Government working as designed

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 10, 2016)

I'm sure you've noticed, but this seems to be an exceptionally angry presidential election cycle. More than usual, those who hate the candidates are setting the tone, rather than those who support them. Just about everyone who cares passionately for one or the other seems to be behaving like a rabid animal.

People don't simply have a preference; they may like their candidate- or not- but they hate or fear the other candidates beyond all reason. Some then act on this hatred and fear.

Is this how elections are going to be from now on?

If you don't agree with the other candidate, use logic and reason to counter his (or her) claims. Or if that's too hard, use simplistic emotion to manipulate agreement. Whatever you do, don't use aggression. If you attack his supporters with fists, rocks, or eggs, you're admitting you can't come up with anything rational, so you are striking out like an impulsive child.

When the best advertisement for a candidate is those who oppose her (or him), perhaps it's time to look in a mirror. It's self-defeating behavior. It would be discouraging if I expected better of those who play politics.

Presidents are largely figureheads. If you look to them as role models, you are grasping at straws. No one who seeks political office-- the power to rule others-- should be your hero, ever. The particular person in office matters less than does the existence of the dangerous office.

I oppose all candidates and the offices they seek, on principle, so I don't have a horse in this race. If I did, seeing how voters act would put me off of elections for at least this year, and probably drive me away from them forever. Why would I want to be associated with a ritual which inspires such behavior?

But this is what you get when you allow someone power which was never meant for a person-- the power to tell others how they are permitted to live, and what they are required to do with their life and property. Only bad people will seek that kind of power, so only bad people will gain it.

Don't be surprised or disappointed at the outcome. The system is working just as it was designed to work; the only possible way it can work. In every election, only government wins. It's nothing to get angry about. It's something to recognize and refuse to be a part of. Are you brave enough?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

Government "solutions"

When I see governmental approaches to anything, this is what I see:

"It sure is hard to get the ball to stay on the tee!
It must just be impossible."

I see people turning things upside down and making them harder than they really are, by not thinking things through. Actually, by being idiots.

If you still try to fix issues with government, you need to stop, think about what you are doing, and if you still can't figure out you're holding it upside down, walk away from the table. Let others handle it.

You have all you need to solve everything which can be solved, and yet, by invoking theft and aggression, you are making it almost impossible. You are making it worse.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Consistency

It scares and confuses a LOT of people.

They want you to make exceptions for those they worship.
They want you to make exceptions for State policies and "laws" they like.
They want you to make exceptions for things they choose to not understand.
They simply want and need exceptions to give room for some inconsistent positions.

And, I try hard to not leave room for inconsistencies- but I'm quite sure I'm not perfect.

It won't gain you friends among these people to be consistent. I've known that for a long time.

Although I've seen it for years, it still disappoints me every time I am reminded of it- at least when I see it in people who claim to love liberty. I don't really expect it of statists, since all statism hinges on inconsistency.

Which leads me to something else.

Whenever I find people disliking me for some of my opinions, it inspires me to examine those opinions. It's very possible I am wrong. If I'm unsure about something, I'll let you know (abortion, for example). But as long as I'm sure, I won't be timid about saying so. And my certainty is always provisional; subject to change in the face of new information. But, when I look at their objections and see inconsistencies in their position, as much as I might want to change my views to make them like me again, I just can't do it. I would end up disliking myself. It's not worth the cost.

It bothers me that some people dislike me. It shouldn't, I know. But it does. If I were doing this for popularity, I'm going about it the wrong way. I should be blogging about Minecraft, or comic book hero movies, or the new Pokemon game. But those things are not important to me. Maybe I shouldn't be blogging at all, if I only wanted to be liked.

I'm not one of those who tries to make people dislike me, or gets some sort of validation from it. I have never once thought "everyone hates me, which just proves I'm right!"

And, yet...

That probably explains the drop in page views recently. I had wondered if the tone of my writing had changed after my daughter's tragic death, and was causing readers to drift away. But now I suspect it may be something else more fundamental. And I guess it explains the steady drop in subscriptions and donations over the past few months, too. I know some is due to the economy, but apparently not all. People aren't going to support those they dislike- I wouldn't expect them to, nor would I want them to. It violates the "everything voluntary" position I support. If you want out, now is the perfect time to end your subscription without guilt.

Maybe this is me being consistent again, or maybe this is me being inconsistent, crazy, stubborn, or whatever. I can't accurately judge that from this perspective.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Time to declare a war on cops

My latest offering from The Libertarian Enterprise. Read it there (and then read the rest of this week's edition).

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"Two party system"

Of course, I think v*ting amounts to continuing to play a rigged game with known cheaters, and expecting to sometimes win. And, even if you do win, all you get by winning is the chance to force your will on the losers for a time. Not ethical behavior.

