If I buy corn from a farmer, rather than from a grocery store, I might save money. I might get fresher corn. I might even enjoy the experience a little more. What it doesn't mean when I choose to cut out the middleman-- the grocery store-- is that I "hate food".
Yet, this is what statists claim if I prefer alternatives to government monopoly "services".
Of course, most of what government does should not be done at all, but with those few things it does that should be done, government acts as a middleman. It connects providers with those wanting what they provide-- those who build roads with those who want a road built, for example.
The problem is that government then takes a huge cut of the money to pay for its inefficient and harmful bureaucracy- and probably even uses that cut to fund the things it shouldn't be doing which shouldn't be done at all.
Sometimes government has invented new ways of being a middleman by inserting itself into transactions as nothing more than a parasite- adding nothing of value to the trade while adding cost, inefficiency, and red tape- such as by insisting on being involved in gun purchases so it can approve or deny the sale, and take notes of all involved. Truly the idea of sick and perverted minds.
When you cut out the middleman grocer, you might feel a little bad. When you cut out the middleman government employee, you are enhancing your liberty. You are doing a service to yourself and others if you can starve that particular middleman by preventing him from being involved and skimming money from the economy.
Or, as one of my friends recently put it: "if we as individuals try always to 'cut out the middleman' that is government, we will be freer." I couldn't agree more!
.
Monday, March 07, 2016
Sunday, March 06, 2016
The worthless, lazy uncle- Uncle Sam
How do you like supporting that worthless, lazy uncle- Uncle Sam?
He sits on your couch in his underwear and wife-beater shirt, eating your food and telling you what to buy.
He's a pervert and a snoop. His laptop is always on- he's busy hacking into everyone's personal stuff and salivating at their private pictures and videos. He watches you. He also has his own cameras set up in the neighbors' houses- in their bedrooms and bathrooms, even.
He is a child molester- but says it's OK when he does it because he does it for their own good.
He has never had a job, but has always lived by stealing. He says that's OK because he buys you gifts with your money.
He also runs a protection racket. He claims he keeps you safe from neighborhood bullies, but the main reason those bullies are a threat is because he goes around picking fights and trespassing. He's a bigger bully than anyone he claims to protect you from. In fact, he's the only real threat to your life, liberty, and happiness, no matter what he says.
Most of your other relatives say you should be grateful to have him around, because you couldn't survive without him.
The truth is the exact opposite. You would be fine without him, but he'd wither and die without you. And you'd be better off than you've ever been before. At the very least you should kick him out of your house and make him find someone else to sponge off of and push around for a while.
.
Saturday, March 05, 2016
A "genuinely nice" cop
Copsuckers sure do have a wacky definition of "nice".
"Genuinely nice guy," he said. "You didn't have to ask him for anything, because he was already giving it to you...Justice should be swift, because from what I can see, there's no reason that this should have happened."
This brilliance was uttered by the cousin of the off-duty NYPD cop (FYI: cops don't ever consider themselves "off-duty" if it means acting civilized) who rear-ended another driver, then jumped out of his car, pointed a gun at her, and repeatedly yelled "You don't know who I am...I can kill you right now".
Before he could carry out his credible threat he was struck and killed by another driver- an accidental savior.
So, yes, Justice should be swift, and in this case it really was.
Unfortunately the guy chosen by Justice as its delivery driver is being charged with a "crime".
The State hates Justice and does everything it can to prevent it from happening. When it happens anyway, the bullies look for someone to punish.
OK, OK... so that may not have been justice. Not exactly. The cop's victim wasn't returned to her pre-violation condition, but her life very well may have been saved from his aggression and credible threat to murder her.
Maybe it was what they call "Karma".
Good riddance to bad trash- again. If only it could happen this way every time a cop tries to commit enforcement or initiate force in some other way.
.
"Genuinely nice guy," he said. "You didn't have to ask him for anything, because he was already giving it to you...Justice should be swift, because from what I can see, there's no reason that this should have happened."
This brilliance was uttered by the cousin of the off-duty NYPD cop (FYI: cops don't ever consider themselves "off-duty" if it means acting civilized) who rear-ended another driver, then jumped out of his car, pointed a gun at her, and repeatedly yelled "You don't know who I am...I can kill you right now".
Before he could carry out his credible threat he was struck and killed by another driver- an accidental savior.
So, yes, Justice should be swift, and in this case it really was.
Unfortunately the guy chosen by Justice as its delivery driver is being charged with a "crime".
The State hates Justice and does everything it can to prevent it from happening. When it happens anyway, the bullies look for someone to punish.
OK, OK... so that may not have been justice. Not exactly. The cop's victim wasn't returned to her pre-violation condition, but her life very well may have been saved from his aggression and credible threat to murder her.
Maybe it was what they call "Karma".
Good riddance to bad trash- again. If only it could happen this way every time a cop tries to commit enforcement or initiate force in some other way.
.
Thursday, March 03, 2016
Change is scary
"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." ~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 6, 1513- Yes, I am still reading this and still finding truths.)
Sometimes the "new order" isn't all that new, it is just unfamiliar.
Obviously the State's parasites don't want to lose their position.
Cops would lose "authority" and would no longer be able to aggress without much risk of consequences. They don't want to be demoted to mere "mundane". It would destroy their self-image.
Puppeticians would have to produce something of value or starve. No more living on "taxation" and having their worthless opinions imposed on people at the barrel of the cops' guns.
Even the millions of people doing work of variable worth for The State would have something change for them. They might even do the same job, but for voluntary customers who can choose to go elsewhere instead of a captive pool of slaves. That change is scary. But, there is the reality that much of what is done for "government" shouldn't be done at all. These people would have to find new purpose and work.
And, of course, Liberty is largely illegal today. Some people are bothered by the thought of breaking "laws", no matter how evil, worthless, or absurd those "laws" may be.
Psychology also indicates it is harder to lose something than to pass up a reward. People already have "government" and all that comes with it. Statism gives familiarity and predictability to those who drag their feet when presented with the opportunity for liberty. It doesn't matter that it isn't very good- they can imagine worse more easily than they can imagine better. So I try to show them better.
.
Sometimes the "new order" isn't all that new, it is just unfamiliar.
Obviously the State's parasites don't want to lose their position.
Cops would lose "authority" and would no longer be able to aggress without much risk of consequences. They don't want to be demoted to mere "mundane". It would destroy their self-image.
Puppeticians would have to produce something of value or starve. No more living on "taxation" and having their worthless opinions imposed on people at the barrel of the cops' guns.
Even the millions of people doing work of variable worth for The State would have something change for them. They might even do the same job, but for voluntary customers who can choose to go elsewhere instead of a captive pool of slaves. That change is scary. But, there is the reality that much of what is done for "government" shouldn't be done at all. These people would have to find new purpose and work.
And, of course, Liberty is largely illegal today. Some people are bothered by the thought of breaking "laws", no matter how evil, worthless, or absurd those "laws" may be.
Psychology also indicates it is harder to lose something than to pass up a reward. People already have "government" and all that comes with it. Statism gives familiarity and predictability to those who drag their feet when presented with the opportunity for liberty. It doesn't matter that it isn't very good- they can imagine worse more easily than they can imagine better. So I try to show them better.
.
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
Collectivist delusions
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I was having an online discussion with someone who was defending collectivism and objected to those making it out to be a bad thing.
Just to be clear, I think there's a huge difference between cooperation and collectivism.
The difference is consent. The same difference that differentiates between "making love" and rape. You can join together with whoever willingly joins with you, but the moment you leave out consent you become a collectivist- an aggressor- rather than a cooperator; subject to self-defensive violence. It isn't the joining with others that makes a collectivist, it is the coercion they add.
He kept talking about "Big Things" he thought people needed to join together to create, and kept getting upset that others didn't want to be forced to do things he thought were important.
Then he made the statist's fundamental mistake and exposed why he isn't thinking clearly. He characterized individualists as "the group of people who don't consent to being a part of society...".
It's such a common mistake. Collectivism (particularly "government"- The State) is the opposite of society. It is the collectivists who refuse to be a part of society- refuse to be civilized. Instead they use aggressive force to short circuit society and have their way with others. That is barbarism- although it has been dressed up in fancy suits and given offices and convinced people it isn't what it is.
It doesn't matter to me if you establish your very own little communist enclave. Have at it. What does matter to me is whether you force others to participate. If you rob ("tax") me to support your project, you have crossed the line into collectivism. If you don't let people opt out or leave your group, you are violating them.
If you force them to leave "communal property" behind when they leave the commune, and they had already agreed to that condition from the beginning, too bad for them. However, if you come to me and claim that because I live in the area where you established your enclave- even though I never agreed to abide by your rules- I must either join or leave my property behind, we will have a problem.
If all my neighbors are communists/socialists/DemoCRAPublicans, but will coexist with me, I am fine with that. If they claim "authority" over me, and seek to violate my life, liberty, and property, I will resist their violations.
Rejecting collectivism isn't anti-social or isolationist. But even if an individual is anti-social or isolationist, it's not your concern. And it isn't suicidal. He tried to compare individualism to a liver or brain being separated from the human body. It's not the same. I can live without other humans- people have done so for years. It's not optimal. But a liver can't live without the rest of the body or an artificial substitute. Neither can a brain.
He also tried (confusingly, I believe) to tie one position or the other to "free will", and went on a tangent about whether it exists or not. Not that I see any way that has any bearing on the matter.
If free will exists, you have no right to violate it in a person who isn't violating others.
If free will doesn't exist, I have no choice but to be an individualist and trying to force me into a coercive collective won't end well.
Collectivistic statists are an interesting breed. Simplistic in their beliefs. Stubborn in refusing to see reality. But educational to occasionally talk to. Their sky really is a different color.
.
I was having an online discussion with someone who was defending collectivism and objected to those making it out to be a bad thing.
Just to be clear, I think there's a huge difference between cooperation and collectivism.
The difference is consent. The same difference that differentiates between "making love" and rape. You can join together with whoever willingly joins with you, but the moment you leave out consent you become a collectivist- an aggressor- rather than a cooperator; subject to self-defensive violence. It isn't the joining with others that makes a collectivist, it is the coercion they add.
He kept talking about "Big Things" he thought people needed to join together to create, and kept getting upset that others didn't want to be forced to do things he thought were important.
Then he made the statist's fundamental mistake and exposed why he isn't thinking clearly. He characterized individualists as "the group of people who don't consent to being a part of society...".
It's such a common mistake. Collectivism (particularly "government"- The State) is the opposite of society. It is the collectivists who refuse to be a part of society- refuse to be civilized. Instead they use aggressive force to short circuit society and have their way with others. That is barbarism- although it has been dressed up in fancy suits and given offices and convinced people it isn't what it is.
It doesn't matter to me if you establish your very own little communist enclave. Have at it. What does matter to me is whether you force others to participate. If you rob ("tax") me to support your project, you have crossed the line into collectivism. If you don't let people opt out or leave your group, you are violating them.
If you force them to leave "communal property" behind when they leave the commune, and they had already agreed to that condition from the beginning, too bad for them. However, if you come to me and claim that because I live in the area where you established your enclave- even though I never agreed to abide by your rules- I must either join or leave my property behind, we will have a problem.
If all my neighbors are communists/socialists/DemoCRAPublicans, but will coexist with me, I am fine with that. If they claim "authority" over me, and seek to violate my life, liberty, and property, I will resist their violations.
Rejecting collectivism isn't anti-social or isolationist. But even if an individual is anti-social or isolationist, it's not your concern. And it isn't suicidal. He tried to compare individualism to a liver or brain being separated from the human body. It's not the same. I can live without other humans- people have done so for years. It's not optimal. But a liver can't live without the rest of the body or an artificial substitute. Neither can a brain.
He also tried (confusingly, I believe) to tie one position or the other to "free will", and went on a tangent about whether it exists or not. Not that I see any way that has any bearing on the matter.
If free will exists, you have no right to violate it in a person who isn't violating others.
If free will doesn't exist, I have no choice but to be an individualist and trying to force me into a coercive collective won't end well.
Collectivistic statists are an interesting breed. Simplistic in their beliefs. Stubborn in refusing to see reality. But educational to occasionally talk to. Their sky really is a different color.
.
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
No One great choice for president
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 29, 2016)
Donald Trump: Making elections funny again.
I'm not usually interested in watching elections or the hysterics leading up to them. I see sincere but silly people trying to convince me that the bowl of sewage they dipped from the cesspool is more delicious, or at least less toxic, than the bowl of sewage some other people dipped from the same cesspool. I'm not interested in sampling either bowl.
I have never needed a president. I can't point to a single instance where a president improved my life in any way. The same goes for any political office.
I am told I need to help choose the person to fill these offices, since someone will be elected whether or not I participate. Sorry, but I'd rather keep my hands clean.
So, no, I don't want Trump to be president any more than I want any of the other covetous control freaks to be president.
I am, however, enjoying watching his campaign out of the corner of my eye.
It started back in the middle of August when Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams predicted Trump would win the election. My interest grew in October when Adams predicted a Trump landslide.
He bases this on Trump's skill at persuasion- what you could think of as hypnosis without the trance and clucking. Adams is also trained in hypnosis and says he has never seen anyone use persuasion as skillfully as Trump. The simplistic language; the appeal to identity; the rejection of reason; the way he offers a blank canvas with his words and lets the listener paint the picture he wants to see, believing this is what Trump said.
