoid, and so poor I am reduced to living in my mom's basement.

Even though my parents have no basement (I do have a cellar at my house, though. Tornadoes and such. But it's not for living in.)

At least, that is how statists see it. Statists are crazy.

.

Dull 'Hawk-isms 2

More things I have recently posted as Facebook statuses:

• If your crops are being devoured by locusts, and withering from lack of rain, and your solution is to change your socks, you may be a voter.

• Stating that your premise is not falsifiable isn't a compliment.

• People get confused about bullies.
  Some believe that bullies are "authority" you believe in if they threaten you into compliance.
  Some people are silly.

• There is no ethical difference between the person who ridicules the statement that taxation is theft and the person who ridicules the statement that slavery is wrong.

• The Patriot's Day in April is in celebration of liberty.
  The "Patriot's" Day in September is in celebration of government.
  Same name, opposite purposes.

• "Why do you pay taxes if you don't believe in authority?"
  Hypothetically speaking... Because I believe in bullies who will kidnap me if I don't comply with their mugging, and will murder me if I resist their efforts to kidnap me. It has nothing to do with "authority"- it's simple bullying. A mugging.
  "Authority" isn't a real thing. It is a mental problem in those who believe in "authority".

• Personally, I am glad actions have consequences. If they didn't, no one would ever learn to behave.
  And, since actions have consequences whether I like it or not, I might as well like it.

• Those who say that the phrase "taxation equals slavery" belittles the plight of those who have suffered chattel slavery are missing the point.
  Yes, chattel slavery is worse.
  However, that doesn't diminish the evil of "taxation".
  Murder is worse than attempted murder, but that does nothing to excuse attempted murder.
  Plus, once you excuse one form of slavery (or other violation of person or property) on the basis of it not being "as bad as" another form, you have left the high ground and are wallowing in the sewer. You are leaving wiggle room for those who want to do evil things to others without feeling bad about it.

• Sometimes I wish I could photograph my face when I read certain status updates.
  Those which are in ALL CAPS and have "creative grammar" and "spelling" to the point I can't even figure out what they are ranting about.
  Sometimes I suspect they might be saying something I'd agree with- but so poorly I can't be sure. These make me sad.
  The apparent statist rants which fit the above make me happy, since it confirms my bias against statists by confirming my suspicions that statists are statists precisely because they are stupid.

.

They don't work for me.

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Government works for us."

You, maybe. Not me.

If they did, I would fire them all immediately. They don't work for me.

I would never hire someone to do a "job" I don't want done. They don't work for me.

I no more believe "government" works for me than I believe the Sicilian mafia or any random carjacker works for me. Even if they use things they stole from me to continue their career, they don't work for me.

The mafia might use money stolen from me to burn my competition to the ground, and that might benefit me. But they don't work for me.

The carjacker may shoot some guy I hate, but he doesn't work for me.

So, don't include me in your "us" when you claim the "government" works for us. They don't work for me.

And, if you ever try to implicate me by saying "We are the government", I will be sorely tempted to violate the ZAP and punch you in the nose. That's about the nastiest insult I can imagine.

.

The "immigration" disconnect

(Previously posted to Patreon)

If you pour water down an animal's burrow, do you get angry when the animal flees- and runs across your foot?

If so, I would say you are not too bright.

In the same way, if you make someone's home territory unlivable do you react with anger when refugees come pouring out and end up in your vicinity?

This is the situation I see with "immigration".

Through the Middle East wars for oil (excuse me- against Islamists), and the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, US policy (and invasion) has made people's homes unlivable, and they sensibly flee, looking for somewhere else to live. If this angers you, then be angry at those driving the people out of their homes, not the people trying to survive in the face of bad situations.

No, you aren't causing the problem. Those who claim to be acting on your behalf are. Using money stolen from you. Sometimes with your approval. Repudiate them and their acts- loudly and repeatedly. Don't let anyone believe you support the situations that cause the problem in any way. Don't encourage the bullies to make America so bad that the migrants will decide to leave- because that is the end result of closing the "borders", endless war, and prohibition. The result will not be solved until you end the cause.

.

Death in "no guns" zones

When I see a "no guns" sign, I interpret it to mean "We hope you die!"

Or, at the least, "Your life means nothing to us".

More death, in yet another "gun free zone", makes me want to print up new cards to hand out any time I enter one of these Free For the Killing zones. Instead of a card saying I won't spend money with them, maybe one with a different message would be appropriate:

By forbidding guns to your customers you prohibit their best chance of surviving any attack with the least chance of being harmed. By this act YOU are accepting liability for my safety in your business, and will be held personally accountable if any harm comes.

I am happy to report that our little local grocery store got rid of its "no guns" sign several months ago- so I have started going there much more often.

.

Government less honest thieves

Government less honest thieves

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)

What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?

For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference.

Perhaps there is a difference, after all.

Those in the first group, who are willing to steal shoes and phones, and kill those who resist, are generally willing to take all the risks themselves. They rarely pretend to be committing their acts for anyone's benefit but their own. They don't pretend you owe them gratitude after they rob you. They never point to an imaginary social contract as justification for their acts. They don't generally claim your "contribution" needs to be repeated on a yearly basis. They often expect to face resistance, and don't generally find much sympathy when they get shot for their efforts. Of the two, they are the more honest thieves.