But, that's not the only v*te-related craziness I see.

One related trap many v*ters fall into is believing the "two party system" is official, as if enshrined in the Constitution (which is a whole 'nother can of Ebola, but I'll leave the poor old CONstitution alone for now).

The "two party system", if you believe it is anything other than one State party with two play-acting, "opposition" sides for the sake of appearances, is nothing more than a temporary circumstance which happens to be in fashion. It has no more permanence than a gritty whirlwind.

Not only are the current "mainstream parties" just a fleeting accident of history, there is nothing special about having only two "mainstream" parties.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

A few observations on cops

The outpouring of love for cops that has occurred online since the cops were killed in Dallas makes me sick. I mean, actually sick.

Against my better judgement I posted several thoughts and observations on this- not the specific incident, but just about all the fawning over cops I saw.

So, I'll share them here. You can decide if I'm crazy, like some said...

If you get upset when cops get killed "in the line of duty", but don't feel the same when burglars, muggers, rapists, and other freelance bad guys get killed for "just doing their job", too, you might have a problem being consistent.

.---.

The idea that 'people should just put up with the violations of murderous bullies because those bullies wear badges' is horrific.

.---.

I have spoken to cops and people in training to become cops.

If you believe they aren't being trained to view you and me as "criminals they just haven't caught yet", you are delusional.

They are being carefully trained into an "Us vs Them" mindset, and you and I are the "Them".

They are also brainwashed into feeling entitled to do whatever they want, and expecting you to still worship them for it.

They are being trained that you have no rights other than those they allow you to have, and that their word is LAW. Instant compliance is compulsory, and the penalty for hesitation is death.

Cops are the most aggressive gang in America. The Blue Line Gang. They are NOT the good guys. Period.

If you support them, you are part of the problem.

.---.

Giving thieves, murderers, and other aggressors a pass because of their "job" is absurd.

.---.

I will suggest a way I think is much better, in most cases, than shooting cops... if you care to listen.

I think a better tactic to use against cops would be for people to simply ignore their worthless hides.

Do what you are going to do as long as it doesn't violate anyone else- regardless of the idiotic opinions of lawflinging bullies and their hired thugs. Ignore the enforcers and stand with those doing so when it looks like the Blue Line Gang is going to violate them. A solid line of gritty, determined defense for their intended victims would cause them to back down faster than a prosecutor facing a Clinton.

Shun them in business and personal life. Turn your back (figuratively, and literally if you don't think they are likely to shoot you in the back at the moment) anytime they are present.

Cops don't deserve respect, they deserve contempt. They have earned it in spades. It's time they are paid their wages.

.---.

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.

Yet, they believe they are entitled to continue committing acts of enforcement against their ethical and moral superiors without consequence, because consequences for their behavior are so rare.

They are shocked, angered, and stunned when consequences catch up to them.

I want one of two things to happen:
either cops change their behavior to the extent they are no longer cops (no longer violating life, liberty, or property as part of "doing their job"), or I want them to face consequences daily; each and every time they enforce a counterfeit "law" or otherwise violate someone.

I don't "need" cops, and neither do you.

.---.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

It's not always smart to do what you have a natural human right to do.

You always have a right to defend yourself and others from aggressors or gangs of aggressors. Always.

And, cops are aggressors (and thieves).

But, they are a popular gang. They are getting less popular, through their own actions, but they are still too popular to successfully defend yourself from and survive. They are outnumbered on a massive scale, but too many of their victims still come flying to their defense.

So, work on eroding that popular support, and maybe you'll never have to defend yourself from the Blue Line Gang.

It is NEVER OK to support cops. There is no excuse for it. Don't coddle those who do. Supporting cops is as disgusting as supporting rapists and murderers (those who aren't cops, too, I mean), and those who do it should be reminded of this fact.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"War on police"?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

The last thing a town needs

The local police chief is complaining that he needs the town to authorize him to hire another cop. Which also means buying another flashing-light-sporting Mobile Scummery Unit with which to chase down and rob more drivers.

Of course, there's no real crime here. If you look at the local victims of law enforcement you'll notice mainly people who ingested or possessed substances the State has formed a negative opinion of. With a few DWIs (although those are caught by someone other than the town cops, like state stormtroopers or the shire reaver department) thrown in. Usually several "driving without a license", fleeing a molester- sorry, I mean "evading arrest", and the occasional "refusal to identify", and some "illegal gun carry" for those they can't molest using another excuse.

Absolutely ZERO "need" for another cop.

"But all the other towns this size have three officers", he whines. "A third officer would free me and the other officer to take days off, and have someone available to respond when the others are busy."

