Christian liberty posters

Although I am somewhat hostile toward religion, I am not hostile towards individuals who follow religions- as long as they don't use their faith as justification for aggression and theft.

In the spirit of reaching out to my principled Christian friends I made a few illustrations to help them get the point across.

I hope they like them, and can use them. Feel free to copy and use them however you see fit.

(Yeah, this one is iffy. So many seem to believe The State- "America"- to be the source of wealth and prosperity, and worship it for this reason. I still think it works, but you may not.)

Dangerous times for truth and honesty

They say it is dangerous to be right when government is wrong.

It is also dangerous to even question whether government might be wrong, when even other liberty lovers are anxious to throw you to the wolves.

It is dangerous to point out that people are using words incorrectly, ignorantly accusing a person of something by buying into the statist definition which is demonstrably incorrect. But it won't matter because "Emotion!".

It is so dangerous to even mention this that I can't go into further details without being accused of being guilty of the same thing- because I'm seeing it happen to others right now.

I know this is frustratingly cryptic, and I apologize. But as I say, I don't feel like facing the wrath of statists AND liberty-lovers who have bought the State's lies. I just feel really bad for those who spoke up and are suffering because of it.

.

Recent protests missed right target

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 19, 2016)

The past couple of years have seen various protests against out-of-control government employees and agencies. Earlier it was the "Black lives matter" protests of deadly police encounters; more recently, ranchers protesting abuse by the Bureau of Land Management.

These protests miss the mark-- sometimes tragically.

Rule number one: When you protest, make sure you target the enemy, not bystanders.

While I agree "Black lives matter", I couldn't support the protesters when they vandalized, looted, and burned the property of those who were not their enemy. The residents affected by the protests came to fear the protesters, who instead of laying siege to the police station and courthouse, attacked the property of people who were not the problem. They alienated potential allies, causing them to beg for more police in the area. Just fanning the flames. Targeting the innocent is aggression, and cheapens your life, whoever you are.

Rule number two: Be consistent. I agree that the Bureau of Land Management is an abusive, rights-violating gang of bullies. Its buildings-- occupied by the protesters-- were built on stolen land with stolen money. But you lose credibility when you protest under the flag of your enemy; venerating your enemy's symbols.

So, although the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge protesters had the right target, they fumbled on principles.

The only aggression in the attempt to reclaim the wildlife refuge from the agency was committed by the government enforcers, who ultimately committed the only homicide to result.

In both protests, death came at the hands of government employees, and the killers got away with it. How would it turn out for you or I had we done the same thing?

Ranchers have a long history of being abused by government, sharing this common ground with residents of poor neighborhoods who have also experienced a long history of abuse at the hands of government employees.

Both share a common enemy, and I'm sad neither of them notice they should be on the same side. If only they'd move past the divisions which have been manufactured to keep them from uniting against the real enemy. And keep their protests free of hypocrisy and aggression.

Don't copy the behavior of the bad guys. Be above it. Join with others who have been similarly violated where you can find common ground. Together, we outnumber them. Let them come to that horrifying realization, and maybe things will improve once they know they can't get away with it anymore.

.

Legitimizing the enemy

No, I am not a Trump supporter. Nor even a presidency supporter. I don't "need" a president. I don't want a president. And- funny thing- I am old enough to have noticed presidents don't actually affect me in any way. No matter who they are.

But, I'm still enjoying watching Trump's campaign.

One of the most fascinating things about Trump's candidacy is how it is bringing out the absolute worst in those who oppose him. With their behavior they are doing more to advance his campaign than his supporters could ever hope to do without their help.

Basically they are making his point for him- whatever it is his supporters believe his point to be.

This illustrates why you'll never see me out protesting "government"; screaming and waving a sign in the face of pro-government extremists. Don't give your enemy legitimacy. Don't give him something to point at and convince his supporters to fear- something he can promise to protect them from.

.

Everyone is "liberal"

Just as silly as "Right vs Left" is the idea of "conservative vs liberal".