The other group, those who tax, claim to be acting out of generosity, or to be protecting you from someone worse. Their most bizarre claim of all: they claim "authority" to take your property to hire a gang to protect your property.

Yet, thieves they are; backing their theft with the threat of deadly force. If you refuse to comply, the taxers will continue to escalate the force they use until, at some point, unless you give in before then, they will send an armed gang to take you into custody to be caged, and kill you if you resist. Yet they claim "taxation is voluntary".

I am by no means opposed to everything "tax" money is spent on. I am opposed to not giving people a real choice. "Move to Somalia if you don't like it" doesn't count as choice.

You can't be generous with other people's money, but only with your own. If you pretend to protect someone by doing anything they feel the need to be protected from, your claims are empty.

If you want something you can't afford, invite others to join you in pooling resources to finance it. If you can't get enough people to help you, consider it a clear message that what you want isn't important to enough others, and move on with your life. Or start trying to convince more people why they should want what you want, and to be willing to chip in to get it.

Anything less is hilariously hypocritical.

.

Pointless points

Some people, whenever they say something about someone else, always seem to feel the need to include irrelevant points about that person. "This guy came in the store- he was 'Black'..." or "This guy I know- he's gay..."

And almost never does the story have anything to do with the details they parenthetically add.

I don't see the point.

If someone is telling about me, such as saying I was eating a burrito, making a point to mention I was wearing a hat- when the hat doesn't enter the story in any way- would be silly. Well, making the effort to include irrelevant details about people based on their "race" or "orientation" is just as dumb.

.

Nature, or choice?

"Black" people don't wake up one morning and choose to be "Black", and decide that being "Black" means they need to rob and attack others.

"White" people don't wake up one morning and choose to be "White", and decide that being "White" means they need to hate everyone who isn't "White".

But cops do wake up one morning and decide to join a gang which only continues to exist to attack people, enforce theft against people, force people to obey counterfeit rules which are often harmful and almost always in violation of their Rightful Liberty.

That's why the "argument" is a non-sequitur. And why there is no such thing as a "good cop".

It's not labeling- it's an acceptance of reality and ethics.

.

Innocent until proven guilty

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a good way to run a court or arbitration service, but a lousy way to live. I know that sounds harsh.

People are either guilty or they aren't. Your decision (or court verdict or even evidence) doesn't change their guilt or innocence. You might be wrong either way.

But, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless I know from first hand experience that they either did what they are accused or, or are likely to have done it based on a history I have personal knowledge of.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is being nice, but it can also be foolish and suicidal. Instead, I'll give even the "proved" guilty the benefit of the doubt, while never going to condition white, no matter who it is. If, from personal experience, I know they are guilty and dangerous, though, all bets are off.

.

My ignorance

There are plenty of things I don't know enough about. There isn't enough time to learn everything about everything which might affect me. Sometimes ignorance leads to suspicion or fear. I understand that.

What I don't understand is when people let their ignorance-based fear control them, and then use that fear as an excuse to control others.

Just for example- I don't understand fracking well enough to know whether it is harmful to groundwater or to know whether it causes earthquakes. The "stuff" I have heard against fracking sounds "reasonable", and makes me highly suspicious of the technique. But I don't know enough to really say with any confidence one way or the other. And you probably don't either even if you believe you do.

My safetyness makes me want to err on the side of caution. But not enough to get politicians and "laws" involved, since that is something I know beyond any doubt to be harmful.

.

Kidnap survivors and heroes

A person who has been kidnapped ("arrested") for breaking a counterfeit rule isn't necessarily a hero. Even though they didn't initiate force or violate property while committing their "crime".

A hero is someone who goes through that without giving in to the temptation to do the wrong thing, and comes out stronger and even more principled than before.

At least, that is the person I see as heroic.

.

Seeing the real aggressor

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Society, a country, or a world can't violate or initiate force against you. It's always done an individual at a time.

Even if everyone votes to violate you, it is up to someone to agree to carry out that vote. That one individual will be the one violating you, not all the voters. Although they certainly aren't making matters better.

If I tell Bob to go hit you in the nose, Bob (if he carries it out) is the one guilty of hitting you in the nose. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. I'm not saying it was right of me to tell him to violate you- it wasn't- but the ultimate blame rests on the person stupid or evil enough to do the wrong thing just because some moron told him to. Or millions of morons.

In the same way, it doesn't matter if voters approve some violation by a landslide margin. The real guilt lies with the person stupid or evil enough to enforce the vote.

I don't think it's even possible to be violated by hundreds of people at once. There is always a place where the mob meets the individual, and it is those few people at the edge doing all the violating, no matter how many are behind them.

If you feel violated by someone far away, whom you have never seen or met, you are looking for an excuse to feel victimized.

I may despise Michael Bloomberg and his anti-liberty bigotry, but in spite of the "laws" he is buying across the country, I don't feel he has ever personally violated me. I wouldn't lift a finger to save his parasitic life, but I probably wouldn't ever put forth the effort to punch him in the nose, either. If his "laws" ever violate me, it is purely through the action of some cop or bureaucrat who is in my face, not some vile vermin thousands of miles away.