Fortunately, the response I have seen to his suggestion is unanimously negative. Eventually, I know the cowards of the city council will give the bully what he wants. I have seen it too many times.

As everyone knows, adding more cops adds more crime. They will go around looking for more "offenses"- and will undoubtedly find them. Must justify that paycheck, you know.

It means less self-responsibility as people get brainwashed and lazy, depending on cops to do what they should be doing for themselves. This degrades quality of life for everyone. And will eventually give justification for even more "laws" and cops.

This means there will be yet another cop patrolling the school zone looking for "distracted drivers" or those whose "speed" is completely safe, but exceeds the arbitrary "limit", or people who don't fully stop at the stop signs (following the example of said cops who cruise around while staring absent-mindedly at their computer screen instead of paying attention to the kids).

This means justification for stealing more money from residents through "taxation"- unless the cops manage to steal enough through "fines" to pay for themselves.

Cops are scum, and the last thing this town needs is another sanctioned scumwad molesting the residents.

Instead of hiring another, fire them all.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

The FBI endorses nullification... sort of

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post. Come on, subscribe! You know you want to.)

The FBI: Yes, Hillary broke the law. No, she shouldn't be punished. Don't get any ideas, because YOU are not Hillary.

This is nullification on an individual scale. Applied to one "special" individual in one specific case. Not that I don't believe she could get away with it as many times as it takes to protect her.

The thing is, I don't really care.

The "law" is stupid. There should be no government secrets. L. Neil Smith suggests that keeping government secrets should be the only capital crime. Would you allow your butler to keep secrets relating to his job from you?

Of course, there should be no FBI to investigate or rule on this. The agency is unconstitutional and demonstrably criminal. They earned the name "Feral Baby Incinerators".

Then again, there should be no government to have an FBI, a "secretary of state", secrets, a Constitution, or "laws". It's another case of striking at the root, rather than thrashing the branches.

I guess this is why I wasn't that worried over whether Hillary would be prosecuted. She broke the law, sure, but I have no respect for the law, or those it protects, or those who would enforce it. I say expose all government secrets and let people see exactly what government is. If it takes a lying bully such as Hillary to bring down the farce, so be it.

Of course, this proclamation from the FBI should have resulted in the immediate release of Chelsea Manning and the end of threats to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and everyone else being punished for doing the exact same thing Hillary did... but it won't. They are not Hillary, either.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Expectations of perfection

I believe I have noticed another difference between myself and most statists: I don't expect perfection.

I'm accepting of the fact that the world isn't perfect, and will never be perfect. I try to adapt to the problems as they crop up. Sometimes I don't do well; other times I do OK.

But, the statists around me seem really stymied by simple imperfections. They wring their hands and gnash their teeth, and seem to have a hard time letting go.

What does bother me is intentional flaws- especially when the solution is simple.

"Taxation" is wrong, because it is theft, and the solution is so simple: just stop doing it. The world would survive just fine. Civilization would thrive. Innovation would be unchained. Yes, bullies and parasites would be inconvenienced, but that's a good thing.

And that's not the only simple solution to manufactured problems. Anti-gun "laws" empower murderers. End them.

Anti-business "laws" cripple the economy and impoverish individuals. End them.

The list could go on for many pages.

Yet, I don't expect perfection even in liberty. There will always be problems and flaws in the world. It's just that I see it as insane to pile unnecessary ones on top of the random and arbitrary ones which would exist anyway.

Somewhat related is the observation that statists assume intentions according to their preconceptions. They assume cops and "troops" mean well, even when their actions are completely evil. And they'll assume someone who isn't in one of their favored groups has the worst of intentions, no matter how well they behave. Myself, I go more by what they do than what they may have intended to do. I'd rather someone have bad intentions, but respect liberty, than someone to have the best of intentions, yet violate liberty. Call me silly, I suppose.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

.

Awaiting Bernie’s plan to help poor

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 3, 2016)

It's a rare thing for me to agree with a presidential candidate-- and rarer still for me to agree with an avowed socialist.

Bernie Sanders recently said it is "unacceptable" that nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. Assuming his numbers are right-- not that it matters even if he's off by an order of magnitude or two-- that's too many. I agree with him. It is completely unacceptable.

So, does Bernie have an actual plan to fix it, or does he believe he can magically lift the poor by bringing down everyone else with taxes and regulations?

If one is honest about finding poverty unacceptable, one will support the steps required to solve it.

So, is Sanders ready to end taxation? To allow everyone, rich and poor, to keep all their money? To end all business taxes? Every corporate tax ends up being paid by the customer, because that's the economic reality of taxing businesses. Any business which doesn't figure every expense, including all taxes and government fees, into the final price the customer pays, will go out of business. No more jobs; no more of the benefits the business brings to society, including to you and the poor. Taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society; civilized society is what we sometimes manage in spite of taxation. The poor can't afford taxation, and neither can you.