Simply, the "conservative" wants things to stay as they are, and the "liberal" (or "progressive") wants change.

But, there are no political people who don't vary on that point, depending on the topic.

Some want anti-gun "laws" to increase, some want them to decrease. Some want "taxation" to go up, some want it to go down, and some want it to be recognized as theft and go away. Everyone is a "liberal"- no one wants everything to stay exactly the same.

There may be some who are truly "conservative" on an issue or two, and who want that one thing to stay the same, but even these people want "progress"- however they might define it- in other areas.

Now, some want things to go back to "how they were", or to how they imagine them to have once been. That's not conservative, either, since it still involved radical change.

Me, I'd like to take the best things from the past, keep the best things from the present, and add the best things the future can come up with to maximize human liberty and minimize aggression and theft. Yes, that's very liberal and progressive, so unlike the statists who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" but are really just statists who only want to change things toward more draconian control of everything that they fear or hate.

.

Welcome to the Zombie Apocalypse

In a lot of ways it feels as though I am living through a personal Zombie Apocalypse. But no one around me is experiencing things the same way I am. (That's always going to be true, regardless.) To panic would look odd to observers.

I am living in circumstances that test me. Circumstances others, perhaps, wouldn't think anything of.

When I can view it as a survival situation- honing my skills, etc.- I do OK.

Other times it is overwhelming and I am tempted to give up and let the zombies eat me. These are the times I have no corresponding skills to use. I need new skills.

Fortunately, it's not all one or the other, but a combination. And, if anyone wishes to help blow the heads off a few of the pursuing Zombies, I will always appreciate it.

And, it makes me realize others are being chased by zombies I can't see. Zombies that maybe I can help them fend off. If they'll ask.

A lot of people seem to see election season in this way- I wish I could help them see those zombies are an illusion. Or give them the tools to use to behead the zombies if they are real. We all fear the zombies we have no weapons against, and laugh about the ones we know can't touch us.

And we all see only our own zombies.

.

"Anarchist!" Not an insult

(Previously posted to Patreon. Please subscribe!)

That moment when a statist calls you an anarchist, thinking it's an insult rather than an admission you're a better person than he.

I was trying to remind people to not hate supporters of presidential candidates, but to pity them. They are, after all, pitiable creatures; tying their fortune and reputation to demonstrably evil, lying people.

Somehow the conversation turned to hating cops, or not, based on the specious claim that cops are people too, with good or bad, just like everyone else.

I pointed out that it is the cops' actions that make them bad. If there can be "good cops", then there can also be "good rapists". The act is what defines the label; nothing else. And, while cops and rapists both, by definition, violate people to be what we identify them to be, rapists don't demand thanks and respect for doing so. This makes rapists ethically superior to cops.

This didn't sit well with one particular guy.

Quickly the rhetoric was escalated. In a flurry of posts I was asked whether I want the Constitution, or law enforcement of any kind. (No, I don't!) He also made the fatal statist error: If I don't want cops, then obviously I don't want accidents to be taken care of and removed from the roadways. I don't want roads or emergency medical response or fires to be fought. I don't want anything associated with "protect and serve". I don't want anyone to help anyone else.

After I wiped the tears of laughter from my eyes, and reminded him that cops only protect and serve themselves and the bullies who steal the money to pay their salaries, I asked why he believes only tax junkies can respnd to emergencies.

But it was too late. He had called me an anarchist and blocked me.

He believes "anarchist" to be an insult!

Because I don't believe I have the right to enslave, nor the obligation to allow myself to be enslaved, I am somehow bad? Because I respect the property rights of others, recognizing that no imaginary "collective rights" can override them, I should feel ashamed? Because I neither agree to rule or be ruled, I am the bad guy?

Statists are insane.

.

There are only two options here

I am not religious. I don't believe you'll find scientific facts in the Bible beyond the understanding of the people of the era in which they were originally written. I don't believe in anything supernatural.

Yet, I still don't believe Romans 13 means what statist Christians want it to mean.