.

Seeing clearly

I recently got new glasses. First time in over 14 years! Well, technically, I got new lenses in some frames I already had on hand- bought a year ago in anticipation. (If anyone wants to donate to my vision fund, I'd certainly welcome it.) I can see again- with both eyes. This is a good thing.

My vision has always been bad. I got my first glasses about the time I turned 7. I can still remember how strange it felt to realize I hadn't been seeing well before. Until I had something to compare how I was seeing to how I should be seeing, I didn't know I wasn't seeing the world as it was. I didn't know things were out of focus.

Well, the same goes for statists.

Until they are shown what the world really looks like, they can't know they are seeing an out of focus, distorted version of reality. I make it my goal to let a few of them look through my spectacles as often as I can. If they squeeze their eyes shut and don't want to see reality, that's on them. I've done my part.

.

Time to make stand against tyranny

Time to make stand against tyranny

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 7, 2015)

When did chickens become big news in Clovis? When local bullies decided to use them as justification for pushing people around.

It may seem trivial to worry about whether or not the city allows chickens, but it’s a symptom of a pervasive problem: violation of self determination and property rights. The attitude which causes government employees to try to ban chickens is the same attitude behind police brutality, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, anti-gun laws, and other human rights violations. The underlying disorder is the belief in government supremacy.

There is one simple solution.

Once you allow anyone to develop the belief that they are entitled to run your life, there is nowhere they will stop- unless you stop them. At some point you have to put your foot down, make a line in the sand, and say "No". This should be natural for anyone who believes in individual rights.

Enforcing nonsensical rules against keeping chickens is one way to steal property. Sure, the city may not actually take the home- at least not yet- but they are trying to steal the value of the home from the home owner. If you have a camera, but are not allowed to take pictures, you might as well not own one. If you aren't allowed to drive your car, what good is it to you? If you aren't allowed to use your house as you want, you don't really have a home at all.

It doesn't endanger you to stand up for property rights in this case. If you don't stand up for what's right when it is safe and easy, how do you expect to have the courage to stand up for the right thing when it is hard? When there is personal risk? Courage is like a muscle- you need to exercise it. This is a good opportunity for developing some courage. Stand up to those who are trying to destroy the value of a person's private property. Don't back down. Demand Rightful Liberty be respected. Then, if they ignore you, civil disobedience is in order. Maybe what Clovis needs is hundreds of new chicken owners defying the "law".

With the practice people get from this act of righteous rebellion, they can expand to all the other ways the "authorities" try to violate life, liberty, and property. We could make enforcement too costly. Perhaps, we could make them regret ever taking the job.

It is in apparently trivial matters such as this where the future will be determined. Do you want your children or grandchildren to live in liberty, or under tyranny? Choose your side, and make a stand now.

.

Excuses for Borderism

Maybe America and "our culture" can't survive the lack of a government enforced border.
Maybe gun owners will see their liberty stripped away due to new "laws" supported by new migrants.
Maybe welfare will be overwhelmed and run out of funds. LOL.

That still doesn't make borderism OK.

If your culture can't compete, it's probably not worth propping up. America's culture (whatever that is, since it has never included me) is always in flux. It always has been and always will be. It's going to change, I might as well try to influence it to change the way I'd like. I intend to do all in my power to push it toward Rightful Liberty. I can't do that by violating my principles and advocating anti-liberty positions, no matter how "necessary" I may consider them. So I won't.

Gun owners have almost no liberty left, anyway. No matter who you blame for the situation. Your freedom to exercise your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking anyone's permission is basically gone. You still have the right to do so, however, and no rules, policies, or "laws" can ever change that. You are just going to need to decide whether you are going to obey counterfeit "laws" or not. No matter who lives in America, the choice will always be yours to make.

I don't believe "welfare" can ever run out of money, since the money is counterfeited by government. They'll always print more to keep it going. This contributes to the ultimate failure of the US Police State, so I say bring it on! Yes, some people will get hurt. It's not like they haven't had plenty of warning. If they refused to listen, that's not your responsibility. Whatever causes people to become disillusioned (which I suppose means "stripped of the illusion") with The State is a good thing. I want all States to fail- as soon as possible.

The excuses still don't hold up. Supporting borders is supporting States. Do what you want, but I'll continue to believe in private property rights, not collective property which trumps private property rights.

.

Dull 'Hawk-isms

These were all posted as my Facebook statuses recently. I decided to share them here.

• Ron Paul got liberty-leaning statist voters excited by pointing out that 4 + 6 = 10. Bernie Sanders gets economically ignorant voters excited by saying 7 divided by Tuesday wants to be whatever they imagine.

• If there's a Carrington Event level solar storm and we lose all electronics for a few decades, know that even if we never connect again, I am probably very happy with the turn of events. Yes, it's a character flaw.

• (If you support any candidate for president, you are not supporting liberty.)

• I fear Darth Voter much more than Darth Vader.

• "Wanting something to be regulated doesn't mean you want it banned!"  Well, perhaps. But what it means is you want to give someone the power to ban it if they want to. Why would you do that? You can see this effect in many areas.