It's a necessary first step, but there are more.

The best way to lift someone out of poverty is to stop preventing them from earning money. Is Mr. Sanders willing to advocate for ending licensing requirements and business permits? Wealthy people can afford to pay those ridiculous fees, but a poor person wanting to start her own business probably can't. If they dare to do business anyway, their business will be stolen from them by government employees "just doing my job", and they will be fined or jailed. All under the claim of "protecting society". Is he willing to end the criminalization of acts of free enterprise between consenting parties?

The poor are being "protected" into poverty, and kept there by red tape, regulations, and laws.

Widespread poverty should be a solved problem.

Or does Bernie plan to keep doing more of the same to trap those who are already impoverished in their current circumstances and make others join them; preventing both from helping themselves? Because that's been the standard government tactic for a century or so, and it isn't helping anyone but politicians.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

Statist's opinions

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion!"

Yes, and you are also entitled to commit suicide by drinking Drano, too. So? Why yap about it?

When someone declares their entitlement to an opinion, you can be certain they are aware on some level that their opinion is wrong. They instinctively know their opinion has been weighed by reality and has been found wanting. They may not be willing to admit it, and may be desperately trying to carve out a safe space for their sad little flawed opinion with this classic gem.

An example (one of many*) of this is when an anti-libertarian is confronted with objective facts showing that there can be no such thing as a "good cop". They really don't like this one, and will unfailingly try to save face by whipping out their entitlement to an opinion.

Yes, they can hold the opinion that there are "good cops", but reality shows otherwise. Sure, there can be nice cops, just as there can be nice Mafioso, nice rapists, nice burglars, and nice murderers (at least when they aren't committing the acts which define them). But by being any one of those, including a cop, they eliminate any possibility of being a good person.

When this is pointed out, the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" is one last desperate shot at trying to not look like an whining ethical weakling.

It never works.

-

*I also see it a lot with anti-gun bigots and "taxation" advocates. Like I say, basically anti-liberty bigots of all stripes who come to realize they can't support their flawed opinion when measured against reality.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

In-duh-pendence Day

"How can we turn a specifically anti-State holiday into a grovelling celebration of the State and a worship service for its bullies, goons, thugs, and tools?"

"The Fourth of July", once known as "Independence Day", depresses me. It has for years now.

I'm not a huge fan of fireworks- I'd prefer actual gunshots and such; noise with a purpose.

I don't enjoy setting off my own fireworks, and wouldn't do it at all if it weren't for my 8 year-old daughter wanting them.

And I really dislike driving in horrible traffic, and sitting in red, white, and blue crowds to watch a government-sponsored fireworks display, complete with patriotic statist war marches. Ugh!!

I am depressed that almost everyone has turned the day into a celebration of government "allowing" them to have (a teeny tiny bit of) "freedom", and worshiping the military. While proudly obeying the "laws" against "open containers", smoking pot, open carry, and whatever else the bullies dream up "laws" about, of course. While law enforcement thugs swagger through the crowd looking to cause trouble. It's sickening, really.

I'd be thrilled to see some displays of independence instead of fireworks. People breaking counterfeit "laws" and defending themselves from bullies with badges trying to commit acts of enforcement against them. That would give me a bigger boost than any fireworks display ever conceived.

Yes, I know I can focus on what I want the day to be about. But be careful of celebrating actual independence too openly; it could get you kidnapped or murdered by enforcers in Police State USA.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Sheltering their ignorance

Statists are much like obstinate children. They don't want to be told anything. Particularly anything which threatens what they believe (or wish to believe).

They'll repeat something clearly untrue or nonsense, but don't want to listen or hear the truth that exposes what they just said to be untrue.  No matter how obvious the truth is.

Sure, you could probably explain reality to them so clearly even they would understand- reality really isn't that hard to explain or understand- but they won't listen. They can't. It would scare them too badly to have their worldview shattered like that.

The only way statists can remain statists is by refusing to learn.

Statism is a sad condition.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

No such critter as an aggressive good guy

Drug dealers are better people than cops.

You can deal drugs and not be a bad guy. Don't initiate force. Don't violate property. Don't defraud. Sure, prohibition makes it harder, and attracts people who are already aggressive thieves and cheats into the job. But, it's not a requirement for doing that work.

You can not be a cop without being a bad guy. It simply isn't possible to be a cop without initiating force and violating property as a daily requirement of doing that work- the work of committing acts of enforcement.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

So much "if"

"Something might happen!!".

Is that a good excuse for a "law"?

Well, for anti-liberty bigots it is good enough.

And, since almost anything might result in something bad happening, there are infinite possibilities for new "laws" in their sad, shriveled little minds.