If it does mean what they claim, then it would mean the Bible is a lie. It means it sides with evil and against good.

If it doesn't mean what they claim it means, and if the supernatural parts of the Bible are true, they'd better stop taking God's name in vain and ask forgiveness.

I fully support the interpretation of my friends, the liberty-loving Christians, in this case. Maybe because theirs is the correct one; maybe because the alternative would be too painful.

.

Lost in translation

Often, when I read things written by others, I am forced to engage in ongoing translation. It's as if they are writing in a foreign language. Actually, that may be closer to the truth that I know.

When they write the word "leftism" I normally know I have to translate it as "statism". When they write "freedom", I can usually tell from the context if they really mean "liberty". And so it goes.

If I can do this with others who love liberty but who use different words than I do, I should be able to do the same when reading things written by anti-liberty bigot statists. But that's even harder.

How do you communicate when you have so little common ground that they not only call an act of The State something other than slavery, but actually believe this example of slavery is OK. Their ethics are inside out, upside down, and in an altogether different dimension.

It's amazing there's any communication between us at all- and that's why there usually isn't any.

.

Me, my flaws, and Liberty

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I'm ridiculous. I'm absurd. I've been told I'm smug. I'm definitely stubborn. I won't bend when I think I'm right- especially after I have thought it through from the other guy's perspective and concluded, in spite of various objections, I was right all along.

I've done bad things. I've done things I don't think were bad, but others would. I've done good things that turned out badly. Occasionally I may even do something good that goes well for me.

I've stuck to my principles. I have violated my principles. I've accepted consequences and I've complained about consequences. I've felt powerful and I've felt helpless.

I dress funny. I don't fit in. A former wife said I only refuse to dress like everyone else for attention. Maybe she was right.

I have succeeded and I have failed miserably.

I haven't been able to liberate my relatives as much as I wish. I hate seeing them hurting themselves just because they are afraid to have something better. Or, even worse, because "it's always been this way and it's not going to change". That's the saddest excuse of all, even worse than when they use their religion to justify support for The State. I have come to grips with the fact I can't be responsible for the choices others make- no matter how painful or embarrassing they are.

And in spite of all that, liberty works for me. Personally. In the day-to-day real world. Not perfectly, by any means, but better than the alternative that everyone else seems to settle for. Liberty, when put into practice, just works.

If it can work with all my obvious shortcomings, it can work for you.

You just have to live it.

Sure, I could be a better spokesperson for liberty. I could shave, cut my hair, and wear "professional" clothes. I could ditch the hats, the 19th Century clothing, and get up-to-date spectacles, or contacts. I could learn to speak better, maybe even without sounding vaguely Bullwinkle-ish. I could take courses on "How to win friends and influence people"; on persuasion. I could get a "real job" to show that liberty doesn't necessarily mean being broke.

Those changes might make me a better liberty spokesperson, but I wouldn't be comfortable- well, other than having more money. And what good is liberty if you can't enjoy it?

I could be more polite in the face of bullies and their rules. I could be nicer to those who advocate bullying me and taking my property- they "mean well", I am told. I should respect their opinions more.

On the other hand, if those are changes you believe I should make, perhaps you should consider being the me I can't be- better than me. Be the spokesperson for liberty you wish I could be.

You might be the missing element. The catalyst. You might be the one to make the difference I could never make with all my flaws. You'll never know until you do it.

So, do it.

.

Even government’s right sometimes

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 12, 2016)

I have discovered- to my horror- there are still people who believe the Earth is flat. To compound my dismay, I see some justify their belief by saying government promotes the "globe Earth" theory, so it must be a lie.

Government conspiracies aren't imaginary; many are carried out openly, often in front of news cameras. If there's opportunity, an advantage, and low chance of being exposed and embarrassed before the lie has served its purpose, government will lie. The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" and the Tuskegee experiment should be evidence enough.

But, government also promotes-- or accepts and uses-- "2+2=4". A stopped clock is right twice a day- although this was more true before digital clocks.