• What is wrong inside the heads of people who want to ban or regulate stuff?? I seriously don't get it at all.

• You have the right to live according to your faith. You do not have a right to a "government job". 

•  I hate random "what if" scenarios. Especially if they are calculated to scare you into some self-defeating course. 

.

Vaping bans- oh, the stupidity

Laws are based on lies. Those lies are told to convince you to go along with being ordered around.

Recently during a car ride with my parents, the subject of vaping came up.

My dad objects to vaping because "kids put marijuana in e-cigarettes".
My mom objects because she has "heard that it's just as dangerous as smoking".

When confronted by such obvious brainwashing I need to ask questions to show the silliness of the claims, or to find out why the claim justifies "laws". But, instead I usually get irritated.

I don't know if kids put pot in e-cigs. And it doesn't matter if they do. People can put pot in brownies, pipes, paper, car cigarette lighters, glass, and many other things. Should we ban everything?

Even the feds are finally admitting to more medically beneficial effects of Cannabis- while insisting it must remain banned because it "has no legitimate medical use". A lie. But even it it was dangerous, and kids insisted on inhaling it, it doesn't make prohibition right. Eating cat litter is probably much more dangerous than vaping Cannabis, but it isn't a political cause. Yet.

But what if vaping is DANGEROUS?!?

Recent studies suggest that nicotine is probably no more dangerous than caffeine (also a poison). But what if they are wrong? If you want to inhale nicotine- or ingest caffeine- no one has a right to say you can't. For sure, vaping nicotine is going to be less harmful than inhaling nicotine in smoke. But what if I'm wrong about that? It still doesn't matter.

I am a non-smoker. I am not an anti-smoker. I grow tobacco. I have several old pipes that I love to hold and look at. I have an old pipe that looks like something Sherlock Holmes (the popular conception of him, anyway) would have smoked. I like how the old pipes smell- it's a good smell. I like the smell of pipe smoke if someone is smoking one in my presence. Sometimes I enjoy a faint whiff of cigar smoke. Even cigarette smoke brings back fond memories of smoky bars and karaoke. I have no desire to inhale tobacco smoke- unless it is in a bar during karaoke. In which case I'd probably put up with piranhas nipping at my ankles. If I am somewhere, and smoke is bothering me, I move away. It is so simple I can't understand why others don't discover that trick. Yes, there are times or places where you can't move away. In that case you may need to plan ahead. If you don't like being in a car with smoke, don't allow smoking in your car, or don't hitch a ride with a smoker.

I am a non-vaper. I am not an anti-vaper. If I had a vaping pipe that looked like my Sherlock Holmes pipe, I'd probably occasionally use it. I'm not too worried about getting addicted- I seem to be resistant to addiction. I'll not say how I know that. A person vaping in my present wouldn't bother me any more than a person reading a book in my presence. The puffs of vapor don't scare or offend me in any way. Sometimes it even smells good- and is probably healthier than smelling most air freshener sprays. Even if the vapor contains trace amounts of nicotine.

The knee-jerk "laws" and rules against vaping- or against certain people vaping- are idiotic. They are violations of liberty. While a business owner has the right to ban vaping on-premises, doing so shows the owner to be ignorant. Possibly even stupid. Certainly they are someone hopping on a bandwagon of hysteria rather than thinking for himself. They are banning something because it kinda, sorta looks like something else. If you can't see that an e-cig looks nothing like a tobacco cigarette.

I just don't understand the minds of people who want to ban things.

.

"Kill them all, let God sort them out!"

I've mostly kept quiet about the comments which include some form of that statement.

Until now.

It is a horrible sentiment- one only suited for statists. Either religious statists, or statists who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions- not that there's any real difference.

First of all, I utterly lack a belief in any god/s, so I don't believe there is any sorting to be done. This life is it. Killing a person who is currently initiating force or violating property is one thing- the violator chose the path. That could even include those who choose to do this as an essential part of their "job". Killing anyone else is wrong. It is evil. It is what government militaries do. They call it "collateral damage", but it is murder. Anyone following their example is committing evil exactly like them. You can't "beat" the enemy by becoming indistinguishable from him.

You are ending a person's life pointlessly. Or maybe simply because you can't be bothered to discern between the truly guilty and bystanders. You are refusing to do your job of "sorting" and trying to place that burden on someone else- someone whom I am convinced doesn't even exist.

Now, if there were an "afterlife" which included consciousness and the potential for happiness or contentment, I can see where murdering an innocent could be considered not too horrible. But since I see such beliefs as completely unfounded, I see the murder of innocents as completely inexcusable.

"Kill 'em all" is the reality, "let God sort 'em out" is the fantasy by which the evil reality is "justified". If you want to kill everyone, just admit it and don't try to place your burden on your god.

I understand the frustration behind the statement- assuming it isn't coming from an agent provocateur. But frustration isn't a good reason for a shortcut- especially not so serious a shortcut where mistakes can never be rectified. The rabid statists will probably never be changed. The soft statists may be. Threatening to kill them when they aren't currently engaged in violating person or property probably won't help.