What's really tragic though is when those who understand liberty fall for it- which I have seen happen. Don't do it!

Yes, something bad might happen. Would you rather risk it, or guarantee it with new "laws"?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"Too much liberty"? Not even possible

Moderation in all things.

Which is why liberty is so great.

Liberty is freedom, moderated by the equal and identical rights of others. It is self-regulated, so it is impossible to ever have too much liberty.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Regulation is radical extremism

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 27, 2016)

I am driven by a love of personal responsibility, individual rights, free enterprise, and private property rights. At one time these values would have labeled me a conservative. The conservative preference of an earlier era was to keep the tentacles of the state out of life.

This doesn't seem to be what mainstream political conservatives want anymore. Decades ago they became less concerned about their own personal lives and became politically progressive, moving in the wrong direction- the direction away from Rightful Liberty. Away from what I value; toward government intervention in every part of life.

Empire-building, with military personnel or bases in the majority of countries around the planet, is not a conservative value. Neither is state regulation of marriage, or restroom rules. Nor is allowing government to dictate what people eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest. Nor is "securing the border" with an American version of the Berlin Wall.

Having government regulate and control so many parts of your life just so you can control the lives of others-- taking the decisions out of individually accountable hands, and giving that power to the state-- is a radical, government extremist position. And it is dangerous.

Long ago, before government extremists began to redefine words to make themselves look reasonable, the term "liberal" applied to those who valued individual liberty. No more- at least in America. Now those Americans who call themselves "liberal" want to use the force of the State to outlaw what little liberty the conservatives are still willing to allow, for the good of society, of course. Theirs is another radical, dangerous position.

It's why I generally choose to call myself libertarian in polite company.

My libertarian values would help those around me, both liberal and conservative, even if their tastes and preferences are very different than my own. All it would require is their respecting the same rights in everyone else as they demand for themselves. Is that really as hard as people seem to make it?

Regardless of the label applied, I have no wish whatsoever to use the force of the state, financed with the form of theft called taxation, to impose my personal tastes on anyone else. Live and let live. Don't attack and don't steal. Do whatever makes you happy, even if I think it's wrong, as long as it doesn't violate anyone's equal and identical rights. In which case, even if it personally disgusts me, I understand it's none of my business.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Anti-social behavior

Social behavior is cooperative and voluntary.

Anti-social behavior is coercive, aggressive, and non-consensual.

Which one of those fits how government operates? It certainly isn't cooperative and voluntary. That's for sure.

Government is the ultimate anti-social behavior. War, taxation, and all that are just the natural results of being anti-social.

It is strange to me how many people confuse "society" for "government" or "The State", when they are so clearly opposites.

.

How to blog like me

Since I've been doing this for nearly 10 years now, I thought it was time to present a blogging how-to "for educational purposes only".

Number 1: Pick a subject that almost no one in the world even knows exists.

Number 2: Choose an angle that no normal person would choose, and which will infuriate all the "normies"- if they ever discover your blog. Which, if you do item 1 right, they won't.

Number 3: Even though you don't get much attention, don't change anything substantive trying to get noticed.

Number 4: Keep it up. Don't quit.

Added recently- Number 5: Make videos which can be ignored by billions of people worldwide.

OK. Slightly more seriously...

I find I have the best blog ideas (well, the ones I think are best, anyway) while I am doing completely unrelated things. Things like taking a shower, mowing, making something, or sitting and waiting. Things that don't require much thought, but also don't put me to sleep. (But falling asleep at night is when I also have ideas.) That's when my bored mind starts working and pasting together thoughts inspired by things I have read or heard or which just form in my mind from who-knows-where. Before I know it, a full-blown blog post will be rattling around in my skull, just waiting for me to either write it down, or forget what it was.

If I am smart, I quickly stop and text the idea to my email (or, make a conscious mental note, at least), otherwise I usually forget what I was thinking and miss the chance. I really hate when I forget one, but I still haven't learned to "save" them every time- I always think "I'll remember this for sure!".

If you do it right, after a decade or so you'll have literally dozens of people reading your blog every day. Only the best people, of course, not those other ones.

Good luck!

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.


.

My recent criminal adventure

"Laws" cause even me to alter my behavior. Sometimes.

I recently raised a couple of orphaned raccoons. Their mother was hit by a car, and they crawled out of the nest days later, desperately searching for food. The landowner- a relative of mine- found them and brought them to me.

Scared, weak, and starving

And, I kept it fairly quiet.

According to some people, it is "illegal" to rescue raccoons around here, and- so I gather- particularly in town. Not that I actually checked into it, because I have a serious lack of concern about legality, but they were probably right.