Several times Adams has predicted how Trump could neuter a particular opponent-- using what he refers to as "linguistic kill shots"-- only to have his prediction come to pass within a week or so. It is fascinating.
So, even though I have no need for a president and pity those who believe they do, I hope Trump wins if somebody has to, simply because I'd like to believe it possible for someone to look beneath the surface and see how voters are tricked into voting for someone.
Of course, my only choice for president is No One. No One would be a great president. No One is honest enough to trust with that power. No One can run your life better than you. No One deserves your vote. Vote for No One.
.
Donald Trump: Making elections funny again.
I'm not usually interested in watching elections or the hysterics leading up to them. I see sincere but silly people trying to convince me that the bowl of sewage they dipped from the cesspool is more delicious, or at least less toxic, than the bowl of sewage some other people dipped from the same cesspool. I'm not interested in sampling either bowl.
I have never needed a president. I can't point to a single instance where a president improved my life in any way. The same goes for any political office.
I am told I need to help choose the person to fill these offices, since someone will be elected whether or not I participate. Sorry, but I'd rather keep my hands clean.
So, no, I don't want Trump to be president any more than I want any of the other covetous control freaks to be president.
I am, however, enjoying watching his campaign out of the corner of my eye.
It started back in the middle of August when Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams predicted Trump would win the election. My interest grew in October when Adams predicted a Trump landslide.
He bases this on Trump's skill at persuasion- what you could think of as hypnosis without the trance and clucking. Adams is also trained in hypnosis and says he has never seen anyone use persuasion as skillfully as Trump. The simplistic language; the appeal to identity; the rejection of reason; the way he offers a blank canvas with his words and lets the listener paint the picture he wants to see, believing this is what Trump said.
Several times Adams has predicted how Trump could neuter a particular opponent-- using what he refers to as "linguistic kill shots"-- only to have his prediction come to pass within a week or so. It is fascinating.
So, even though I have no need for a president and pity those who believe they do, I hope Trump wins if somebody has to, simply because I'd like to believe it possible for someone to look beneath the surface and see how voters are tricked into voting for someone.
Of course, my only choice for president is No One. No One would be a great president. No One is honest enough to trust with that power. No One can run your life better than you. No One deserves your vote. Vote for No One.
.
A 600 Year-old truth
"... for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse."~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 3, 1513)
And so it still is, with every election and revolution.
Vote for this parasite, because he's better than that bully and you'll be more free if he wins.
Yeah, right.
Every president is worse than the ones before- each builds upon the abuses and violations of their predecessors and make up their own. If they claim to be reducing government, you can bet they are lying and building bigger government behind you back while you are distracted. When any president leaves office your liberty will be damaged a bit more than it was when he took office.
Because liberty NEVER comes from politics. You have to make it yourself. And TAKE it yourself. You can't exercise your liberty while obeying "laws"- liberty is the province of the outlaw.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Defend yourself and your property from those who violate you. Realize that defending yourself from violators will have consequences- and the consequences for defending yourself from certain serial violators will be steeper than for defending yourself from others- so be smart and choose your battles. Liberty-lovers have enough martyrs already.
Stop worrying about trading one bully for another, unless you know for certain you can trade for a weak, frightened bully you can easily get rid of without replacing him or her with anything.
And go out and live.
.
And so it still is, with every election and revolution.
Vote for this parasite, because he's better than that bully and you'll be more free if he wins.
Yeah, right.
Every president is worse than the ones before- each builds upon the abuses and violations of their predecessors and make up their own. If they claim to be reducing government, you can bet they are lying and building bigger government behind you back while you are distracted. When any president leaves office your liberty will be damaged a bit more than it was when he took office.
Because liberty NEVER comes from politics. You have to make it yourself. And TAKE it yourself. You can't exercise your liberty while obeying "laws"- liberty is the province of the outlaw.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Defend yourself and your property from those who violate you. Realize that defending yourself from violators will have consequences- and the consequences for defending yourself from certain serial violators will be steeper than for defending yourself from others- so be smart and choose your battles. Liberty-lovers have enough martyrs already.
Stop worrying about trading one bully for another, unless you know for certain you can trade for a weak, frightened bully you can easily get rid of without replacing him or her with anything.
And go out and live.
.
Monday, February 29, 2016
My non-blog
This time, no transcript. Just me yapping in the wind (recorded Sunday 2-28-2016. Sorry about the wind noise. I can't control the weather, and wouldn't usually want to even if I could.).
In the video I touched on this idea- here, I'll say just a little more about it.
"Build a wall!"
"Free stuff!"
The covey-call of statists; of socialists, really.
They may want to steal your property for different projects, and may want to deny your self-determination in different ways, but they are birds of a feather.
They are all anti-liberty bigots, and they disgust me.
.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Social media
There are a lot of people who hate social media. I empathize with some of their reasons, even as I (believe I) look beyond them.
Social media is a tool, just like a gun. You wouldn't stare down the barrel of a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger, and there are things you should never do on social media.
When Cheyenne died, social media (in particular Facebook) saved my sanity. It would be dishonest of me to deny that. And this blog- also social media- helps me in multiple ways almost every day.
But there are dangers. Particularly to privacy. Some you can lessen, some you can't. When I started out on social media, I used a sort of alias. Some places, I still do (it won't do any good to ask what the alias is). Sometimes I wish I had never exposed my identity. Other times it really doesn't matter to me- I spent most of my earlier life being a private hermit, and I understand the drawbacks of that life, too.
I also notice that the people who get the most stirred up over the "drama" they suffer because of social media, cause almost all of that drama themselves.
Ultimately there are benefits and pitfalls. To everything. It is up to you to decide what is worth it and what isn't.
And, whatever your views on it, I appreciate your choice to interact with me through this tool.
.
Social media is a tool, just like a gun. You wouldn't stare down the barrel of a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger, and there are things you should never do on social media.
When Cheyenne died, social media (in particular Facebook) saved my sanity. It would be dishonest of me to deny that. And this blog- also social media- helps me in multiple ways almost every day.
But there are dangers. Particularly to privacy. Some you can lessen, some you can't. When I started out on social media, I used a sort of alias. Some places, I still do (it won't do any good to ask what the alias is). Sometimes I wish I had never exposed my identity. Other times it really doesn't matter to me- I spent most of my earlier life being a private hermit, and I understand the drawbacks of that life, too.
I also notice that the people who get the most stirred up over the "drama" they suffer because of social media, cause almost all of that drama themselves.
Ultimately there are benefits and pitfalls. To everything. It is up to you to decide what is worth it and what isn't.
And, whatever your views on it, I appreciate your choice to interact with me through this tool.
.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Corporations: just another branch of The State
"They are a private company..."
This is supposed to excuse any corporation's rights violation... but does it? Really?
A private company is one owned by individuals who are accountable and who will face serious consequences if they screw up and hurt somebody. They can make up any rules they want, and if part of the cost of doing business with them is that you are agreeing to submit to being sprayed with nitric acid randomly while in the store, you are free to refuse to do business with them. If you don't do business with them, they won't be getting any of your money. If they go out of business due to being stupid or evil, no stolen money will be going to bail them out. They live or die based on how they treat customers.
A corporation is, in many cases, a different critter.
A corporation has joined with The State to get some privileges and perks. The "corporation" may face consequences for screwing up and hurting someone, but the individual who made the decision probably won't. If they get big enough to feel comfortable abusing customers, you can bet they are probably "too big to fail", and in the event of massive evil and/or stupidity, they will be bailed out by their partners in The State. You can refuse to do business with them, but they will be getting some of your money no matter what.
And, to my thinking anyway, this makes it no longer a "private company", but a willing and eager partner of The State- with all its evils. And the illegitimacy that goes along with that. As such, I think of it, not as a "private company", but as a part of the State and subject to the same limits on behavior I hold the State to. (Yes, YOU and I outrank The State and are totally within our rights to hold it to certain behavior, not the backwards way statists wish the arrangement to be.)
I know lots and lots (and lots) of people disagree with me on this point.
They ask "what is the company supposed to do, stay unincorporated and miss out on the perks and privileges? Wouldn't anyone take such a thing when offered?" Maybe. I can see being robbed ("taxed") less, by "incorporating" when possible. But it doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility, no matter how The State sees it.
You have no obligation to obey rules the State makes up if they go against Rightful Liberty. And I still believe the same goes for "corporations" that willingly get in bed with the State. Sure, they get some perks, but those perks come at a price. One of those prices is that I no longer feel obligated to submit to their State-like counterfeit rules.
.
This is supposed to excuse any corporation's rights violation... but does it? Really?
A private company is one owned by individuals who are accountable and who will face serious consequences if they screw up and hurt somebody. They can make up any rules they want, and if part of the cost of doing business with them is that you are agreeing to submit to being sprayed with nitric acid randomly while in the store, you are free to refuse to do business with them. If you don't do business with them, they won't be getting any of your money. If they go out of business due to being stupid or evil, no stolen money will be going to bail them out. They live or die based on how they treat customers.
A corporation is, in many cases, a different critter.
A corporation has joined with The State to get some privileges and perks. The "corporation" may face consequences for screwing up and hurting someone, but the individual who made the decision probably won't. If they get big enough to feel comfortable abusing customers, you can bet they are probably "too big to fail", and in the event of massive evil and/or stupidity, they will be bailed out by their partners in The State. You can refuse to do business with them, but they will be getting some of your money no matter what.
And, to my thinking anyway, this makes it no longer a "private company", but a willing and eager partner of The State- with all its evils. And the illegitimacy that goes along with that. As such, I think of it, not as a "private company", but as a part of the State and subject to the same limits on behavior I hold the State to. (Yes, YOU and I outrank The State and are totally within our rights to hold it to certain behavior, not the backwards way statists wish the arrangement to be.)
I know lots and lots (and lots) of people disagree with me on this point.
They ask "what is the company supposed to do, stay unincorporated and miss out on the perks and privileges? Wouldn't anyone take such a thing when offered?" Maybe. I can see being robbed ("taxed") less, by "incorporating" when possible. But it doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility, no matter how The State sees it.
You have no obligation to obey rules the State makes up if they go against Rightful Liberty. And I still believe the same goes for "corporations" that willingly get in bed with the State. Sure, they get some perks, but those perks come at a price. One of those prices is that I no longer feel obligated to submit to their State-like counterfeit rules.
.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Scumbag Texas
A couple of years ago, the bullies who call themselves "The State of Texas" decided to make up a new evil rule: they decided to forbid driving in the left lane of divided highways, except for passing. They have erected new signage, paid for with stolen money: "Left lane for passing only".
It may have something to do with keeping that lane open for their hired goons to travel faster. Or to keep it open so you can move over when one of the delicate little cowards is engaged in robbing a traveler on the right shoulder and doesn't want to become roadkill in the process. (Poor little parasites!)
Well, so then what did these government idiots do? They tore up the right lane's surface so badly you can't drive any distance on it without fighting to stay in control while risking a blowout. Only the right lane, of course. For miles.
I took a couple of little trips recently- of only about 40 miles round trip- but almost the entire trip was on this destroyed surface. I noticed that just about everyone on the road ignored the dumb rule- which is heartening. The entire line of traffic was ALL in the left lane for almost the entire stretch.
I'm sure if one of the armed bullies had seen us, he would have stopped, robbed, and molested someone, but he couldn't have gotten us all.
I have wondered if this is just a money-making scheme. The highway has been torn up like this for months- in preparation for "resurfacing", I'm sure. But there are no signs saying anything, and no equipment at the ready. How much money are they stealing above and beyond their normal take due to the condition of the road? Is this why they are in no hurry, and haven't suspended the dumb rule for the duration?
.
It may have something to do with keeping that lane open for their hired goons to travel faster. Or to keep it open so you can move over when one of the delicate little cowards is engaged in robbing a traveler on the right shoulder and doesn't want to become roadkill in the process. (Poor little parasites!)
Well, so then what did these government idiots do? They tore up the right lane's surface so badly you can't drive any distance on it without fighting to stay in control while risking a blowout. Only the right lane, of course. For miles.
 |
| The trap is set |
I took a couple of little trips recently- of only about 40 miles round trip- but almost the entire trip was on this destroyed surface. I noticed that just about everyone on the road ignored the dumb rule- which is heartening. The entire line of traffic was ALL in the left lane for almost the entire stretch.
I'm sure if one of the armed bullies had seen us, he would have stopped, robbed, and molested someone, but he couldn't have gotten us all.
I have wondered if this is just a money-making scheme. The highway has been torn up like this for months- in preparation for "resurfacing", I'm sure. But there are no signs saying anything, and no equipment at the ready. How much money are they stealing above and beyond their normal take due to the condition of the road? Is this why they are in no hurry, and haven't suspended the dumb rule for the duration?
.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Panic the herd
"This is the most crucial election in our lifetime". LOL.
Every single time.
Does anyone still buy that from the v*te pushers?
.
Every single time.
Does anyone still buy that from the v*te pushers?
.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
‘I don’t know’ makes flimsy cover
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 22, 2016)
“I don’t know” can be one of the smartest things you ever say. At least, when you honestly don’t know.
Whenever possible, it should be followed up with finding out what it was you didn’t know. Once you discover a gap in your knowledge, how can you be content to leave it unfilled?
"I don't know" can also be one of the dumbest things you say when you say it because you don't want to know, or don't want to speak the truth.