Earth was known to be a globe long before NASA came along to "promote" the idea; millennia before any current government existed. This reality was discovered independently by various people throughout history, using experiments they were able to think up and do for themselves. Experiments you can do, if you care to.

If you don't want to measure angles to the stars or do other physical experiments, you can engage in thought experiments to the same end.

For example, look at "flat Earth" maps. The farther you move from their center, the North Pole, the worse they get. According to those maps, in Australia you would have to walk much farther to cover the same distance east or west than when walking north or south. I pointed this out and was told the maps aren't a true representation and distort the shape of the Earth, "just like maps of a globe Earth".

Yes, because the Earth isn't flat. Being nice, I suggested they make a flat Earth map without the distortion. It should be extremely easy. The problem in making a flat map of the world comes from trying to represent a spherical surface on a flat one; something will be distorted, usually near the poles. A flat Earth wouldn't have this problem and would fit easily on a flat map; a simple one-to-one transfer of points, without land or ocean distortions. Yet they can't do it.

You can approach their claim from multiple angles and keep getting the same result: a roughly spherical Earth.

When data from many different observations keep pointing to the same conclusion, you can be confident you've found truth.

Skepticism and an open mind are good, but falling for any hare-brained notion which sounds appealing isn't enlightenment. Even if it means you and the bad guys sometimes agree.

.

My first knife

This is a photo of the very first knife I ever owned. Yes, I still have it.

It is a Robeson "63251". I got it while I was in 1st grade- I can't remember who gave it to me now- and I carried it with me all throughout my kinderprison days- right through high school graduation. At school, every day, regardless of whatever the rules might have been. Not that I even have any idea whether it was "allowed" or not. I didn't care, so I didn't bother to see if I were breaking the rules.

And I never stabbed or attacked anyone with it. Not even the few times I ended up defending myself from bullies.

Of course, I graduated to bigger, better knives- even before I stopped carrying that one. A couple of times, when I knew I was facing a threat, I even took bigger knives with me into the adolescent zoo, just in case.

No "rule" can ever forbid me the tools of self defense. Of course, I also know every decision has consequences.

-

I was reminded of this by a post over at Joel's blog.

A Bunkerville lesson learned

If the feds have actually started an organized roundup of the Bunkerville defenders, there is a lesson to be learned.

And that lesson is...

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to resist being molested by government employees, especially with weaponry, you might as well go all the way. Because they will come after you eventually anyway.

You read that right. If you are in a situation where you have to be armed to avoid being immediately kidnapped or murdered, the bullies of The State can't let that go. So, unfortunately, you may as well get as many of them as you can.

That's not my "rule", it is theirs. The anti-liberty bigots have made their beds.

It shouldn't be like that. If The State were civilized it wouldn't be like that. But States aren't. Instead, the most they will do is regroup to wait until they can get you in relative safety. Government employees are cowards and ethical cripples. Otherwise, they wouldn't be government employees.

Again, this is another application of the truth that when the enemies of life, liberty, and property raise the stakes and make the penalties high no matter how you act when you ignore their counterfeit "laws", you have nothing to lose by going all the way.

.

It doesn't mean what I thought

It is disheartening that here in this region of Texas- and to a lesser extend, this part of New Mexico, too- you can't go anywhere without running into unwelcoming signs. They are beside almost every door of every business you might want to enter.

With all the real concerns out there, why the focus on guns? Mere tools. The focus is never on acts. You never see a sign prohibiting robbery, murder or rape- only pictures of guns. How idiotic and cowardly.

But, I guess I should be comforted that those idiotic, cowardly signs apparently don't mean what I had thought they meant.

I thought they meant "no guns". Well, it's good to know that ridiculous symbol only means "guns must be handled appropriately". Whew! Good to know!