I used to do animal rescues all the time- often having multiple wild orphans or injured adults simultaneously. I even had government-employed "state wildlife biologists" bring me animals without demanding to see a license or anything. I've had hawks, a vulture, a skunk, raccoons, a heron, rabbits, squirrels, blue jays, and many others pass through my house and survive. In fact, I had one squirrel and one raccoon who kept coming for visits for a long time- both had been single orphans, which got a little more attached than usual. I never even thought about "laws" during that time.

But, apparently, the "law" just gets more and more dangerous to regular people every year.

So, out of respect to others, I just kept my mouth shut. Some others didn't, and word spread through some loose lips, but I escaped getting caught committing my heinous crime.

They grew, got stronger, cost me money I didn't have to spare, and eventually began to revert to the wild after they were weaned. Just as they needed to.

Mmmm! "Milk"

This is what happens when you poop on each other

Drying after the bath

Exploring the porch...

...and the woodpile

"Quit shoving!"

Getting big

Water playtime

And now the raccoons have been put into the wild, where I hope they can survive. At least they have a better chance than they did before they came to me. And I can finally talk about it freely.

New home

Just imagine a free society, where you don't have to break "laws" to do the right thing. Where people don't have to worry about getting you in trouble by saying something to the wrong person.

Ah, the adventures of living in a police state while still managing to do what you should.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

Just a heads up

The next week is going to be a very busy one. One I have been dreading for months. I have my reasons, and they may be stupid, or you might understand if you knew. I don't think I'll share details, because it might make me look bad.

It might turn out OK and I may feel foolish later for having been dreading it.

It may give me lots of blog fodder, and a need to vent, or I may miss some days of posting- I don't know which.

This would be a really good time to subscribe or donate if you want to and can.

Hang on to your hat.

.

Brexit... Texit... whatever. I love secession!

I'm probably very late to weigh in on this, but that's how I roll.

If I were a British subject, would I have v*ted in favor of the "Brexit"? Of course not.

Am I in favor of it? Of course I am.

I am in favor of secession as a matter of principle. Breaking up big government into smaller pieces is something that will always make me smile. I always support secession from any government, no matter why it is done, where it happens, or whose idea it is. Even if the secessionists make the first move with a v*te.

But my liberty isn't up for a v*te, and I won't bother putting effort into something I don't put any stock in. I'll still be happy about it when it happens.

Will this v*te lead to liberty for Brits? No. As far as I can tell, the British v*ters aren't even considering that- they are only worried about who will rule them and where their "taxes" will go, not about rejecting rulers and theft altogether.

Still, I like upsetting big governments and the plans they have, even if it's just due to another government breaking away. It's always a step in the right direction- or at least it makes me smile.

Now I see more calls for "Texit", a Texas secession from the US. I'm on board with that, too.

Do I believe the Texas government is somehow "better" than the US government? Ha ha... no.

The thugs who call themselves the Texas government are every bit as bad as those who call themselves the US government. Anti-liberty bigots to the core.

Government is inexcusable. Both the governments in question are gangs of tax-addicted bullies, seeking to use your life and property to gain power. Governments are invariably made up of the lowest scum imaginable- those who believe they have a "right" to run your life, and help themselves to your property. There's no good way to spin that.

One of the primary backers of Texit is the Texas Nationalist Movement. I don't support them because I don't need to be ruled. By anyone. Period. But I will support their secession movement. If it happens, and they are content with small gain, I will keep advocating more secession. All the way down to the individual.

So, yes, I'd like to see Texas (or any other state) secede from the US. The US is the biggest enemy of Americans' liberty, and it needs to be cut down to size by states breaking away. So it's something I would love to see happen. Or a county secede from a state and refuse to join a different state. Or a town secede, or whatever. Ad infinitum.

I've already seceded from every political collective, whether they recognize it or not. It's not up to them. Do they still impose on me? Yes, of course. Bullies do that, but that they call themselves "government" doesn't make them something other than bullies.

It would be great if the Brexit v*te gave the secession movement a little kick in the pants. Even if it doesn't, I still like it.

Secession is NEVER wrong.

#Texit

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Magic wands aren't an option

Statists desperately want a magic wand. They insist on being handed one. Reality doesn't make them happy, and they don't want to hear it.

If they are to consider letting go of the cult of Statism, they insist on everything being magically fixed in its absence. Fixed in a way they can understand and approve of. Instantly.

You can point out the failures of statism, but because you admit that Utopia isn't going to come about in its absence, they refuse to budge.

As has been pointed out, government could never live up to the standard they insist on imposing on a free society. If it didn't already exist, they would never agree to try something so insane and obviously doomed from the start. For good reason- to believe something so stupid, you have to have been raised in the belief.