You can claim you don't know who would be the best president, what government should do, or which laws should be enacted, but you could know. Easily. You don't even need to find out anything new. The answers are inside you. You've known since you were five years old, or younger, that it's not OK to start a fight or take what doesn't belong to you. It takes years of schooling to trick people into believing exceptions exist.
Once you remember what you've known you can see no one is suited to preside over any other person who didn't specifically sign an agreement to be represented by that person. Voting for them isn't enough. Even in the event of a landslide only a small minority of the population voted for the declared winner.
The question of what government should do about anything must be answered with "Nothing. Get out of the way. Stop." Unless everyone lies to children about starting fights and stealing being wrong.
In the same way, if a law violates anyone's liberty it shouldn't be passed or enforced. Not ever.
"I don't know" only works in these instances until you think. You just lost your excuse.
Maybe you wish to avoid the truth by saying you don't know when actually you'd simply rather not face what it is you are supporting.
People seem to believe they look enlightened by not condemning acts which violate person or property, and those who habitually commit those acts. They pretend they are keeping an open mind. They are mistaken.
You don't need to be a victim of murder to come out against murder. Not only murder- the ultimate violation of person- but lesser violations as well. Those who insist you can't understand the complexities involved until you have been on both sides are lying.
So admit you don't know when you honestly don't know. But don't hide behind "I don't know" when facing the truth would make you uncomfortable.
.
“I don’t know” can be one of the smartest things you ever say. At least, when you honestly don’t know.
Whenever possible, it should be followed up with finding out what it was you didn’t know. Once you discover a gap in your knowledge, how can you be content to leave it unfilled?
"I don't know" can also be one of the dumbest things you say when you say it because you don't want to know, or don't want to speak the truth.
You can claim you don't know who would be the best president, what government should do, or which laws should be enacted, but you could know. Easily. You don't even need to find out anything new. The answers are inside you. You've known since you were five years old, or younger, that it's not OK to start a fight or take what doesn't belong to you. It takes years of schooling to trick people into believing exceptions exist.
Once you remember what you've known you can see no one is suited to preside over any other person who didn't specifically sign an agreement to be represented by that person. Voting for them isn't enough. Even in the event of a landslide only a small minority of the population voted for the declared winner.
The question of what government should do about anything must be answered with "Nothing. Get out of the way. Stop." Unless everyone lies to children about starting fights and stealing being wrong.
In the same way, if a law violates anyone's liberty it shouldn't be passed or enforced. Not ever.
"I don't know" only works in these instances until you think. You just lost your excuse.
Maybe you wish to avoid the truth by saying you don't know when actually you'd simply rather not face what it is you are supporting.
People seem to believe they look enlightened by not condemning acts which violate person or property, and those who habitually commit those acts. They pretend they are keeping an open mind. They are mistaken.
You don't need to be a victim of murder to come out against murder. Not only murder- the ultimate violation of person- but lesser violations as well. Those who insist you can't understand the complexities involved until you have been on both sides are lying.
So admit you don't know when you honestly don't know. But don't hide behind "I don't know" when facing the truth would make you uncomfortable.
.
Justifying The State
If you justify the existence of "government"- The State- by saying because of a lack of godliness, "men are not to be trusted", you might have a thinking problem.
Just exactly who do you believe makes up these governments you feel “we need”, if not those men you say are “not to be trusted”?
If god can somehow make men good enough to govern others, why do you doubt his ability to make men good enough to govern themselves? Seems contradictory to me.
.
Just exactly who do you believe makes up these governments you feel “we need”, if not those men you say are “not to be trusted”?
If god can somehow make men good enough to govern others, why do you doubt his ability to make men good enough to govern themselves? Seems contradictory to me.
.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Communication isn't as easy as it looks
Communication doesn't seem like it should be so difficult. And, often people seem to believe they are communicating when they aren't.
Often it's because one particular word is being used to mean different (or even opposite) things by each person. Or sometimes the trouble lies elsewhere.
Sometimes there isn't a precise word to convey the meaning I need. In the past I have invented a few of my own words, but generally I use words already out there.
Then, to try to avoid confusion, I define the words as I use them.
Sometimes people disagree with the particular words I use. And sometimes, they might be right, according to the dictionary definitions. Sometimes I disagree with the dictionary definitions, too.
A few words I have experienced this with are "moral", "anarchy", "freedom", "liberty", and "government".
The dictionary definitions as they stand simply won't work- they are too fuzzy or include opposing concepts under the same word. But, I still need to get my meaning across, and the best way I can see doing that is to define what I mean when I use a certain word. If you have a better idea, let me know.
.
Often it's because one particular word is being used to mean different (or even opposite) things by each person. Or sometimes the trouble lies elsewhere.
Sometimes there isn't a precise word to convey the meaning I need. In the past I have invented a few of my own words, but generally I use words already out there.
Then, to try to avoid confusion, I define the words as I use them.
Sometimes people disagree with the particular words I use. And sometimes, they might be right, according to the dictionary definitions. Sometimes I disagree with the dictionary definitions, too.
A few words I have experienced this with are "moral", "anarchy", "freedom", "liberty", and "government".
The dictionary definitions as they stand simply won't work- they are too fuzzy or include opposing concepts under the same word. But, I still need to get my meaning across, and the best way I can see doing that is to define what I mean when I use a certain word. If you have a better idea, let me know.
.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Beliefs full of holes
There are many things I used to believe- and speak passionately in defense of- that I no longer believe.
In arguing the issues with others, they pointed out the holes in my beliefs, and I (eventually, reluctantly, painfully) saw they were right. It was unpleasant. But, I'd rather change my beliefs than hold on to something I now saw couldn't quite be the way I believed it was.
The funny thing is, they weren't always happy with where seeing the holes led me. They had pointed out the holes, assuming I would come to agree with their position, when the trouble was I already saw the holes in their beliefs, so I couldn't go there. And sometimes, what looks like a hole to someone else, is only the hole they are looking through.
The more of those holes I saw, and the more of my beliefs that had to be modified because of seeing them and fixing the problem, the more I moved toward anarchism. There were other changes, too, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.
I'm sure, looking at history, I still have holes in my beliefs left to discover. And I hope I'll be as willing to see them, when they are pointed out, as I have been in the past.
So, yes, keep speaking up. Keep trying to show people the holes in their beliefs. But if you have holes in your own beliefs- whether you are aware of them or not- don't be surprised if people don't come to agree with you, but choose a third path. Or dismiss the holes you imagine you are seeing while looking through your own.
.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Are YOU a monster?
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Your feelings make no difference. The "law" makes no difference. If you ban guns on property you manage, You Are A Monster.
You are telling the world you don't care about anyone's safety- except the safety of people who come to your property armed and intent on murder.
Again: your feelings are irrelevant, as are "laws". Those things don't change the truth of what you are doing. You are helping murderers carry out their attacks. Yes, YOU!
Because- and you know you've heard this countless times, yet you fail to grasp the reality of it: Bad guys who already don't mind breaking "laws" forbidding rape, murder, theft, or whatever ARE NOT GOING TO BE BOTHERED BY THE FACT THEY ARE BREAKING ANOTHER RULE!!! The ONLY effect your rule might have is to keep good armed people away- the very people you NEED to have around when the bad guys saunter past your silly signs.
I can't stress this enough because rules like yours KILL PEOPLE all the time. If you ban guns on property you are responsible for, you are saying you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for a political agenda. You are not being "reasonable" or cautious, or even "law abiding". You are being a monster who is loudly proclaiming that innocent lives don't mean squat to you.
And if you justify it with "laws" and such, you are also a coward; unwilling to ignore deadly rules for the sake of appearances.
It is appalling and sickening that people like you are mistakenly given any responsibility over anything.
.
.
Your feelings make no difference. The "law" makes no difference. If you ban guns on property you manage, You Are A Monster.
You are telling the world you don't care about anyone's safety- except the safety of people who come to your property armed and intent on murder.
Again: your feelings are irrelevant, as are "laws". Those things don't change the truth of what you are doing. You are helping murderers carry out their attacks. Yes, YOU!
Because- and you know you've heard this countless times, yet you fail to grasp the reality of it: Bad guys who already don't mind breaking "laws" forbidding rape, murder, theft, or whatever ARE NOT GOING TO BE BOTHERED BY THE FACT THEY ARE BREAKING ANOTHER RULE!!! The ONLY effect your rule might have is to keep good armed people away- the very people you NEED to have around when the bad guys saunter past your silly signs.
I can't stress this enough because rules like yours KILL PEOPLE all the time. If you ban guns on property you are responsible for, you are saying you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for a political agenda. You are not being "reasonable" or cautious, or even "law abiding". You are being a monster who is loudly proclaiming that innocent lives don't mean squat to you.
And if you justify it with "laws" and such, you are also a coward; unwilling to ignore deadly rules for the sake of appearances.
It is appalling and sickening that people like you are mistakenly given any responsibility over anything.
.
.
America: it was probably a nice concept
I can get irritated when people get tied up in definitions and words.
And, yet, I can do the same thing.
Many years ago I said "If you love America, fear the US", and "The US is the greatest threat America has ever faced". Many people don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll explain.
It bothers me that people use the words "The United States" (or even worse, "The US") to refer to America. It bothers me less now that I recognize the evil of every State, but it does still bother me some. It's a flaw.
But, lets trace the course of this trainwreck.
Originally, there were just people. They formed communities and some of them tied their identity to those communities. Some of the communities merged, and merged again, and joined to become states. A tragic mistake, but it is as it is.
Over time, in one of the places on Earth, those states united to become a nation, a sort of compound state: America. Again, there is nothing good about nations- any nations- but we are talking about what happened, not what should have happened.
Sometimes the people who lived in America liked to point out that America consisted of states which had united, and would describe America as "the united states of America", just like I could describe myself as a combination of various body parts, which if I wanted to spell it out, I could do by saying I consist of "the various parts of Kent". Yet, I remain Kent, and the united states of America remains America.
Or, does it?
Now it seems the "Union" has become more important than America in the minds of most people. "United States" is routinely capitalized, and often "America" is dropped altogether. "America" has become unimportant.
That's like me being called "The Various Parts" instead of "Kent".
The attractive promises made at the founding of America have all been broken now. Wise people see this is where "government" always leads, and why establishing one, even with possibly "good intentions", is a horrible mistake.
This particular nation has gone from being "America" to being "the US", and the US is getting further along the path toward... well... nothing good.
It's the fault of those who continue to support government- especially by working for it. The blame that rests with people in the military and cops is exponentially greater than the blame anyone else bears- they are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. They are the hired guns of the enemy- both in your hometown and around the planet. Their treachery is unforgivable.
Left to play itself out, this ends only one way- regardless of the symbol that will come to represent it.
And, yet, I can do the same thing.
Many years ago I said "If you love America, fear the US", and "The US is the greatest threat America has ever faced". Many people don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll explain.
It bothers me that people use the words "The United States" (or even worse, "The US") to refer to America. It bothers me less now that I recognize the evil of every State, but it does still bother me some. It's a flaw.
But, lets trace the course of this trainwreck.
Originally, there were just people. They formed communities and some of them tied their identity to those communities. Some of the communities merged, and merged again, and joined to become states. A tragic mistake, but it is as it is.
Over time, in one of the places on Earth, those states united to become a nation, a sort of compound state: America. Again, there is nothing good about nations- any nations- but we are talking about what happened, not what should have happened.
Sometimes the people who lived in America liked to point out that America consisted of states which had united, and would describe America as "the united states of America", just like I could describe myself as a combination of various body parts, which if I wanted to spell it out, I could do by saying I consist of "the various parts of Kent". Yet, I remain Kent, and the united states of America remains America.
Or, does it?
Now it seems the "Union" has become more important than America in the minds of most people. "United States" is routinely capitalized, and often "America" is dropped altogether. "America" has become unimportant.
That's like me being called "The Various Parts" instead of "Kent".
The attractive promises made at the founding of America have all been broken now. Wise people see this is where "government" always leads, and why establishing one, even with possibly "good intentions", is a horrible mistake.
This particular nation has gone from being "America" to being "the US", and the US is getting further along the path toward... well... nothing good.
It's the fault of those who continue to support government- especially by working for it. The blame that rests with people in the military and cops is exponentially greater than the blame anyone else bears- they are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. They are the hired guns of the enemy- both in your hometown and around the planet. Their treachery is unforgivable.
Left to play itself out, this ends only one way- regardless of the symbol that will come to represent it.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Feelings don't alter reality
It happens from time to time; I have been feeling really discouraged and down for the past week or so. This makes it hard to write, among other things.
Events of the past few months have probably not helped.
But, no matter how I feel, I still know where I stand. I know what I know to be true, and I want to know what I don't yet know. Whether it confirms the things I suspect, but don't know, or disproves them. I'd rather know I've been wrong than "feel smart". In fact, I love learning that something I thought was true isn't- even if it means I have to adjust.
No matter what is going on in my head, I know I have no right to initiate force. I know I have no right to violate your property. I know you owe me nothing beyond respecting my life, liberty, and property, and that if you don't do this minimum, I can defend myself from you or your agents with a clear conscience. I know my existence places no obligation on you beyond this.
And, for the most part, as long as you don't have a government "job", I know you'll probably live up to it. Almost all the aggression and property violations I have experienced in my life were committed by people using the excuse of "government"- and the few violators who were freelance I was able to deal with. Or not.
I don't know how every little problem will be solved if I don't allow myself to use (or advocate) aggression or theft. Or even if every problem can be solved without aggression and/or theft. I suspect there are unsolvable problems out there, and even if I wish it weren't true, I am OK if that's just the way reality is. It changes nothing to feel otherwise.