Still, this sign says that in a much more adult way:

Anti-gun bigots strike again

Someone I have met was just kidnapped and released (it was called an "arrest") because well over a month ago, a cowardly, sniveling off-duty cop saw him wearing a gun on his hip, openly and peaceably, in a convenience store. This disgusting cop had issues with this behavior from a mere mundane because he believes "the law" prohibits guns in places that sell alcohol. By my acquaintance's understanding, this "law" only applies where alcohol is consumed on premises. Whatever.

Of course, you and I know such a "law" is always counterfeit, and enforcing it is only carried out by evil induhviduals. Like the bully cop.

At the time of the non-incident, the bully allowed my acquaintance to leave, but apparently tattled to those holding his leash as soon as he could.

So the prosecutor- another sniveling anti-liberty bigot- decided to issue a demand for his kidnapping. Of course, being a statist with delusions of "authority" he called it a warrant for his arrest. Same thing.

Now, you know that a badge doesn't make wrong right, nor does it make right wrong.

If an act is wrong for you or me, it is wrong for a cop. And if an act is OK when done by a cop, it is OK for you or me to do the same. That's the only way it can be, because cops are not superior, with additional rights or privileges.

They are nothing more than lowly hired hands who are subservient to us, and have no rights we don't already possess- because no one can authorize anyone to do things he doesn't have the right to do. If I don't have the right to carry a gun into a convenience store- or into a bar, courthouse, or anywhere else- then neither can a cop; hired on my behalf. That's just reality.

History shows cops will murder you- with the full support of their followers- for acting on this reality, but that just proves how disgustingly evil they are.

There is no victim and there is no crime. My acquaintance did nothing wrong- all the guilt lies with those who dreamed up, wrote, passed, and enforce this counterfeit "law".

I hope my acquaintance insists on a jury trial, and I hope that at least one member of his jury knows he has a duty to nullify this counterfeit "law" by saying "not guilty" and refusing to even consider "lesser" charges or any penalties whatsoever.

That's the right thing to do.

.

"Trade deficits"

Once again I saw someone whining about "trade deficits". This, again? People still believe in that sort of thing? Well, yes, people who believe in The State still believe in other meaningless things, too.

There can be no such thing as a "trade deficit". There can be trade, or there can be theft. The component that makes the difference, by its presence or absence, is coercion. When you trade, there is no deficit; no imbalance. Not ever.

One example that is much overused in regard to "trade deficits" is China. Chinese manufacturers make cheap stuff and sell it to customers in America. And we customers pay them for it. No one forces us to buy any one thing in particular. Even government has so far failed in this area (except in the "market" of "services" like insurance).

When we give a Chinese manufacturer dollars (in the roundabout way this sort of thing occurs), we have made an even trade. Dollars for products. There is no deficit. If you are losing something in a trade, don't trade. Unless a government or mugger gets involved and takes your property (products or dollars) and gives nothing (or too little) in return, the trade is always an even one.

But this brings up a philosophical question. Which is more valuable: printed paper with dollar signs or real goods that can be used to make a better life for the people who possess them? Apparently, under current circumstances, to most people, they are of equal (but fluid) value. When the dollar eventually collapses (as all fiat money does) would you rather have a big bank account or a house full of useful items that you purchased indirectly from sellers in other countries (who now have your worthless paper)?

If you claim the money traded for the products is worth more than the product you got in return, you are an idiot to agree to the trade. Personally, as an individual. If you wish to claim that US dollars are worthless (or worth less), you are saying the Chinese company got ripped off, not you. You have no "authority", nor enough wisdom, to judge another person's trade. What makes sense to them may seem one-sided to you. That is not for you to judge.

If you are mad that "PlastiCrap World" sells cheap Chinese products, don't buy them. Pay more and get a better item instead, either from the same store or from a competitor. Or get what you want from a yard sale or flea market. Or design and build your own. I do all the above, and so can you. Plus, sometimes I buy the "cheap junk" because it suits my needs at the the time, at the price I am willing to pay. Once again: voluntary trade = no deficit.

The whole myth of "trade deficits" is just an excuse to tell you who you can trade with, and under what conditions. It also always funnels some money into thieving governmental hands. This myth is an authoritarian power-grab and is bad for liberty and good for coercive government.