It doesn't matter that their chosen cult fails to deliver, time after time, without exception for thousands of years- they'll hang on to it until someone else offers them a magic wand with which to solve everything with a wave.

I think this shows they believe they already have a magic wand in coercion.

By contrast, the grown-ups see when something is a failure and toss it, knowing that things work themselves out when people are motivated, and when artificial barriers are removed. They may not work themselves out like you expect, but people solve problems. It's what we do, unless we form a big gang which depends, for its very existence, on making the problems worse. A solved problem puts government employees (tax junkies) out of work. They aren't going to stand for that.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"Bad words"

My 8 year-old daughter often wants to know if a word she has heard is a "bad word".

My response to her is that there is no such thing as a "bad word", but there are words which will upset some people, and it's probably best to not say those words in most cases. Then I ask what word she is thinking of.

A few days ago she quietly asked me if "doofus" was one of those words. I tried to not smile as I told her that word was probably safe as long as she wasn't trying to use it to hurt someone's feelings.

The words which upset me are probably a lot different than the words which upset my Religious Right family. Words they fling around every day are deeply offensive to me- even as I avoid saying words I know they would find offensive. Even more offensive to me are some of the concepts they embrace. Words may not break bones, but bad concepts kill.

Those are worse than any word.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Liberty offers better options, rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 20, 2016)

When discussing libertarian ideas with non-libertarians, I have discovered one common fear: the fear that libertarians would take away the government services people have grown accustomed to. To "force people to be free", as it were.

That's not my goal at all.

I support removing the roadblocks which prevent better options from being offered and then let you-- the former government supporter-- kill off that which you once supported after you see there's a better way. If you want. And you will.

How can this be?

Once you get a taste of private property rights as they truly exist, not just as permitted under government, and see how pointless and harmful those imaginary "national borders" really are, you will be excited to replace borders with property rights.

When you experience the educational choices offered once tax-funded "public" schooling is no longer compulsory to attend or fund, you'll no longer tolerate what passes for public education today.

When you see how easily real crime is discouraged once "victimless crime" laws are abolished and the natural right of self defense is respected everywhere, you'll view sticking with the current system as falling backward into the Dark Ages.

You will be eager to replace government roads, government's health care rationing, government safety, prohibition, and all the rest with the free enterprise options which will result from giving people a choice. You may even be the person with a new solution!

In each case, all libertarians want is to replace coercion with choice, and then stand back and let the chips fall where they may. The next move will be up to you.

The only changes needed are ending the criminalization of opting out of the government monopoly, and ending any "laws" prohibiting private competition with government services. If those services are so necessary, giving people more options to choose from can only make things better. Not everyone wants to wear athletic shoes or western boots, after all. The only ethical thing to do is stay out of the way and let people make their own decisions. This is what I am excited to encourage you to do.

I realize even this is too much for some government supporters. I believe it clearly shows they know how poor the current options are, and realize how easily the free market would replace them with something better. It's sad when people are so attached to a failed system they outlaw competition. That doesn't apply to you, does it?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

"Support him no longer"- how does it look and how can it change things?

I'd like to share another Facebook conversation. Or at least my response to an honest question. This one is quite a bit less hostile than the last one.

I was pointing out that the best solution to the violent government extremists is to stop supporting them.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”― Étienne de La Boétie

It also helps if you can get over the superstitious belief in "authority".

"What would that look like in practice, and how would it change things?"

In practice, it wouldn't look too much different to casual observers. That's because it is mostly an absence of certain behaviors rather than a presence of new behaviors.

You would stop wasting time pledging allegiance, thanking troops, writing congress to beg for a change in "laws". You would stop harboring worship for cops, politicians, and other government extremists in your heart, but you wouldn't replace it with fear or hatred (ideally), either. You'd recognize bad people are out there looking for an opportunity to violate you, and that this is not going to change no matter what justification the particular bad guys use. Just focus on avoiding them and protecting yourself from them. You would stop worrying about whether something is "legal" and focus instead on whether it is right.

I am still as polite to a cop I pass on the street as I am to any other aggressive gang member wearing his colors. I'm not looking for trouble, and don't ever intend to start it. But I don't pretend they are the good guys or somehow legitimate in the counterfeit rules they enforce. They are the same as any mobster or MS-13 gang member, except that they believe you owe them gratitude for existing. It's pretty funny if you think about it.

How would it change things?

I can only tell you how it has changed things in my life. I am much less frustrated. I don't expect government to act differently than it is designed to act. I don't expect it to rescue me, or protect me. I don't get angry when it gets in my way any more than I get angry at the wind or mosquitoes. I see statists (those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor) getting really angry or shocked over things government does. I see them putting all their hope in electing new gang members in the hope it will change the nature of the gang- in spite of all of human history to the contrary. I feel bad for them. How can they expect things to act against their own nature? It's not the individual people in the office that are the problem, it is the existence of the office. You shouldn't have an "official town rapist", no matter who you choose to fill the post. The same applies to every government position.