Regardless of how I feel, there is a firm foundation propping me up. It may not be much, but it's enough. It has to be.
.
Events of the past few months have probably not helped.
But, no matter how I feel, I still know where I stand. I know what I know to be true, and I want to know what I don't yet know. Whether it confirms the things I suspect, but don't know, or disproves them. I'd rather know I've been wrong than "feel smart". In fact, I love learning that something I thought was true isn't- even if it means I have to adjust.
No matter what is going on in my head, I know I have no right to initiate force. I know I have no right to violate your property. I know you owe me nothing beyond respecting my life, liberty, and property, and that if you don't do this minimum, I can defend myself from you or your agents with a clear conscience. I know my existence places no obligation on you beyond this.
And, for the most part, as long as you don't have a government "job", I know you'll probably live up to it. Almost all the aggression and property violations I have experienced in my life were committed by people using the excuse of "government"- and the few violators who were freelance I was able to deal with. Or not.
I don't know how every little problem will be solved if I don't allow myself to use (or advocate) aggression or theft. Or even if every problem can be solved without aggression and/or theft. I suspect there are unsolvable problems out there, and even if I wish it weren't true, I am OK if that's just the way reality is. It changes nothing to feel otherwise.
Regardless of how I feel, there is a firm foundation propping me up. It may not be much, but it's enough. It has to be.
.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Find the humor
When you are swimming against the current it helps to have a sense of humor about it all.
I enjoy watching movies and TV shows and considering solutions that don't involve theft or coercion to the melodramatic problems they pose- everything voluntary.
It gets easier all the time.
I also overhear (or read) people getting all worked up over things that wouldn't even be an issue in a free society. Like whether "illegal immigrants" should be permitted to have drivers licenses, and how the state can do that and still be "Real ID compliant". What? Talk about making nothin' out of nothin'... carry the nothin'...
It's like imaginative children worrying about whether Batman could defeat Spiderman during a zombie attack, using Calvin and Hobbes' cardboard box time machine as a weapon.
And that can also make me smile, as long as I don't get caught up in the absurdity of it all.
Yes, there are serious problems out there that shouldn't be ignored, but life can't be all work and no play, or what's the point?
It can also be amusing to propose a liberty-respecting solution and sit back and watch the teeth-gnashing. It's like tossing a dye-containing steak to a pack of ravenous hyenas; their faces get covered in funny colors but they can't see it.
.
I enjoy watching movies and TV shows and considering solutions that don't involve theft or coercion to the melodramatic problems they pose- everything voluntary.
It gets easier all the time.
I also overhear (or read) people getting all worked up over things that wouldn't even be an issue in a free society. Like whether "illegal immigrants" should be permitted to have drivers licenses, and how the state can do that and still be "Real ID compliant". What? Talk about making nothin' out of nothin'... carry the nothin'...
It's like imaginative children worrying about whether Batman could defeat Spiderman during a zombie attack, using Calvin and Hobbes' cardboard box time machine as a weapon.
And that can also make me smile, as long as I don't get caught up in the absurdity of it all.
Yes, there are serious problems out there that shouldn't be ignored, but life can't be all work and no play, or what's the point?
It can also be amusing to propose a liberty-respecting solution and sit back and watch the teeth-gnashing. It's like tossing a dye-containing steak to a pack of ravenous hyenas; their faces get covered in funny colors but they can't see it.
.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Obama’s anti-gun orders criminal
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 15, 2016- Obviously, in spite of the headline, the criminal actions don't stop with Obama, but extend to every politician, bureaucrat, or cop who has ever advocated, passed, or enforced even the most "minor" anti-gun "law".)
Are you worried by Obama’s latest anti-gun executive orders? Don’t be. He and his accomplices have no more authority to make up laws regarding guns than I do to demand you paint your house orange.
Don’t believe me?
Consider: The Second Amendment — which, as an amendment, over-rides anything to the contrary in the original Constitution — makes devising or enforcing any law as to guns, by any level of government, a serious crime. You are not bound to obey criminals, not even if they claim they are enforcing a law.
Second of all, even repealing the Second Amendment can't make the core human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, in any way you see fit, everywhere you go, without ever asking permission from any government employee, go away. Nothing can.
The right existed before the first government was forced on a population, it will exist long after the last government decomposes on the corpses it helped pile up, and it exists everywhere in the Universe where any human being lives. Including North Korea, Chicago, or the post office- in spite of any claims to the contrary.
No one who works for government has any say in who buys, sell, owns, or carries a gun. They have no say in anything regarding any weapons they don't personally own. Not legally; not morally.
This is common sense about guns. It is reasonable, and it is true.
Don't think bullies won't arrest (kidnap, under color of law) or murder you for exercising your rights, though. Bad guys will always be on the prowl to get you. Be alert.
It is up to you to either pretend anti-liberty executive orders and laws have authority over you, or to recognize they don't and live in liberty. No one can make this choice for you.
Liberty is the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate anyone else. Liberty, including the unconditional human right to own and to carry weapons (what "keep and bear arms" means), is your birthright. Liberty, though, never includes a right to threaten or harm anyone who isn't violating you, since that would damage the other person's rights.
Rights are equal and identical no matter who you are, where you were born, or where you happen to be.
So, do the right thing, don't worry about what politicians or their hired guns say, and watch out for those who live to violate you. It's the human thing to do, regardless of what bubbles up from the cesspools of government.
.
Are you worried by Obama’s latest anti-gun executive orders? Don’t be. He and his accomplices have no more authority to make up laws regarding guns than I do to demand you paint your house orange.
Don’t believe me?
Consider: The Second Amendment — which, as an amendment, over-rides anything to the contrary in the original Constitution — makes devising or enforcing any law as to guns, by any level of government, a serious crime. You are not bound to obey criminals, not even if they claim they are enforcing a law.
Second of all, even repealing the Second Amendment can't make the core human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, in any way you see fit, everywhere you go, without ever asking permission from any government employee, go away. Nothing can.
The right existed before the first government was forced on a population, it will exist long after the last government decomposes on the corpses it helped pile up, and it exists everywhere in the Universe where any human being lives. Including North Korea, Chicago, or the post office- in spite of any claims to the contrary.
No one who works for government has any say in who buys, sell, owns, or carries a gun. They have no say in anything regarding any weapons they don't personally own. Not legally; not morally.
This is common sense about guns. It is reasonable, and it is true.
Don't think bullies won't arrest (kidnap, under color of law) or murder you for exercising your rights, though. Bad guys will always be on the prowl to get you. Be alert.
It is up to you to either pretend anti-liberty executive orders and laws have authority over you, or to recognize they don't and live in liberty. No one can make this choice for you.
Liberty is the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate anyone else. Liberty, including the unconditional human right to own and to carry weapons (what "keep and bear arms" means), is your birthright. Liberty, though, never includes a right to threaten or harm anyone who isn't violating you, since that would damage the other person's rights.
Rights are equal and identical no matter who you are, where you were born, or where you happen to be.
So, do the right thing, don't worry about what politicians or their hired guns say, and watch out for those who live to violate you. It's the human thing to do, regardless of what bubbles up from the cesspools of government.
.
What's the Constitution good for?
There is only one thing the US Constitution is good for: showing how the US government refused to be held back, and refused to abide by the contract it agreed to. That's it.
It was a mess from the beginning- it set up a State. Never a wise move, nor an ethical one.
Then, the bullies who tested its limits and got away with it- and by that I mean they lived another day- stretched it beyond all recognition.
The only time I'll bother mentioning the Constitution is when I want to show how criminal the government is.
Might as well toss it aside (you, I mean- the government already did so) and get on with surviving in a world where some bullies call themselves "government" and make it their goal to violate you and your property however they can get away with.
Don't pretend the Constitution ever protected your rights. Don't think you can save it and protect your rights into the future by getting politicians to anoint the "right" Supreme Courtjester. You, and you alone, are responsible for protecting your rights. I'll help if and when I can. But a long-dead document isn't going to help a bit.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Labels, like reality, can be limiting
The popular aversion to "labeling" ("I reject gender stereotypes"... "I don't call myself 'libertarian'") seems really silly to me.
Seems these people are too self-absorbed to admit that they aren't completely unique in every aspect of their lives. It's trendy and hip. But it's also painfully pretentious.
Yes, you probably do have a gender, whether you want to be identified by that gender or not. Very, very few people are perfectly balanced between genders; most tend more toward one than the other- usually almost completely. You may have qualities usually associated with both genders- that changes nothing. And it's nothing to be ashamed of- nor to celebrate. Get over yourself. And stop trying to make people feel bad for referring to you as "he" or "she".
And, if you recognize you have no right to initiate force you are libertarian. You might be a really bad libertarian if you choose to initiate force anyway, but only libertarians recognize that they have no right to initiate force.
I get it- labels can be "limiting". Especially if you are mislabeled or choose to label yourself deceptively. But, in those cases you can change, ignore the label, or demonstrate why it's wrong. And reality is always limiting. Often you can do this or that, but not both. Children don't like that reality and try really hard to deny it.
Labels are a tool, and like any tool can be good or bad. Use them wisely, but accept they are going to be used, whether you like it or not.
.
Seems these people are too self-absorbed to admit that they aren't completely unique in every aspect of their lives. It's trendy and hip. But it's also painfully pretentious.
Yes, you probably do have a gender, whether you want to be identified by that gender or not. Very, very few people are perfectly balanced between genders; most tend more toward one than the other- usually almost completely. You may have qualities usually associated with both genders- that changes nothing. And it's nothing to be ashamed of- nor to celebrate. Get over yourself. And stop trying to make people feel bad for referring to you as "he" or "she".
And, if you recognize you have no right to initiate force you are libertarian. You might be a really bad libertarian if you choose to initiate force anyway, but only libertarians recognize that they have no right to initiate force.
I get it- labels can be "limiting". Especially if you are mislabeled or choose to label yourself deceptively. But, in those cases you can change, ignore the label, or demonstrate why it's wrong. And reality is always limiting. Often you can do this or that, but not both. Children don't like that reality and try really hard to deny it.
Labels are a tool, and like any tool can be good or bad. Use them wisely, but accept they are going to be used, whether you like it or not.
.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Taxing Big Business
Corporations, "Wall Street", and "Big Business" don't ever pay "taxes". No matter how you "tax" them, the consumer- the "little guy": YOU and me- will always be the ones paying the "tax".
That's not meanness on their part. It is a simple economic reality "Big Business" couldn't change even if it wanted to.
"Taxes" are a cost of doing business for them- as is hiring accountants and lawyers to deal with the "taxes". If they don't figure in that cost while calculating the price they charge you, they go out of business.
"Big Business" can absorb this cost into the cost of doing business more easily than a small business can, so it will affect their costs (and customers) less than it would a small business. So, the "tax" hurts small business more than it hurts "Big Business", eliminating competition- those "taxes" are anti-business, anti-choice, and anti-consumer.
It's simple, it's harsh, and it's true.
So, if you advocate raising their "taxes" for any reason, you are "taxing" yourself. And me. And "taxing" me is robbing me, and I don't appreciate it one little bit. Knock it off!
.
That's not meanness on their part. It is a simple economic reality "Big Business" couldn't change even if it wanted to.
"Taxes" are a cost of doing business for them- as is hiring accountants and lawyers to deal with the "taxes". If they don't figure in that cost while calculating the price they charge you, they go out of business.
"Big Business" can absorb this cost into the cost of doing business more easily than a small business can, so it will affect their costs (and customers) less than it would a small business. So, the "tax" hurts small business more than it hurts "Big Business", eliminating competition- those "taxes" are anti-business, anti-choice, and anti-consumer.
It's simple, it's harsh, and it's true.
So, if you advocate raising their "taxes" for any reason, you are "taxing" yourself. And me. And "taxing" me is robbing me, and I don't appreciate it one little bit. Knock it off!
.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
No explanation necessary
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are for "Black Lives Matter" one month and "Ranchers' Lives Matter" another month. And if new information comes out, you don't have to change your position. "Non-Aggressor Lives Matter" is all you need to proclaim.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are for "marriage equality" this month, and for the right of bakers to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding next month.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are against "Sobriety checkpoints" one month, and think those who drive drunk are responsible for restitution next month. Or, a couple of hours later.
Consistency is crucial.
.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are for "marriage equality" this month, and for the right of bakers to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding next month.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are against "Sobriety checkpoints" one month, and think those who drive drunk are responsible for restitution next month. Or, a couple of hours later.
Consistency is crucial.
.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Military or prison
I used to see some troublemaker teens and understand the State's offer of "military or prison".
But then I started observing, and using my brain.
I understand the thinking behind it: teens who keep getting into trouble seem to need discipline and structure, and something to give their lives meaning. Joining the military will supposedly provide that and put them into a supervised culture of camaraderie and cooperation.
So does prison.
Plus both justify more theft ("taxes") and government control. And we are told endlessly how unsafe "we" would be without either one.
Prison fosters an "us vs them" mentality among those who have gone through it- forever dividing them from everyone in society who hasn't gone through the same thing, and making them see everyone else as- at least- partly an enemy of sorts. It may (may) solve some behavior problems, but it just supersizes others.
Some people who go through prison want you to know. They make it the pivotal point in their life- one they dwell on the rest of their life, letting it define them as a person, and basing the rest of their lives on that event.