I don't care if you believe in gods as long as you don't use that belief to justify murder (or any other initiation of force or property violation). I know some believers I would trust to have my back. Anyone who says "kill them all and let God sort them out", and means it, is not someone I would trust.

If this offends the person I'm referring to, he is welcome to stop reading my blog. He is welcome to call me any names, or see any motives behind my post he feels appropriate. I won't ban him from commenting, nor will I say more about that particular phrase (unless something escalates). In fact, I'm not even angry at the sentiment being expressed.

It simply isn't my way, nor do I think it fits with Rightful Liberty in any way. Your mileage may vary.

.

You can't spell it without "best"

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Recently I saw a news story about a woman who was arrested after pictures surfaced of her having sex with her dog. I'm not proud of the fact that this keeps coming back to my mind, but it does.

And, not in a good way.

It's like other horrific things I have seen or heard of; things I'd rather purge from my mind. But, which, for whatever reason, keep sticking around.

Bestiality utterly disgusts me... but for the life of me, I can't figure out any logical reason to criminalize it.

Who is harmed? The dog in this case had to be willing, plus he isn't a person. He wasn't even hurt. The woman was willing, and apparently enjoyed it. Even in cases of penetrative sex, there is no chance of a half human hybrid resulting. No risk of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion.

It seems to all come down to disgust or "community standards", which are terrible excuses to destroy someone's life.

Which shows the difference between me and the control freaks out there. I am perfectly willing to be disgusted, and not use my emotional reaction as an excuse to kidnap someone and throw them in a cage- or murder them if they try to defend themselves from the kidnappers.

.

Cops vs security

If cops would act strictly as security, some of my objections to them would fade. I might choose to hire someone to investigate acts of aggression against my loved ones, or property violations against us, on my behalf.

I would still object to having to paying them by robbing my neighbors even if I did want to hire them for security. After all, theft is wrong even if it's for something I want.

But, it would still probably be better than what currently exists. I don't like being robbed to pay for my own violation. And this is what cops do. I don't want them kidnapping people for counterfeit "crimes". I don't want to pay them to spend time trying to catch me breaking their counterfeit rules. Modern policing does nothing beneficial, and lots of harmful things.

If I hired security and they treated people as cops do, I would fire them. And sue to get my money back. And encourage their victims to seek restitution. In fact, I would insist on such being part of any agreement I signed with them. You do not violate others or their property on my behalf, and if you do such things, I hope you suffer for it.

If you weren't forced to finance cops, would you?

I most certainly would not.

.

My prejudice

I'm not prejudiced against people. I'm prejudiced against behaviors.

And, only two behaviors at that: using violence against those who aren't currently engaged in violence or property violations, and violating property.

That's it.

Other than that be who you are, do what you do, and I'm not prejudiced against you.

Well, if you support (or beg) others to do those two things for you, I may count that, too. Or, I'll certainly see you as part of the problem, and as not-too-bright.

If you support a candidate for president you are treading on dangerous ground. What you are doing amounts to begging someone to use violence against the innocent, and steal, on your behalf. It doesn't matter if you are supporting a DemoCRAPublican, or another type of socialist- you are saying you want me robbed and violated. That could make me cranky.

Supporting a political candidate is never supporting liberty. It is always supporting the opposite- no matter how "good" you believe the candidate to be.

.

Today’s rules violate natural law

Today’s rules violate natural law

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 31, 2015)

I don’t want the “law” applied to everyone equally, not when the “law” violates rightful liberty. What I want is for no one to have their liberty violated by any law whatsoever.

If one neighbor is being harassed for the height of her grass, and another — who has the right connections — is being ignored, I don’t want the one with connections to be molested, too.  I want both left alone.

If one person is being targeted for keeping chickens against the rules, I don't want them forced into compliance with disgusting rules, I want the rules abolished or universally ignored, since everyone should be able to use their property as they see fit. Just as important, I don't want the hypocrites of the city to get rid of their poultry at the parks; I want them to leave everyone else's poultry alone.

If my enemy is issued a citation because his car's license is expired, or because he has "out of state plates", I don't want the guy several blocks over who is "guilty" of the same infraction to also get a ticket, I want both left alone.

A "law" which violates your right to live as you see fit, earning money however you wish, using your property as it best serves you- as long as you don't violate the person or property of another- is not a real law. It is only a counterfeit rule. It shouldn't be enforced against anyone, no matter who their friends are or what connections they have. No matter who complains about them.

Counterfeit rules look like real laws. They are written in legalese by lawyers, recorded in rule books kept in courthouses, enforced by police, judged by judges, and imposed on people through the threat of violence. Supposedly without regard for person or position. Yet they lack the legitimate foundation of Natural Law. Instead of protecting life, liberty, and property, as Natural Law always must, they violate one or more of those in some way.

Real law doesn't need to be written down or enforced. Counterfeit "law" evaporates without enforcement. No one gets confused about whether it is wrong to rob a bank at gun point and shoot a few bystanders- because this is a violation of Natural Law. Most modern "laws" are nothing like this. They are arbitrary whims, imposed and enforced for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of the rest.

I don't want everyone molested equally- I want everyone's liberty to be respected. Regardless of whether they are my friend or not; even if their liberty offends me in some way. This is equality which matters.