But what about "American jobs" going overseas? Outsourcing is a form of "division of labor". If you are good at doing something, people will seek you out to purchase that product or service. As long as you charge a price people are willing to pay, that is. Minimum wage laws mess with that formula. They skew the market and make it harder to do business affordably and competitively where they exist- but that's another issue for another day.

Also, when governments subsidize a company so it can sell cheaper to another country, that skews the market, but also is a net drain on the people of the country doing it ("taxes", etc.) so they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. And, again, you can choose to refuse to trade with companies you believe take advantage of government handouts, wherever in the world they may be based. Governments screw up everything they touch- that's a reality you need to deal with.

Now, I am not sure what companies are thinking when they set up their customer service phone centers in places where the employees have such a strong accent that they can not be understood by the average person. Unless they really have no interest in "serving the customers", which seems likely in many cases.

.
Adapted from two old posts of mine, here, and here









.

Borrowing trouble from schools

Getting worked up over stupid things done by "public" schools seems pointless to me. Yet people do seem to "enjoy" it as a hobby.

The solution isn't to go tell the principal your grievances, or to yell at the stupid teacher, or even to get angry over arbitrary and harmful rules.

The solution is to divorce your life from those awful kinderprisons. Why put up with them? Education is too important to waste time on school.

Yes, I realize you will continue to be robbed to fund them- or die for daring to keep your property intact.

.

You’re libertarian or you’re not

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 5, 2016)

Libertarianism is filled with wolves in sheep's clothing. People with anti-liberty ideals, when they share some pro-liberty ideals with libertarians, believe we share all their ideals. We don't. In fact, their anti-liberty "values" are disgusting.

I know there are also those who claim to be "conservative" or "liberal" who can't meet the minimum measure to fit the bill. Regardless of where you stand, I'm sure you can relate to the problem of wolves in sheep's clothing among any group.

Someone can be "libertarian leaning" while still not being libertarian. They are not the ones to learn from if you truly want to understand liberty.

Over the years I have seen people claim anyone who points out one of these frauds is falling into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. If you aren't familiar with this fallacy, it's like claiming "No libertarian would do that!" If shown someone who claims to be a libertarian doing exactly that, they cry "No TRUE libertarian would."

However, the fallacy doesn't apply where there is a clear definition of what membership in a group entails, and it is being violated. For example: "no honest man would lie" isn't a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, because liars are not honest.

Sometimes he really isn't a Scotsman.

A libertarian is one who advocates maximum liberty and minimum government. My observation is that "minimum" anything is zero; you may believe in some other minimum.

"Maximum liberty and minimum government" is reached by rejecting aggression. Libertarians accept the fact that no one has a right to use force against those who are not being violent nor violating private property, and no one has a right to violate the property of others. A job can't grant you a pass, either.

Anyone who follows this is a libertarian whether he knows it or not, and those who don't accept it aren't libertarian no matter what they may say. By definition. A horse is a horse, and nothing else is.

The worst anti-libertarian impostors are always politicians. Ofttimes they don't claim to be libertarian, but are mislabeled as such by the media which doesn't understand the politician nor libertarianism. This gets old.

It is also divisive. Libertarians who believe in trying to vote their way to more liberty are constantly fooled into supporting politicians who don't reject aggression and theft, just because they believe another politician would be worse.

If you vote and value liberty, look at what the candidate does, not what he is called.

.

Hopeful delusions

Confession: I am horrible at romantic relationships. Every single one I have ever been in has ended in heartache for me (and quite probably for her, as well). Yet, I never seem to learn. I always believe that maybe next time will be better.

Sounds like every v*ter's experience, doesn't it.

They keep getting betrayed, having their hopes and dreams crushed by the system and the politicians they believed in... and they keep believing that "next time" will be different; perhaps it will change everything.

Which of us is more delusional?

.

One middleman who should always be cut out

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!

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

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?

.

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?

.

‘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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.


.

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.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

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.

.

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!

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.