Same with the military.
Some people go through the military and move on. Some I have had the misfortune of knowing personally can't seem to do that. No matter how many years ago they got out, they never leave. They are never again free. They still let it define them, and probably always will. They are the ones getting angry while reading this.
So, "military or prison" isn't really a choice. And I can't support either institution.
.
But then I started observing, and using my brain.
I understand the thinking behind it: teens who keep getting into trouble seem to need discipline and structure, and something to give their lives meaning. Joining the military will supposedly provide that and put them into a supervised culture of camaraderie and cooperation.
So does prison.
Plus both justify more theft ("taxes") and government control. And we are told endlessly how unsafe "we" would be without either one.
Prison fosters an "us vs them" mentality among those who have gone through it- forever dividing them from everyone in society who hasn't gone through the same thing, and making them see everyone else as- at least- partly an enemy of sorts. It may (may) solve some behavior problems, but it just supersizes others.
Some people who go through prison want you to know. They make it the pivotal point in their life- one they dwell on the rest of their life, letting it define them as a person, and basing the rest of their lives on that event.
Same with the military.
Some people go through the military and move on. Some I have had the misfortune of knowing personally can't seem to do that. No matter how many years ago they got out, they never leave. They are never again free. They still let it define them, and probably always will. They are the ones getting angry while reading this.
So, "military or prison" isn't really a choice. And I can't support either institution.
.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Be pro-life AND pro-choice
Anti-abortion is not the same as pro-life.
Not unless you are also against prohibition, cops, prisons, the military, and government in general. Then you could claim to be pro-life and I won't consider you a hypocrite.
I know no one personally, in real life, who is anti-abortion and also pro-life.
Instead I know a lot of people who are anti-abortion for religious reasons, and who are also supporters of prohibition, cops, prisons, the military, and government, supposedly also for religious reasons, and who don't seem to recognize their hypocrisy.
On the other hand, pro-choice is not pro-liberty if your choices differ from the choices they want you to make.
To be really pro-life would mean you are also really pro-choice.
Choose to not prevent people from living free of being violated, controlled, robbed, kidnapped, or being forced to deal with people they'd rather not. Choose to not prevent them from living according to their own religious beliefs, while you live by yours. Choose to not prevent them from engaging in acts you feel are wrong, as long as they don't force you to go along or fund them. Choose to not prevent them from doing anything they want, as long as they are not using violence against the non-violent or those who are not violating private property, and are not violating the property of others.
Sure, that will mean people will do things you think are wrong. Just like you will be doing things others think are equally wrong. Both of you can speak out, ridicule, and insult the other. As long as you don't physically attack or trespass- which necessarily includes making up "laws" to try to impose your will on the others.
If you are attacked or your property is violated, defend yourself. If you see someone else being victimized, defend them if you want. There will be consequences. Accept them, or don't act.
Be truly pro-life and pro-choice.
.
.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Government just another disaster
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 8, 2016)
Maybe it’s a personal fault, but I like blizzards. I enjoy anything interesting and challenging.
The way to keep “interesting and challenging” from becoming a disaster is by planning ahead.
I try to be as ready as possible for emergencies or problems. I have kerosene lamps in case of a blackout. I also have a fireplace, and fun and games that don’t require electricity — not even batteries.
I have emergency food and water. Most importantly, I have enthusiasm for any chance to test it all.
I am a little disappointed I almost never have a blackout. It's a testament to the power (pun intended) of the companies who actually have to keep customers relatively happy. They are motivated to do a great job. Guys with guns won't show up to kidnap you if you disconnect from the electric pole- unlike the government monopolies you are forced to use, and pay for even if you find a better option.
Besides the opportunity to use my provisions, I also enjoy seeing what I missed and need to improve. It's a learning experience and I love learning.
Sometimes those around me don't enjoy adventures as much as I do. This provides another test.
I try to enjoy other challenges too, but it can be harder. To me an impersonal blizzard is more fun to deal with than similarly destructive groups of people who only exist to make life more difficult and dangerous- in practice if not by intention. Government employees do this when they impose themselves into a difficult situation and manage to make it worse; getting in the way of those who don't need their "help". Blizzards don't show up, then demand your thanks and strut around as if you couldn't live without them.
For that matter, neither do hurricanes, earthquakes, and plagues- all of which are less destructive in the long run than government.
But, you can prepare for the inevitability of natural events, and you can do the same for the malevolent winds of government. It won't always be around. Eventually our descendants will shake their heads in amazement that we tolerated it, but for now look upon it as you would any other bothersome reality you need to learn to navigate around.
Maybe you can even turn it into a game so your children will be better at surviving it than you are. It works with blizzards and blackouts; it can work for other disasters, too.
.
Maybe it’s a personal fault, but I like blizzards. I enjoy anything interesting and challenging.
The way to keep “interesting and challenging” from becoming a disaster is by planning ahead.
I try to be as ready as possible for emergencies or problems. I have kerosene lamps in case of a blackout. I also have a fireplace, and fun and games that don’t require electricity — not even batteries.
I have emergency food and water. Most importantly, I have enthusiasm for any chance to test it all.
I am a little disappointed I almost never have a blackout. It's a testament to the power (pun intended) of the companies who actually have to keep customers relatively happy. They are motivated to do a great job. Guys with guns won't show up to kidnap you if you disconnect from the electric pole- unlike the government monopolies you are forced to use, and pay for even if you find a better option.
Besides the opportunity to use my provisions, I also enjoy seeing what I missed and need to improve. It's a learning experience and I love learning.
Sometimes those around me don't enjoy adventures as much as I do. This provides another test.
I try to enjoy other challenges too, but it can be harder. To me an impersonal blizzard is more fun to deal with than similarly destructive groups of people who only exist to make life more difficult and dangerous- in practice if not by intention. Government employees do this when they impose themselves into a difficult situation and manage to make it worse; getting in the way of those who don't need their "help". Blizzards don't show up, then demand your thanks and strut around as if you couldn't live without them.
For that matter, neither do hurricanes, earthquakes, and plagues- all of which are less destructive in the long run than government.
But, you can prepare for the inevitability of natural events, and you can do the same for the malevolent winds of government. It won't always be around. Eventually our descendants will shake their heads in amazement that we tolerated it, but for now look upon it as you would any other bothersome reality you need to learn to navigate around.
Maybe you can even turn it into a game so your children will be better at surviving it than you are. It works with blizzards and blackouts; it can work for other disasters, too.
.
Rule by Defectives
(Previously posted to Patreon)
This obsession with trying to structure the world around defective people is annoying, and probably a really bad idea. Both for the individuals being coddled, and for society as a whole. Maybe even for civilization.
It's nice to do helpful things for the defective, when you can. And to encourage them to do things for themselves. What isn't nice is damaging everyone else by the effort to accommodate them. A "lowest common denominator" society is a dying society. Or, as L. Neil Smith has written, "Euro-American welfare statism's preoccupation with 'the halt and the lame' isn't an iota healthier than the obsession of ancient Egypt's priest-kings with death."
Seems like no matter what you want to do these days, there is some group of victims out there saying you can't, or you'll be hurting them.
Maybe I'm just not nice, but I just don't have much sympathy for those who think their defects entitle them to whittle away at everyone else's freedom.
Everyone is defective; not everyone is "a defective".
I'm defective. My eyesight is horrible. I'm emotionally scarred by my daughter's recent death. I'm tall enough that I constantly hit my head on things built for short people- and sometimes it really hurts (and is why I usually wear a hat, even indoors). I am unsuited for the modern world in ways I can't articulate. But I don't demand everyone make the world safe for my defects, at the expense of everyone else. It is my responsibility to accommodate myself and my needs. I know what my defects are, and I can learn- I will learn- to navigate around them.
But the defective victim whiners don't want that responsibility.
If I am allergic (one of the most over-used justifications today) to tobacco smoke or peanuts, I understand that my allergy- my defect- will limit my freedom to go where I want. It doesn't give me the right, created out of thin air, to tell you where you are allowed to smoke or eat peanuts. That's between you and the property owner.
If I go into a business and bump my head on all their doorways or hanging signage, it is my responsibility to either duck or go elsewhere.
If I can't read a sign because of my eyesight, it doesn't create a responsibility in others to make bigger signs or to give me better glasses- even if not being able to read the sign could kill me.
If I am distraught due to my daughter's death, it doesn't create a right for me to punch people who joke about death.
Yes, taking responsibility for myself will make my life more difficult. Learning to deal with it will hone my senses and cognitive abilities. Coddling me to remove every bump from my path will only make me more defective than I was before.
That the consequences in the case of allergies could be more serious than me bumping my head doesn't shift responsibility to someone else.
I am much, MUCH more likely to try to accommodate those who don't make demands or throw "laws" at me. Once you make demands I will view you as a jerk, and I will probably enjoy seeing your discomfort. Perhaps that's another of my defects.
.
This obsession with trying to structure the world around defective people is annoying, and probably a really bad idea. Both for the individuals being coddled, and for society as a whole. Maybe even for civilization.
It's nice to do helpful things for the defective, when you can. And to encourage them to do things for themselves. What isn't nice is damaging everyone else by the effort to accommodate them. A "lowest common denominator" society is a dying society. Or, as L. Neil Smith has written, "Euro-American welfare statism's preoccupation with 'the halt and the lame' isn't an iota healthier than the obsession of ancient Egypt's priest-kings with death."
Seems like no matter what you want to do these days, there is some group of victims out there saying you can't, or you'll be hurting them.
Maybe I'm just not nice, but I just don't have much sympathy for those who think their defects entitle them to whittle away at everyone else's freedom.
Everyone is defective; not everyone is "a defective".
I'm defective. My eyesight is horrible. I'm emotionally scarred by my daughter's recent death. I'm tall enough that I constantly hit my head on things built for short people- and sometimes it really hurts (and is why I usually wear a hat, even indoors). I am unsuited for the modern world in ways I can't articulate. But I don't demand everyone make the world safe for my defects, at the expense of everyone else. It is my responsibility to accommodate myself and my needs. I know what my defects are, and I can learn- I will learn- to navigate around them.
But the defective victim whiners don't want that responsibility.
If I am allergic (one of the most over-used justifications today) to tobacco smoke or peanuts, I understand that my allergy- my defect- will limit my freedom to go where I want. It doesn't give me the right, created out of thin air, to tell you where you are allowed to smoke or eat peanuts. That's between you and the property owner.
If I go into a business and bump my head on all their doorways or hanging signage, it is my responsibility to either duck or go elsewhere.
If I can't read a sign because of my eyesight, it doesn't create a responsibility in others to make bigger signs or to give me better glasses- even if not being able to read the sign could kill me.
If I am distraught due to my daughter's death, it doesn't create a right for me to punch people who joke about death.
Yes, taking responsibility for myself will make my life more difficult. Learning to deal with it will hone my senses and cognitive abilities. Coddling me to remove every bump from my path will only make me more defective than I was before.
That the consequences in the case of allergies could be more serious than me bumping my head doesn't shift responsibility to someone else.
I am much, MUCH more likely to try to accommodate those who don't make demands or throw "laws" at me. Once you make demands I will view you as a jerk, and I will probably enjoy seeing your discomfort. Perhaps that's another of my defects.
.
A healthy relationship with government?
There is no such thing as a healthy relationship with government.
If you ignore it, you are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
If you hate it, you'll probably obsess over hating it.
If you love it, you are loving a disease; a defect.
If you trust it, it's like a "friend" who keeps stabbing you in the back.
If you use it as a tool against other people you are a bully.
If it uses you or violates you, you will be hurt and may feel like a victim.
If you work for it, I just don't know what to say. Well, yeah I do.
.
If you ignore it, you are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
If you hate it, you'll probably obsess over hating it.
If you love it, you are loving a disease; a defect.
If you trust it, it's like a "friend" who keeps stabbing you in the back.
If you use it as a tool against other people you are a bully.
If it uses you or violates you, you will be hurt and may feel like a victim.
If you work for it, I just don't know what to say. Well, yeah I do.
.
Monday, February 08, 2016
Government is evil- that's NOT "just an opinion"
The question of whether government is good or bad isn't a simple matter of opinion.
Unless you believe it can be OK to use violence against the non-violent who are also not violating your property (aggression), or you believe property violation (theft) is OK.
Governments only exist through aggression and property violations. You can try to weasel-word your way around that fact, but the fact remains. So then you have to decide if that's OK.
If you decide it's not OK, how can you believe it's a matter of opinion that something which only exists by being built of a foundation of aggression and theft is OK.
And if you decide it is OK, why would you stop at those acts committed by government employees? Maybe it would be OK for any random person to just walk up and kill you or your daughter, or take your house and kick you out naked.
Either it's OK or it's not.
Hint: It's NOT.
.
Unless you believe it can be OK to use violence against the non-violent who are also not violating your property (aggression), or you believe property violation (theft) is OK.
Governments only exist through aggression and property violations. You can try to weasel-word your way around that fact, but the fact remains. So then you have to decide if that's OK.
If you decide it's not OK, how can you believe it's a matter of opinion that something which only exists by being built of a foundation of aggression and theft is OK.
And if you decide it is OK, why would you stop at those acts committed by government employees? Maybe it would be OK for any random person to just walk up and kill you or your daughter, or take your house and kick you out naked.
Either it's OK or it's not.
Hint: It's NOT.
.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
The nature of reality
Imagine you were the first person to figure out the shape of the Earth or any other feature of reality.