.

Subscriber requests

If you've been thinking of subscribing through Paypal, consider doing so in the last half of the month. The majority of my subscriptions come in during the first half of the month, and it would be nice to have more come in during the second half to sort of even things out.

Also, my daughter is looking for funds of her own (through her mom), in case you'd rather help that way. She'd be thrilled.

Or, you can subscribe to my blogs through Patreon. It also comes in during the first half of the month, but if it got to be a large enough amount, it wouldn't matter when it came in.

In any case, thank you!

.

Shooting yourself in the foot to prove you won't change

Continuing the silliness of "government" ensures that at some time you will be Ruled by people you hate.

Those who kept propping up The State in the 60s ensured that eventually, the hippies they hated would be running the show. And imposing their beliefs and agenda with tactics borrowed and adapted from those who hated them most.

Continuing to prop up the State today means that at some point whoever you hate (or fear) the most will be in charge. It's simply inevitable.

Is this really what you want?

There is a better way. Why not rule yourself instead? Stop supporting States. Withdraw consent. Stop believing in "authority". Stop the silliness.

.

Cantwell on Cops and Blowback

I have the same problem with cops I have with the presence of any other thieves or molesters; the same I have with any other bullies.

I also feel just as much sadness at their deaths as I felt when that disgusting murderer, Virginia Vester, killed himself. I just think "One less parasite taking up space."

It doesn't mean I would hunt them down. They don't deserve that much effort or attention. But I wouldn't lift a finger to prevent consequences from coming home to roost on their deserving heads.

A supporter (thank you!) sent this link to Christopher Cantwell's recent article, The Fall of Law Enforcement. I recommend you read it.

I realize it wasn't the actual connotation meant, but I would love to see "law enforcement" in its Fall/Autumn. It is time for it to fade, wither, and drop. And blow away and be gone. Maybe burned in big piles. Or composted. Any "law" that must be enforced- particularly by bullies paid through theft- is a counterfeit rule. Real Laws- don't initiate force, and don't violate property- don't need to be written to be recognized, and the only enforcement they need is defense of person and property.

I agree with Cantwell that cops are cowards, and cops calling a cop killer a coward is hilarious. As kids used to say, it takes one to know one. (Maybe that means I am a coward. It is possible. If so, I disgust myself.)

My favorite paragraph from the entire article is this one:

The hubris of Sheriff Troy Nehls to say “Despite the cowardice [sic] attack last night, we will continue to provide professional (law enforcement) services to our communities” in the wake of the attack further shows the aforementioned disconnect. Worded differently he could say “We don’t care if our actions so enrage the community that they see fit to shoot us in the back while we fuel our vehicles, we so enjoy our rampant crime and oppression that we will lay down our lives to continue it” and it would convey an identical message.

Again, I agree.

Cops are scum, acting out their aggressive nature and demanding to be left to do so at their whim. Things will change, one way or another. For better or worse. You can't continue to be a bully and pretend there will not be blowback. Well, I guess you can pretend, but you will be surprised that this isn't how reality works. Actions have consequences. Actions repeated to the point they are habitual behaviors have guaranteed consequences.

I find it amusing that cops have such a problem with non-cops acting like cops. Because, that's basically what the guy the sheriff is complaining about did.

And, as always, I remind you that a cop can go from being a verminous parasite to a decent person in less than a moment- that's all the time it takes to quit the "job" and stop being a bully and stop living on theft. And that is the ONLY way a cop can become good.

-

Related, and possibly even BETTER: Who Declared War on Who?

.

Wrong words are lies

Watching a minor celebrity fall from grace recently brings something to mind.

Perverting the meaning of words, people orchestrate the reaction they desire.

Consider the word "child".

Anyone who has developed their secondary sexual characteristics is not, by definition, a child. They may not necessarily be an adult. They may be a "sub-adult". Still not a child by any means.

This isn't about what is, or is not, OK to do to them or with them.

But by using a word incorrectly, your feelings have been manipulated. Based on those feelings, your thinking has been directed. You are guided where someone else wishes you to go.

Watch how many other ways this tactic is used to fool you. I see it in discussions of liberty, anarchy, guns, candidates, drugs, and more. By being aware of how you are being manipulated, maybe you can avoid some of it.

Or, maybe you can use the trick to your advantage.

.

Supporting evil

If you support the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, you are supporting addiction, death, and destruction.

If you support "gun control", you are supporting murder, rape, robbery, and chaos.

If you support "government"/The State you are supporting genocide, lawlessness, theft, and bullying.

If you support cops, you support gang violence and molestation.

If you support "public" schooling, you support ignorance and indoctrination.

If you support "welfare", you support poverty and hopelessness.

If you support government control of healthcare or medications, you support sickness, suffering, and death.

If you support "secure borders", you support selecting for criminals and imprisoning your loved ones.

If you support prison, you support more aggression.

If you support "national security", you support individual insecurity and abuse.

If you support the war on terror, you support the world's most dangerous terrorist organization.

Stop it.

.

Alison Parker's legacy- Mass murder enabling?