You have done what experiments and observations you can, especially those which could show you are mistaken, and your idea holds up.
No one around you can see it, and they might ridicule you if they were told what you had discovered. But it doesn't change reality.
That's how liberty is. It doesn't matter how few people listen, or believe you, or even care one way or the other, it's still reality.
But you aren't the first. Even though when you discover it for yourself it may feel like you are. Don't be discouraged that people around you are content in their ignorance. Some people want to know reality. Find them or let them find you.
.
You have done what experiments and observations you can, especially those which could show you are mistaken, and your idea holds up.
No one around you can see it, and they might ridicule you if they were told what you had discovered. But it doesn't change reality.
That's how liberty is. It doesn't matter how few people listen, or believe you, or even care one way or the other, it's still reality.
But you aren't the first. Even though when you discover it for yourself it may feel like you are. Don't be discouraged that people around you are content in their ignorance. Some people want to know reality. Find them or let them find you.
.
Saturday, February 06, 2016
The fault (or the glory) lies within
No one can "make" you become anything you don't already have in you- especially not when you become what you are being warned against.
Government, as in The State, may be the best argument against itself, but if you are a government worshiper, all the evidence in the world won't cut through and make you realize you're wrong.
The evil of The State didn't make me an anarchist or a libertarian, although it certainly didn't help its case.
L. Neil Smith's excellent book of essays, "Lever Action", didn't make me into a libertarian.
Larken Rose didn't make me into an anarchist.
Both of them, through their writings, helped me see something in myself; made me recognize what I already was and had always been (although painfully in denial at times). They made me think, and by thinking I came to know myself better than I had before.
So, that pathetic little worm (apologies to all noble nematodes) who claims Ayn Rand "made" him a communist* is lying. Maybe she triggered him and made him double down on the communism he was already infected with. But to blame someone else for what you have become- especially when you have become a nasty parasite of the type you were being warned against- is pretty sorry.
*h/t Claire Wolfe and others
.
Government, as in The State, may be the best argument against itself, but if you are a government worshiper, all the evidence in the world won't cut through and make you realize you're wrong.
The evil of The State didn't make me an anarchist or a libertarian, although it certainly didn't help its case.
L. Neil Smith's excellent book of essays, "Lever Action", didn't make me into a libertarian.
Larken Rose didn't make me into an anarchist.
Both of them, through their writings, helped me see something in myself; made me recognize what I already was and had always been (although painfully in denial at times). They made me think, and by thinking I came to know myself better than I had before.
So, that pathetic little worm (apologies to all noble nematodes) who claims Ayn Rand "made" him a communist* is lying. Maybe she triggered him and made him double down on the communism he was already infected with. But to blame someone else for what you have become- especially when you have become a nasty parasite of the type you were being warned against- is pretty sorry.
-
*h/t Claire Wolfe and others
.
Thursday, February 04, 2016
"Laws" are for losers
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Law is what you do when you have poor reasons.
Or, more likely, no reasons at all.
If you believe you need to make a "law" you are admitting you don't have a good reason, so you will have cops shove their guns in people's faces instead.
You are admitting you can't hold your own in a debate.
You can't convince people to go along with you.
Your way isn't better, so you can't afford to let people choose, because they might choose to ignore you. So, like a bad loser, you throw a tantrum and pull a "law" out of your... somewhere smelly, humid and, stifling... and then attack people who don't cooperate.
Of course, you are too cowardly to attack in person, so you hire bullies- cops- to do your attacking for you. It keeps you safe from the consequences of your evil actions.
There are only two kinds of "laws": the unnecessary and the harmful.
Laws against aggression and property violations are unnecessary. You already know these things are wrong. You need no "law" to allow you to defend yourself from them. Does murder or armed robbery have to be illegal for you to know it's wrong? If it does you have an ethical problem. A "law" adds nothing but an excuse to let government punish people. And punishment is NOT justice. Especially when the lie is told claiming "the State" is somehow the innocent victim, and owed fines or the pleasure of caging the offender.
Laws against- or compelling- anything else are harmful. These "laws" are counterfeit. They whittle away at the foundations of civilization.
"Laws" are for losers.
.
Law is what you do when you have poor reasons.
Or, more likely, no reasons at all.
If you believe you need to make a "law" you are admitting you don't have a good reason, so you will have cops shove their guns in people's faces instead.
You are admitting you can't hold your own in a debate.
You can't convince people to go along with you.
Your way isn't better, so you can't afford to let people choose, because they might choose to ignore you. So, like a bad loser, you throw a tantrum and pull a "law" out of your... somewhere smelly, humid and, stifling... and then attack people who don't cooperate.
Of course, you are too cowardly to attack in person, so you hire bullies- cops- to do your attacking for you. It keeps you safe from the consequences of your evil actions.
There are only two kinds of "laws": the unnecessary and the harmful.
Laws against aggression and property violations are unnecessary. You already know these things are wrong. You need no "law" to allow you to defend yourself from them. Does murder or armed robbery have to be illegal for you to know it's wrong? If it does you have an ethical problem. A "law" adds nothing but an excuse to let government punish people. And punishment is NOT justice. Especially when the lie is told claiming "the State" is somehow the innocent victim, and owed fines or the pleasure of caging the offender.
Laws against- or compelling- anything else are harmful. These "laws" are counterfeit. They whittle away at the foundations of civilization.
"Laws" are for losers.
.
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
You can't go wrong doing right
I've done stupid things and smart things. Good things and bad things.
The outcomes seem to have no correlation whatsoever.
That's a bit disappointing to someone who wants to do smart, good, things and have life work out accordingly. But reality is what it is.
This is also why "pragmatism" fails. You can't know how something will turn out based on your actions, be they pragmatic or idealistic, so do the right thing.
Even if things don't turn out well, at least you didn't do the wrong thing, believing it to be more pragmatic.
.
The outcomes seem to have no correlation whatsoever.
That's a bit disappointing to someone who wants to do smart, good, things and have life work out accordingly. But reality is what it is.
This is also why "pragmatism" fails. You can't know how something will turn out based on your actions, be they pragmatic or idealistic, so do the right thing.
Even if things don't turn out well, at least you didn't do the wrong thing, believing it to be more pragmatic.
.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Still standing for liberty in 2016
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 1, 2016)
As 2015 ends, I find myself thinking one thought: I hope 2016 is better.
To the extent I can control it, I will try to make sure it is for myself and for those around me.
A sad fact of life is you can’t control everything that happens. No matter what, bad stuff can (and will) happen to you and those you care about. That’s just life. But you can control how you respond to events. You don’t have to let them destroy you, or take away all your joy. You don’t have to let the bad stuff win.
So, I will try to make 2016 as good as I can, and if I see opportunities where I am able to improve someone else's year, I'll do that, too.
No, I'm not going to stop calling people out for their support of socialism- not even when they call it "fairness" or "law and order". A spade will always be a spade, and making up "laws" to control anything other than aggression or property violations will always be wrong, as will making up "laws" which consecrate wrongs done in the name of governing.
I will try to be as understanding as I can with those who advocate horrendously awful things- understanding that they have their reasons; often due to their loved ones being among the perpetrators of the growing police state. It's hard to think of those you love as the bad guys who are giving their all to the destruction of American society.
There may be other reasons, too. Some are probably scared of liberty and self determination due to years of indoctrination making them fear the lack of a master; to doubt their ability to live without being told exactly what is mandated and what is forbidden in every circumstance. I'll keep trying to help them shed those fears.
I'll do what I can to help people around me discover the tools to reject the superstitious belief in "authority" and take responsibility for themselves. But, I'll try to not be a pest about it; one-trick-ponies can be tedious.
Life is too short to be a bully, or to be loyal to any government or other gang of bullies. Live your life voluntarily, without violating others. Stand up for those who are violated. It's called "doing the right thing". If enough of us do it 2016 will be a great year, no matter what the Universe flings at our faces.
.
As 2015 ends, I find myself thinking one thought: I hope 2016 is better.
To the extent I can control it, I will try to make sure it is for myself and for those around me.
A sad fact of life is you can’t control everything that happens. No matter what, bad stuff can (and will) happen to you and those you care about. That’s just life. But you can control how you respond to events. You don’t have to let them destroy you, or take away all your joy. You don’t have to let the bad stuff win.
So, I will try to make 2016 as good as I can, and if I see opportunities where I am able to improve someone else's year, I'll do that, too.
No, I'm not going to stop calling people out for their support of socialism- not even when they call it "fairness" or "law and order". A spade will always be a spade, and making up "laws" to control anything other than aggression or property violations will always be wrong, as will making up "laws" which consecrate wrongs done in the name of governing.
I will try to be as understanding as I can with those who advocate horrendously awful things- understanding that they have their reasons; often due to their loved ones being among the perpetrators of the growing police state. It's hard to think of those you love as the bad guys who are giving their all to the destruction of American society.
There may be other reasons, too. Some are probably scared of liberty and self determination due to years of indoctrination making them fear the lack of a master; to doubt their ability to live without being told exactly what is mandated and what is forbidden in every circumstance. I'll keep trying to help them shed those fears.
I'll do what I can to help people around me discover the tools to reject the superstitious belief in "authority" and take responsibility for themselves. But, I'll try to not be a pest about it; one-trick-ponies can be tedious.
Life is too short to be a bully, or to be loyal to any government or other gang of bullies. Live your life voluntarily, without violating others. Stand up for those who are violated. It's called "doing the right thing". If enough of us do it 2016 will be a great year, no matter what the Universe flings at our faces.
.
Excuses
If drug abuse turns you into a bad person, you most likely weren't a good person to begin with.
The same is true about most things people will claim corrupted them.
.
The same is true about most things people will claim corrupted them.
.
Monday, February 01, 2016
Death to schools
Education is critically important. Much too important to allow government to touch in any way, much less control. My appreciation for education explains my opposition to schooling.
Supporting "public" schools has all the ethical foundation of advocating prison for kids because you fear that otherwise they might starve or have nowhere to sleep.
To claim that without government's "public" schools, kids wouldn't be educated is like claiming that without rapists, some women wouldn't feel wanted.
Blind loyalty to statist institutions is sickening and depressing. Especially when someone ought to know better.
It apparently takes a rare person to face the reality of the evil their loved ones are deeply enmeshed in. It hurts to accept that your loved ones are harming innocent people. But honesty demands you face it.
Those indoctrination camps are how statism keeps spreading. They penetrate the young minds and reproduce once inside. You know what I consider that act, I'll bet.
They teach that "authority" is a real thing, and is where you go to learn the truth. They teach that theft and aggression are OK as long as done by "government". They train kids to be compliant and to jump at the sound of a bell. They teach what to believe rather than how to think. I hate them with every quark of my body.
I have witnessed and experienced first hand the destruction they cause to education.
Death to kinderprison. The sooner the better.
.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Lord of all nanobots
I don't believe in intellectual property, but I wish I did, so I act as though I do.
I do this because I respect the efforts of those who create, and I want them rewarded for what they have done.
But I still see it as wishful thinking.
If intellectual property were a real thing, a person who invented self-replicating nanobots would own the rights to them all, no matter who bought some from him, no matter how many generations removed from him the nanobots you are talking about were, and no matter how many there were throughout the Universe.
What would make sentences different than nanobots, concerning IP?
If intellectual property were a real thing, a person would own all rights to a new dog breed he worked a lifetime to create. He would own all the offspring of the dogs he had sold- on through the years and generations.
Both of these examples are the same as saying the author or composer owns the book or song he created.
It would be nice, but it just isn't reality.
.
I do this because I respect the efforts of those who create, and I want them rewarded for what they have done.
But I still see it as wishful thinking.
If intellectual property were a real thing, a person who invented self-replicating nanobots would own the rights to them all, no matter who bought some from him, no matter how many generations removed from him the nanobots you are talking about were, and no matter how many there were throughout the Universe.
What would make sentences different than nanobots, concerning IP?
If intellectual property were a real thing, a person would own all rights to a new dog breed he worked a lifetime to create. He would own all the offspring of the dogs he had sold- on through the years and generations.
Both of these examples are the same as saying the author or composer owns the book or song he created.
It would be nice, but it just isn't reality.
.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Giving the bad guys a helping hand, through rules
There are useless rules, and there are harmful rules. And by rules I mean policies, or laws, or whatever people call words strung together in an attempt to control others.
I would like to call useless rules "pointless rules", but I can see the point of some of the useless rules, even as I also see that they can't fulfill their point.
Impaired driving laws are useless. If you don't believe me, just ask my daughter Cheyenne. Oh, wait, you can't because she died in spite of "laws" against drunk driving. The rules didn't kill her, they were just powerless to prevent her death. I wouldn't claim the rules against drunk driving are harmful- at least until you dig deeper and see how those rules influence behavior in ways that actually make innocent people less safe on the roads- but they certainly aren't very helpful. And the ways they are imposed and enforced are quite clearly harmful. They give justification to the weak-minded for some of the worst police state abuses outside of airports.
But, on the surface, laws against driving drunk aren't necessarily harmful. Cheyenne wouldn't have been safer if she had also been driving drunk that morning, so although those who control, and would claim to own, the roads did nothing to protect her, they aren't accomplices in her death, either. Suing them for failing to prevent her death would be useless.
Not so where "no gun zones" are concerned. The rules that establish those areas are worse than useless. They are actively harmful.
Not only will such rules do nothing to prevent a bad guy- who would be a rule-breaker by definition- from ignoring the rule and bringing a gun, especially if he wants to murder people, it would prevent those good guys who want to obey rules- even bad rules- from bringing their guns. In this case suing those who own or control the "gun free" area where a murder happens would be the right thing to do. They may not have pulled the trigger, but they are willing accomplices to any murderer who takes advantage of the killing ground they established for him.
You had better believe that if any of my loved ones were ever murdered in a "gun free zone", I would do my best to sue the rule-makers into poverty. If it discouraged just one other rule-maker from making a rule to turn his venue into a slaughter zone it would be worth it.
If you forbid guns in some area you control, you are directly responsible when anyone is murdered there. And I hope someone makes you suffer for your foolishness.
.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Deserving of death?
If you don't believe someone deserves to die for what they are doing, how wrong can you really believe their acts to be?
I ask this of myself as much as I ask it of you.
I don't believe a teenager cutting across my yard deserves to be killed for trespassing.
I don't believe someone deserves to be killed for v*ting.
I don't believe people who believe government to be necessary deserves to die for that wrongheaded belief.
But I do believe they are wrong in every case I mentioned above.
And, I do believe many wrongdoers can rightly be killed by their victims (or intended victims).
Maybe the reason has something to do with "proportionality", although I'm not a firm believer in that concept either. Or, at least the weight I give some wrongs doesn't seem to align well with the weight others give them.
And, yet... statists. Every single little "offense" against their religion is ultimately punishable by death. But they believe they are the "reasonable ones".
.
I ask this of myself as much as I ask it of you.
I don't believe a teenager cutting across my yard deserves to be killed for trespassing.
I don't believe someone deserves to be killed for v*ting.
I don't believe people who believe government to be necessary deserves to die for that wrongheaded belief.
But I do believe they are wrong in every case I mentioned above.
And, I do believe many wrongdoers can rightly be killed by their victims (or intended victims).
Maybe the reason has something to do with "proportionality", although I'm not a firm believer in that concept either. Or, at least the weight I give some wrongs doesn't seem to align well with the weight others give them.
And, yet... statists. Every single little "offense" against their religion is ultimately punishable by death. But they believe they are the "reasonable ones".
.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Misdirected blame- government is failure
If your best argument against your opponents is to try to blame your own failures on them, you might be a statist.
I sometimes get amused at how often statists try to pin the failures of their religion on those of us who don't buy into their cult.
The Flint water disaster is a current example. Look how many times recently this disastrous failure of government is pointed to as what would happen if libertarians were "in charge" of supplying water.
Somalia- a case of way too much government meddling- is another example. I'm not sure how too much government, fighting to govern people who want no part of it, became anarchist dystopia in the minds of statists, but it has.
I'm sure there have been other examples I'm not thinking of right now. It's the best they can do. It's the only argument they have: to point to their endless failures and try to pin it on us.
I would laugh, if so many people didn't parrot their insanity.
But, back to the Flint, Michigan water problem. Why do statists believe clean water can only come from a centralized government facility? Do they miss the fact of all the bottled water out there, provided by companies large and small, all over the world? What about the water filters you can buy to clean water for yourself? Both household scale and individual.
Centralization is a way to guarantee BIG failure- to hurt lots of people at one time.
Decentralization limits harm by giving people a choice. Don't like that the water from your faucet smells bad and looks like murky tea? Stop buying the nasty water and buy good water from someone else.
And don't make the case that the government water is "free", because you know it isn't. You ARE buying it. And, by buying it through government, you are forced to pay for it even if you decide to buy clean water elsewhere. That's the only reason government can keep raking in the money for failure: succeed or fail, you have no choice but to keep paying. Just like government schools- another spectacular failure we are supposed to fear the lack of. And police.
The failures of all these are not reasons why we must keep settling for them, it is an illustration of why choice is better than compulsion.
They are testimony to the utter stupidity of continuing to keep government around and paying for it.
Even though its supporters want you believe its failure can be blamed on Liberty.
.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Wishing good will to liberty lovers
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 25, 2015. Merry Christmas.)
In this season of “Peace on Earth, good will toward men,” ask yourself if you are supporting the opposite.
Liberty activist Larken Rose points out that so many who say they want “peace on Earth” still support war-mongering politicians, and while talking about “good will toward men” they advocate widespread authoritarian aggression.
He also brings up how people "repeat a story about a baby being born in an animal's food trough after the baby's parents were forced to travel great distances in order to be registered and taxed... while condoning that everything be registered and taxed."
If you are under the impression you can find peace and good will through government, you may fall for anything. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
If you seek peace on Earth, don't attack anyone, and don't support those who do. Peace is never aggressive; only defensive. To have peace means to be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself and others from those who don't want peace. However, you aren't defending yourself if you invade someone's home, order them around, and attack them because you believe they are a threat when they resist your meddling. If this is your idea of defense, you are confused and working against peace on Earth.
If you want good will toward men, stop treating people as they would rather not be treated. It means treating people as potential friends unless they give you a good reason to do otherwise, and then just staying out of their way as long as they let you.
It means helping out when you can, if your help is welcome- without harming anyone else in the process.
Those who think welfare is the same as generosity need to learn you can't be generous with something which isn't yours to give. It is generous to give of your own time or money; it is slavery to force someone to work for someone else, and theft to force them to hand over a percentage for the "common good". If your plan to help others relies on armed government employees and threats of fines or imprisonment, you obviously don't understand "helping".
Peace on Earth, good will to men. Live it by minding your own business, understanding what's your business and what isn't, and respecting where your rights begin and end. Then stop supporting those who do the opposite, whatever their flimsy justifications.
Merry Christmas to all peaceful, good people everywhere. The non-reformed Grinches are on their own.
.
Liberty activist Larken Rose points out that so many who say they want “peace on Earth” still support war-mongering politicians, and while talking about “good will toward men” they advocate widespread authoritarian aggression.
He also brings up how people "repeat a story about a baby being born in an animal's food trough after the baby's parents were forced to travel great distances in order to be registered and taxed... while condoning that everything be registered and taxed."
If you are under the impression you can find peace and good will through government, you may fall for anything. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
If you seek peace on Earth, don't attack anyone, and don't support those who do. Peace is never aggressive; only defensive. To have peace means to be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself and others from those who don't want peace. However, you aren't defending yourself if you invade someone's home, order them around, and attack them because you believe they are a threat when they resist your meddling. If this is your idea of defense, you are confused and working against peace on Earth.
If you want good will toward men, stop treating people as they would rather not be treated. It means treating people as potential friends unless they give you a good reason to do otherwise, and then just staying out of their way as long as they let you.
It means helping out when you can, if your help is welcome- without harming anyone else in the process.
Those who think welfare is the same as generosity need to learn you can't be generous with something which isn't yours to give. It is generous to give of your own time or money; it is slavery to force someone to work for someone else, and theft to force them to hand over a percentage for the "common good". If your plan to help others relies on armed government employees and threats of fines or imprisonment, you obviously don't understand "helping".
Peace on Earth, good will to men. Live it by minding your own business, understanding what's your business and what isn't, and respecting where your rights begin and end. Then stop supporting those who do the opposite, whatever their flimsy justifications.
Merry Christmas to all peaceful, good people everywhere. The non-reformed Grinches are on their own.
I am not a "left libertarian" for the exact same reason I am not a "right libertarian".
Regardless of claims to the contrary, "left" and "right" are incompatible with liberty.
Some months ago I ran across this: Why I Am a Left Libertarian. As I often do with things that attempt to revive the zombie of "right vs left" I shrugged and promptly forgot it.
But, recently someone brought it to my attention again and asked me to address it.
So, I will.
I know a lot of people who call themselves "left libertarians" hark back to the origins of the idea of political "right vs left" to show why libertarianism is always of the "left". But I point back to those origins to demonstrate exactly why I am neither.
And here, taken from that column, is the important point:
Did you see that? Here it is again:
Regardless of claims to the contrary, "left" and "right" are incompatible with liberty.
Some months ago I ran across this: Why I Am a Left Libertarian. As I often do with things that attempt to revive the zombie of "right vs left" I shrugged and promptly forgot it.
But, recently someone brought it to my attention again and asked me to address it.
So, I will.
I know a lot of people who call themselves "left libertarians" hark back to the origins of the idea of political "right vs left" to show why libertarianism is always of the "left". But I point back to those origins to demonstrate exactly why I am neither.
And here, taken from that column, is the important point:
"...it was in the French Legislative Assembly in the fall of 1791 that the terms Right and Left were first used in this political sense. As the Durants tell it, when the assembly convened, the 'substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. . .occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere.' The liberals, meanwhile, 'sat at the left.'"
Did you see that? Here it is again:
"Some fifty-odd years later, after another French Revolution (the one that took place in 1848) had unseated the last French king, Louis Philippe, the same seating arrangement was revived for the newly elected legislative assembly of the Second Republic. As has often been noted, two of the newly elected legislators who sat together on the left side of that assembly in 1848 and 1849 were the free market economist and publicist for free trade Frederic Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first man ever to publicly declare himself an anarchist."
Do you see the problem?
"Right" and "left" are notions reserved for those who want to govern you, or at least play the governing game. Maybe they want to govern you toward liberty, but they are still working to use government- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- to free you. How is that working out?
If you fall for the idea of "right" and "left" you aren't nearly as liberated as you could be. There is authoritarianism, also known as bullying, and there is libertarianism- also known as self-ownership, or "everything voluntary". No government involved. Liberty is not of the "right" or "left". It is superior to the methods of those who would govern- the tactics of the bullies.
So, call yourself what you want, but I am not a part of the "Left" nor of the "Right".
So, call yourself what you want, but I am not a part of the "Left" nor of the "Right".
.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Don't be a Naxi
Naxi- A 21st Century authoritarian, police state apologist. Highly nationalistic. A fan of cops and the military, seeing them as incapable of doing wrong (other than a few obvious and inconvenient "bad apples").
Xenophobic; suspicious of "them", whoever they may be.
Loves government institutions as long as they are being run by those they want running them, and are doing what the individual Naxi believes they should be doing.
Drawn to government "jobs", and blindly supportive of them even when not employed by government.
Can often be identified by their mating calls, which include: "If you hate government, move to Somalia", "Love it or leave it", "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization".
Not to be confused in any way with "Nazi", because that might trigger those who misuse Godwin's Law in a way which protects the bad guys from valid comparison.
.
Xenophobic; suspicious of "them", whoever they may be.
Loves government institutions as long as they are being run by those they want running them, and are doing what the individual Naxi believes they should be doing.
Drawn to government "jobs", and blindly supportive of them even when not employed by government.
Can often be identified by their mating calls, which include: "If you hate government, move to Somalia", "Love it or leave it", "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization".
Not to be confused in any way with "Nazi", because that might trigger those who misuse Godwin's Law in a way which protects the bad guys from valid comparison.
.
You and I are going wherever history takes us. Basically just going along for the ride, like it or not. We can't change that.
What we can try to do is stir up some eddies to affect where history goes. Stir things up a little. Try to have an effect. It may not work, but you never know. At least it gives you something to do in the meantime.
Even minding your own business and just taking care of your day-to-day life will have some kind of effect. So, be content to do that if that's what you feel is the best you can do.
Since you can never tell where any action will push history, I recommend you make sure to do the right thing every time. Then let history flow where it may. Whatever comes of it, you did the right thing.
.
What we can try to do is stir up some eddies to affect where history goes. Stir things up a little. Try to have an effect. It may not work, but you never know. At least it gives you something to do in the meantime.
Even minding your own business and just taking care of your day-to-day life will have some kind of effect. So, be content to do that if that's what you feel is the best you can do.
Since you can never tell where any action will push history, I recommend you make sure to do the right thing every time. Then let history flow where it may. Whatever comes of it, you did the right thing.
.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Not every rule has exceptions
I just bumped into another of this guy's videos and in it he gets so close to being sensible this time. Much better than that other video I watched years ago, yet he can't quite make that last leap toward being right. It is frustrating.
He talks about some instances where rules were ignored because the alternative of following the rules would have been dumb or wrong. And, I agree, sometimes you have to ignore the rules.
And then he falls into a gaping pit.
He says "A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule."
So, "wise" people know when rape is good. When slavery is needed. When theft is justified.
Those pesky principles that say otherwise!
I am so glad I am not "wise" by his estimation, because, he equates evil with wisdom.
Now, if he didn't claim every rule needs exceptions, I could agree.
Counterfeit rules don't need to be followed. Even some good rules need to be ignored sometimes due to circumstances. But not every rule.
You have no right to initiate force- but that doesn't alter the fact that you might want to push someone out of the way of an out-of-control bus. This isn't an exception to the rule- you still have no right, but you choose whether to step outside of what you have a right to do if you believe it is worth it- and you accept the consequences. Acting in this way isn't an exception to the rule, it is part of it.
.
He talks about some instances where rules were ignored because the alternative of following the rules would have been dumb or wrong. And, I agree, sometimes you have to ignore the rules.
And then he falls into a gaping pit.
He says "A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule."
So, "wise" people know when rape is good. When slavery is needed. When theft is justified.
Those pesky principles that say otherwise!
I am so glad I am not "wise" by his estimation, because, he equates evil with wisdom.
Now, if he didn't claim every rule needs exceptions, I could agree.
Counterfeit rules don't need to be followed. Even some good rules need to be ignored sometimes due to circumstances. But not every rule.