I understand why Alison Parker's dad and fiancee are grieving. I would be too. And, I understand that grief makes people say and do incredibly stupid things. Politicians do it automatically, due to their lust for power and control (and their overwhelming cowardice), but real people fall into the same trap easily. Especially when under the power of unbearable grief. I expect to see stupid things come from the mouths of the grief-stricken.

Such as insisting that the government make sure more people can be murdered on the altar of anti-gun "laws".

This is the foolish path enthusiastically being taken by her grieving loved ones, and it is a horrible legacy to leave her memory. A stain upon her. It is using her grave as a toilet and a spittoon. Anyone not telling her dad and fiancee this painful truth is being "nice", but doing them a disservice.

You will never be able to prevent angry, violent people from carrying out their angry violence. You can make murder illegal, they will still murder. Same goes for rape, kidnapping, theft, and what have you.

There is no way to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" that doesn't affect vastly more "right hands"- making them lambs for the slaughter at the hand of any predator who gets the urge.

You can outlaw guns and make possession of guns or ammunition a capital offense (adding to the violence in the process), and people intent on murdering will do it anyway. With or without a gun.

Do you really want to ban and confiscate all the (non-government) guns out there? Are you willing to have that many people die for your cause? You do realize a gun ban would be enforced at the point of many guns, right?

Guns are easy to build. In order to get rid of them, you'd need to round up and kill everyone with knowledge of metallurgy, shop tools, chemistry, physics, etc. And that's just for guns as they exist. To prevent future designs you'd also have to round up and kill everyone with knowledge of electronics and whatever else might be adapted to use in a yet to be invented force-at-a-distance weapon.

You'd have to make sure no cop or soldier ever loaned out, or stole and sold, any gun he had access to. You'd have to make it impossible for one of those government guns to be stolen by anyone, ever. I don't believe that's possible, but maybe you do.

If you support "gun control", you are supporting death and aggression at a scale currently unimaginable.

I can understand why grieving people might do so, but it doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it smart, reasonable, or sensible. It doesn't make their cause "compassionate" or "caring". Their cause is still incredibly evil. And foolish. And stupid.

If you care about the tragic death of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, don't make large scale death and tyranny their legacy. Instead make sure to speak out about any and all rules which demand people be unarmed targets, ripe for the slaughter. Any such rule is asking you to die for a feeling.

And remind people of the critical importance of always being aware of your surroundings, no matter what you are doing, how safe you feel, or how paranoid you believe paying attention to be. It is a matter of life or death.

.

Liberty Lines, August 27, 2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/ Texico, NM State Line Tribune. Remember that my Liberty Lines columns are written for a conservative Christian statist audience. I try to temper my words without compromising principles. It's a tightrope, and I hope I do it well enough.)

The only thing more stupid than drug abuse is a war on drugs. Is drug abuse a problem? Of course it is. But the never-ending War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is even worse. In fact, the majority of the supposed ill-effects of drug use have nothing to do with the drugs themselves and everything to do with enforcement of the prohibition. In a "Drug War" the drugs will always win; in large part, directly due to the effects of prohibition.

It was foolish to ever believe that turning a vice into a crime would make it go away. It is even more foolish to continue to keep it a crime after more than a century of failure. Drugs used to be legal; they should be made legal once again.

Portugal ended prohibition back in 2001. Did it suddenly make drug abuse in Portugal skyrocket? Of course not. In fact, drug use is down, especially among 15- to 24-year olds- the age group most likely to begin using drugs. And it keeps dropping.

Would you start using heroin if it were legal? I wouldn't- unless my doctor and I decided between ourselves that it was the most effective pain relief for a horrible condition. And truthfully, no "law" could stop me in that case anyway.

The myth of Cannabis ("marijuana") as a gateway drug is just that: a pathetic, dishonest myth. People who are willing to take the risk of being kidnapped or robbed ("arrested" or "fined") for using Cannabis are naturally going to be less risk-averse than those who are scared to get caught. This kind of person is more likely to try even more risky things. This is an example of correlation, not causation- confusing the two is one of the main logical errors which result in people believing wrong things and pursuing bad paths.

The myth that everyone who tries the scary drug of the week suddenly becomes a helpless addict is just as pitiful. Statistics show that 10.3 million people have tried methamphetamine at least once, yet only 1.3 million used meth in the last year. If the helpless addict myth were true, the number of people who would be either currently using meth, or dead from using it, would reflect this number. It's not even close.

A certain percentage of people will be addicted to something no matter how harshly you punish them. (Many are addicted to trying to control others through "laws" and ordinances.) Since studies show that people without meaningful social connections are much more likely to become addicts, the better solution to addiction is not to isolate them further by committing enforcement against them, but to give them the connections they really need.

And if they violate person or property while under the influence, or in order to buy the prohibition-inflated substances they seek, shoot them in self defense. Either way the problem is solved.

.

False Flag!

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Maybe it's just me, but I get so tired of seeing all the conspiracy addicts screaming "False flag!" every time there is a publicized multiple killing.

Such as the one which happened in Virginia this morning.