You have no right to initiate force- but that doesn't alter the fact that you might want to push someone out of the way of an out-of-control bus. This isn't an exception to the rule- you still have no right, but you choose whether to step outside of what you have a right to do if you believe it is worth it- and you accept the consequences. Acting in this way isn't an exception to the rule, it is part of it.
.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
When boldness isn't
Many years ago, in one of the less pleasant places I have lived, there was a rash of convenience store robberies.
The sheriff took bold action by stationing armed deputies in the back of random convenience stores. Robbers couldn't be sure if the store they were planning to hold up was one of the stores picked that day or not.
According to the narrative as I remember it, the robberies pretty much stopped. If that's accurate, it is a good thing. But...
The problem is, the sheriff's act wasn't bold. It was more of the same. Just more armed government employees instead of the real solution: reminding people of their right (and I would say, duty) to be self-responsible armed individuals.
Instead of some minor percentage of convenience stores having an armed defender, almost all of them could have been protected. Without paying overtime to any tax junkie.
The sensible solution to just about everything is so clear, but it always proves the uselessness of government, so it will never be advanced by statists.
.
The sheriff took bold action by stationing armed deputies in the back of random convenience stores. Robbers couldn't be sure if the store they were planning to hold up was one of the stores picked that day or not.
According to the narrative as I remember it, the robberies pretty much stopped. If that's accurate, it is a good thing. But...
The problem is, the sheriff's act wasn't bold. It was more of the same. Just more armed government employees instead of the real solution: reminding people of their right (and I would say, duty) to be self-responsible armed individuals.
Instead of some minor percentage of convenience stores having an armed defender, almost all of them could have been protected. Without paying overtime to any tax junkie.
The sensible solution to just about everything is so clear, but it always proves the uselessness of government, so it will never be advanced by statists.
.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
In the long run, government is its own greatest enemy.
It can't exist without making enemies of the good people.
It can't exist without attracting the bad people.
This isn't sustainable, and it's why governments always fall eventually. (So far, to always be replaced by another in the ultimate act of Utopian wishful thinking.)
If you believe yourself to be a good person, yet you support government, or have become a part of it, you need to re-examine yourself. There's a disconnect there somewhere. Either you aren't as good as you thought, or you are seriously out of place.
.
It can't exist without making enemies of the good people.
It can't exist without attracting the bad people.
This isn't sustainable, and it's why governments always fall eventually. (So far, to always be replaced by another in the ultimate act of Utopian wishful thinking.)
If you believe yourself to be a good person, yet you support government, or have become a part of it, you need to re-examine yourself. There's a disconnect there somewhere. Either you aren't as good as you thought, or you are seriously out of place.
.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Murder, for whatever reasons
Murder is murder. It is the killing of someone who isn't violating the person or property of anyone- the killing of an innocent person.
That doesn't change if you do it for God and Country.
I doesn't change it into non-murder if you are a cop and kill someone for not complying with your orders fast enough to suit you. Or for choosing to run from someone they quite reasonably see as a threat. Or for striking back when approached by someone who, by the "uniform", proclaims gang membership and the associated history of aggression.
It doesn't change it into something less if you go with a military force to some other part of the world and kill people who are trying to repel the invaders.
It doesn't have loopholes for "executing" a person who was convicted of a crime they didn't commit, through deception and fudged crime lab results.
It doesn't matter if you believe your God says you must kill those who don't believe the same as you do.
If you intend to murder- whatever you choose to call it- I hope your intended victim or someone coming to their aid kills you first. Every single time. No exceptions.
.
That doesn't change if you do it for God and Country.
I doesn't change it into non-murder if you are a cop and kill someone for not complying with your orders fast enough to suit you. Or for choosing to run from someone they quite reasonably see as a threat. Or for striking back when approached by someone who, by the "uniform", proclaims gang membership and the associated history of aggression.
It doesn't change it into something less if you go with a military force to some other part of the world and kill people who are trying to repel the invaders.
It doesn't have loopholes for "executing" a person who was convicted of a crime they didn't commit, through deception and fudged crime lab results.
It doesn't matter if you believe your God says you must kill those who don't believe the same as you do.
If you intend to murder- whatever you choose to call it- I hope your intended victim or someone coming to their aid kills you first. Every single time. No exceptions.
.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Most confused on human rights
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 18, 2015)
Confusing the issue of rights is a way to control your thoughts and keep you thinking inside the box.
If people actually understood rights, the debate would be turned on its head; it would stop being about what you have a right to do, and become about what others have no right to do to you.
This is why the imaginary right to govern and control others can't exist and therefore can't be delegated to anyone under any conditions- it is based on someone doing to others things they have no right to do.
Most people still believe in this kind of imaginary authority, though, and grasping sociopaths are eager to take advantage of this primitive, superstitious belief and gain political power- or to get hired. Government extremists want to make you see rights as privileges; things to be doled out as rewards, or rented from bureaucrats. No one can demand you license a right without becoming the villain, themselves.
Anyone who claims to have such power is admitting to being a bully.
The only things you have no right to do are those things which violate the person or property of another. Violate, not offend. This means just about every "law" is stepping outside what anyone has a right to do by forbidding things which don't violate person, property, or mutually voluntary choice. You have no right to make up "laws" of this sort, and doing so anyway makes you the offender.
However, your right- for example- to own and to carry a gun doesn't make me obligated to buy you one, nor pay for your ammunition. No one has a right to stand in your way of providing it for yourself, but that's as far as it goes.
.
Most people’s understanding of human rights is upside down and backward.
The question isn’t whether you have the right to own and to carry a gun or a sword; drive a car regardless of license or registration; make, sell, or buy meth; use your property as you see fit; smoke Cannabis; write, sing, or say whatever words you want to express; open a business; or anything else that has been claimed at one time or another to be a right.
The point is no one- regardless of any justification- has the right to forbid you to do any of those things. All real rights are a right to not have something done to you.The question isn’t whether you have the right to own and to carry a gun or a sword; drive a car regardless of license or registration; make, sell, or buy meth; use your property as you see fit; smoke Cannabis; write, sing, or say whatever words you want to express; open a business; or anything else that has been claimed at one time or another to be a right.
Confusing the issue of rights is a way to control your thoughts and keep you thinking inside the box.
If people actually understood rights, the debate would be turned on its head; it would stop being about what you have a right to do, and become about what others have no right to do to you.
This is why the imaginary right to govern and control others can't exist and therefore can't be delegated to anyone under any conditions- it is based on someone doing to others things they have no right to do.
Most people still believe in this kind of imaginary authority, though, and grasping sociopaths are eager to take advantage of this primitive, superstitious belief and gain political power- or to get hired. Government extremists want to make you see rights as privileges; things to be doled out as rewards, or rented from bureaucrats. No one can demand you license a right without becoming the villain, themselves.
Anyone who claims to have such power is admitting to being a bully.
The only things you have no right to do are those things which violate the person or property of another. Violate, not offend. This means just about every "law" is stepping outside what anyone has a right to do by forbidding things which don't violate person, property, or mutually voluntary choice. You have no right to make up "laws" of this sort, and doing so anyway makes you the offender.
However, your right- for example- to own and to carry a gun doesn't make me obligated to buy you one, nor pay for your ammunition. No one has a right to stand in your way of providing it for yourself, but that's as far as it goes.
.
What should government do?
(Previously posted to Patreon.)
What should government do?
That is the question that drives politics. And it's a stupid question.
Once you understand the nature of The State- what most people mean when they use the word "government"- you understand there is only one way to answer the question.
Government should do nothing other than get out of the way and stop. Stop everything.
Stop making up "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property. Stop enforcing the "laws" already on the books. Stop existing altogether.
But people like to argue over what they believe government should do. They mistake this passion for being informed and enlightened. Then they can argue over different policies and outcomes. They can hate each other for the choices they would make. Choices no one has any business making.
Slightly more honest people might say "I don't know" when asked "What should the government do about.... whatever?" They might believe they don't have enough information to make an intelligent argument for what government should do about everything. But you can only say that if you intentionally stay ignorant. You have all the data you need.
Aggression is wrong. Theft is wrong. Government can't exist without aggression and theft- without those it becomes something other than government. So, government is wrong. Government shouldn't. Anything. Ever. Period.
Saying "I don't know" in answer to this question is an attempt to avoid responsibility. An attempt to avoid being scorned for doing the right thing.
I'm sorry if you can't see how your pet issue could be solved without a gang relying on theft and aggression to solve it, but that's your failing, not mine. Good luck outgrowing that..
What should government do?
That is the question that drives politics. And it's a stupid question.
Once you understand the nature of The State- what most people mean when they use the word "government"- you understand there is only one way to answer the question.
Government should do nothing other than get out of the way and stop. Stop everything.
Stop making up "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property. Stop enforcing the "laws" already on the books. Stop existing altogether.
But people like to argue over what they believe government should do. They mistake this passion for being informed and enlightened. Then they can argue over different policies and outcomes. They can hate each other for the choices they would make. Choices no one has any business making.
Slightly more honest people might say "I don't know" when asked "What should the government do about.... whatever?" They might believe they don't have enough information to make an intelligent argument for what government should do about everything. But you can only say that if you intentionally stay ignorant. You have all the data you need.
Aggression is wrong. Theft is wrong. Government can't exist without aggression and theft- without those it becomes something other than government. So, government is wrong. Government shouldn't. Anything. Ever. Period.
Saying "I don't know" in answer to this question is an attempt to avoid responsibility. An attempt to avoid being scorned for doing the right thing.
I'm sorry if you can't see how your pet issue could be solved without a gang relying on theft and aggression to solve it, but that's your failing, not mine. Good luck outgrowing that..
People fret over the oddest things
Such as hierarchies.
People who worry about hierarchies, and who believe them to be incompatible with anarchy, bewilder me.
There are legitimate hierarchies and illegitimate ones.
If I hire you to do a specific job for me, my insistence on you doing that job is a legitimate hierarchy.
If you are elected into some position and claim that gives you the "authority" to order me around, that is an illegitimate hierarchy.
If I can't specify certain outcomes in exchange for my paying you, then I'm not going to pay you. In fact, I won't trade with you at all- "pay" doesn't have to mean only money. It doesn't mean I am "over" you in any way, but it means we agreed that I would give you something in exchange for something else. I am not exploiting you unless I force you into an arrangement where you aren't willing to be. In which case self defense seems to be in order, not whining over hierarchies.
.
People who worry about hierarchies, and who believe them to be incompatible with anarchy, bewilder me.
There are legitimate hierarchies and illegitimate ones.
If I hire you to do a specific job for me, my insistence on you doing that job is a legitimate hierarchy.
If you are elected into some position and claim that gives you the "authority" to order me around, that is an illegitimate hierarchy.
If I can't specify certain outcomes in exchange for my paying you, then I'm not going to pay you. In fact, I won't trade with you at all- "pay" doesn't have to mean only money. It doesn't mean I am "over" you in any way, but it means we agreed that I would give you something in exchange for something else. I am not exploiting you unless I force you into an arrangement where you aren't willing to be. In which case self defense seems to be in order, not whining over hierarchies.
.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Keep v*ting- I'm sure it will work next time
How can people believe v*ting can change the direction of government in any real way?
And how can they believe the outcome represents the will of the majority? Or that just because the majority wants something it should be forced on everyone? Do they believe any outcome is OK as long as it wins the v*te?
Let's put the reality of v*oting to the test. I touched on this in one of my newspaper columns a while back.
Let's say there's been a plane crash, with 20 survivors. Maybe this happened in a very remote area, perhaps as a result of an EMP, so there's no hope of being found through modern technology. Whatever the reason, just imagine the chance of a rescue coming any time soon is very slim.
After escaping the wreckage you find there are a dozen survivors who are able to walk. Do you try to walk out to be rescued or do you sit and wait for rescuers to show up? Some of those who wouldn't have a chance of walking out could still get around well enough to help those left behind- even if they'd rather not be left.
It's probably better to stick together, so how should you decide whether everyone should stay or go? If you believe in v*ting, you may decide to let the majority decide- and follow the government rules established for elections- maybe skipping the whole "v*ter ID" thing.
Two of those survivors are too young to get a v*te. One guy doesn't speak the language of the others, and doesn't know what's being discussed so he doesn't get to v*te. Two of the survivors admit they are former felons, so obviously they don't get to weigh in. So that leaves 7 who are allowed to v*te on whether to walk out of the crash site or stay put. If the v*te runs 4 to 3 in favor of walking out, how is the best way to handle this? Sure maybe one of those who v*ted to stay put will go along with the majority v*te- humans can be very cooperative even when it is not in their best interests.Then you'll have 5 v*ters voluntarily leaving the site.
Should the fate of all be decided by 25% of the group? What if, like in all things political, the actual deciders are a much tinier percentage than even that? How small a minority of the group- even if they are the majority of v*ters- should get to make decisions that will be forced on all?
V*ting is a sick way to settle things. Almost nothing should ever be subject to a v*te- and rights and liberty are never among them.
If you v*te you are agreeing to play by the rules bad people have laid out for you. You are agreeing to abide by the results. Some say you have no right to complain if you don't v*te- that's not even close. If anything, those who complain after agreeing to play a rigged game and losing, look hypocritical when they complain that it didn't go the way they wanted.
You do what you want, but v*ting lends an air of legitimacy to the rigged political game. If it could change anything it would be illegal. But keep v*ting and pretending you are "doing something". I'm sure you can v*te back liberty any year now.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)