A reporter and her cameraman were shot and killed on live TV. Almost immediately a conspiracy was suspected by the usual crowd. The reporter didn't spurt blood like happens when people are shot in movies, so it was blanks. She needed to go into witness protection for some reason, and this was a way to get her in, plus to give the anti-gun bigots new blood to dance in, so more disarmament "laws" can be imposed. Obviously, the government set it all up for its own ends.

Please.

I have no doubt that there have been false flag events. As long as State bullies find them necessary, they will be committed.

However, multiple murders and mass shootings are probably not going to be among them. Because they are not necessary for the agenda to proceed.

As long as anti-gun "laws" exist, gun related false flags are unnecessary. Anti-gun "laws", and anti-gun business policies, ensure enough murders will continue to occur to make false flag gun attacks superfluous.

Now, if all anti-liberty "laws" were eliminated, then I would expect to see false flag attacks happen in order to try to justify reinstatement of oppressive anti-liberty "laws". That's when you would see unarmed people mowed down, where there was no reason for them to be unarmed.

.

Virginia's on-camera murders

I am sorry for the WDBJ reporter and cameraman murdered in Virginia this morning.

I don't know anything about the victims- whether they were actually good people or not. Their co-workers seem to have liked them. Other than the former co-worker suspected of being the murderer, I suppose.

What I do know is that they were not killed in self defense. The video of the attack makes that clear. Even if they had done something in the past that I would have killed them for, in defense of life or property, they were- at that moment- innocent.

Yes, most in the media are virulently anti-liberty. But not all. Murdering some on camera won't change that for the better.

I have already seen some saying it didn't happen. That it was a false flag. Get over it already.

According to people like that, nothing ever happens- it's false flags all the way down. Down to what? Who knows.

Yes, evil people do exist. They do evil things. Usually without being directed to do so by government agents. Without some Illuminati agenda behind the evil act. Most things are really just as they seem.

No, it isn't the fault of the gun or the "lack of gun laws". No personal grudge justifies the act. Revenge, though popular, is always wrong.

My sympathy goes out to those affected by the evil act of an evil man. And, yes, murdering people who aren't currently violating anyone is evil.

.

Heed their warning

"Rule of law" is the cowardly excuse of vile people.

Every time you hear those words, go to condition orange.

.

Taking flag doesn’t stop beliefs

Taking flag doesn’t stop beliefs

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 24, 2015)

Silly fights over the Confederate flag — actually the Confederate Navy Jack- are still being waged weeks after an evil mass murderer was seen holding it in photographs. The real issue, aggression, gets pushed aside by a non-issue: a flag.

Some people who fly the Confederate flag are undoubtedly racists, as are some who fly any flag. Many aren't racists, but fly it because of love for "The South" today. For them, the Confederacy may have nothing to do with it. Some who fly the flag are showing support for separation from a tyrannical government- I agree with them.

I never owned a Confederate flag. I never felt the desire to have one-- until they started being banned and stigmatized.

I was never much interested in the War of Northern Aggression, other than recognizing it as the second American Revolution; the one the wrong side won.

No, it wasn't "about slavery", although many tried mightily to make it so after it began. It appears they succeeded. Government schools promoting the winning side's propaganda have done a good job rewriting history and making people believe ending slavery was what the war was about. I'm vehemently opposed to slavery of every kind, which is why I'm libertarian.

It also wasn't a civil war, by definition, since the Confederates weren't fighting the Federals for control of the US government, but had divorced the abusive union and set up their own household. The North forced them back into an unhealthy relationship against their will. Again, "public schooling" slants the narrative to benefit the winning side.

But so what if racists fly Confederate flags? If you equate Confederate flags with racists, you should encourage racists to fly them openly. Don't you want racists advertising themselves as such so you'll know who they are?  How will you know who needs to be ostracized if you ban or socially suppress the flags? (Oh, wait, that might be illegal and the state might force you to bake a same sex, Confederate wedding cake against your will if you refuse to do business with someone who hates you!)

Personally I like when those who want to violate me display symbols to let me know what they think of me. If the flag gains popularity among non-racists, then you still win by taking away its sting.

The only real wrong is using violence against someone who isn't physically harming anyone else, nor violating anyone's private property. Ideas and beliefs can't be banned- even if they are ridiculous. Making them illegal or dangerous to hold only reinforces them. You get more of what you try to forcibly stomp out.

.

Statist words

You can tell a statist by his words.

Such as, using "The sandbox" to refer to wherever in the Middle East the US military is invading and violating this week. I'm sure the statists had a name for Vietnam, too.

"Our" when followed by "president", "congress"/"congressman", "representatives", "mayor", "police", "government". "Our" is often worse than "we" or "us".

"Rule of Law" is a big red flag. The word "illegal" is related.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a statist hymn. It is recited and revered by statists.

There are other words which set off alarms, but they may just be false alarms. Words like "patriot", "duty", "service", and "brothers". And "fair", concern, and justice. With these words, context is everything.

Words not only mean things, they have meaning behind their meaning. They can tell you a lot about the person using them. Pay attention.

.

Democracy vs Republic

Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Republic: Two wolves* and a lamb write a constitution saying everyone's rights must be respected within certain parameters. The wolves, pretending the conditions have been met, eat the sheep in accordance with the "law".

*Added: Of course, it could just as easily be one wolf and two sheep.

.