If it works in others as it has worked in me, it would change things as fewer people are willing to lower themselves to work for government, or to support those who do. It would cause people to stop looking to government when trouble crops up, but to find ways to solve it without violating others. Eventually, perhaps, people would find government as "necessary" as bicycles for fish.

If you are truly interested in looking into these ideas, I highly recommend The OnLine Freedom Academy.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

The predictability of statist responses

I just discovered an older message on Facebook. It is from April, and went to a junk folder I didn't know I had ("filtered"). I didn't respond, but I may send him a link to this post. Or not. Depends on how I feel later.

Here is the message, edited for language:

Cops are scum? Helping them is evil? Who the f*** do you think you are? Cops are here to help and protect us? You'd call them if someone robbed you,hurt you or killed someone you love! F***ing liberal! Hypocrite! I really do pray for you and everyone like minded to you! If you hate it here so much! Leave the country and go to a lawless place!

This is so typical of so many copsuckers' responses. But I'm sure you know that from personal experience.

Yes, cops ARE scum. You can't be otherwise and continue to do that "job". Cops enforce the "laws", and many (most, actually) "laws" are counterfeit- they violate life, liberty, or property. Good people wouldn't do that. If a cop is insistent on enforcing one of these counterfeit "laws" and you resist, he will murder you to force you to submit. Only an evil person- a scum- would do that. So, yes, cops are scum.

Giving physical (or other forms of) assistance to someone committing acts of enforcement is evil. It couldn't be otherwise. Helping scum prevail against their victims isn't something a decent person would do. Not ever.

Who do I think I am? Someone who recognizes wrong when I see it, even if it hasn't yet harmed me. Who does the copsucker think he is?

Apparently, by his use of a question mark, he also doubts that cops are here to help us. Cops are "here" to help themselves. After that comes their obligation to help the bullies who come up with insane opinions, and then call those opinions "law". Cops may sometimes, inadvertently "help" someone else, but so do other bad guys. It doesn't excuse their primary behavior. If you worship cops because you believe this propaganda, you may need more help than I can provide.

Then he whips out his "just wait until you need a cop" and waggles it around for all to admire. How proud he must be of it. If I ever feel forced to call a cop, it would NOT be because I want to. It might be because an insurance company has rules that mean they won't do what I have contracted with them to do if I don't. Or, perhaps due to "laws" that would result in my being kidnapped or murdered by cops if I don't call them. And I will take care when they show up if I find myself in that situation. The chances of the cops showing up and making the situation better is so laughably unlikely that I can't figure out how anyone could still believe that myth. There is no situation so bad that it can't be made much worse by inviting a cop to show up.

Then he calls me a "liberal", thus exposing himself as a statist of the "Right". So oblivious, is he. It would be funny if it weren't so predictable. Statists... sigh.

The next insult he squeezes from his orifice confuses me. "Hypocrite"? Based on what? I have no doubt whatsoever I have some hypocritical opinions or actions. But, it would be helpful if he could let me know exactly what he's talking about... unless he is just blindly grasping for insults without paying any attention to what they mean. It couldn't be that, could it?

And he's going to pray for me. When people pray for me, I take it as a sign they care. I don't get the feeling he cares for me- in fact, I get the opposite vibe and think he is being insincere. Perhaps, even... hypocritical? Instead of praying for me, he could try to convince me of how right he is. If he has any rational arguments, I mean.

I don't hate it here. In fact, it's because I love America that I won't abandon it to the likes of him, and to the law pollution he seems to love so much. I can love the place and hate the gangs of bullies who infest it and violate all those they notice. I don't confuse the government for the place like so many statists seem to do. "Love it or leave it"? No. It's people like him who would be more comfortable in a "lawful" place like North Korea. He's the one out of place, and he should fix that at his earliest convenience.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

.

Happy Father's Day

Go out and be a good dad if you have kids, and thank your dad if he's still alive.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

When good people do wrong

(Previously posted to Patreon)

There's a secret heartache I have been suffering. And I can't go into details because it isn't my place to do so.

What it comes down to is this: someone I care about very much apparently did something wrong- initiated force against a helpless innocent- and is paying the price for it. She lost her grip on reality, and is now in jail.

Knowing her as I do, I know this "isn't her". She has been through some extreme emotional strain and psychological torture- committed against her by one evil person- for the past few years, and she seems to have finally snapped.

And it kills me.

She knows better than to initiate force. Or she did.

I still don't believe in caging people. Not her, and not anyone else. It never helps the victim, and is nothing but institutionalized revenge. It prevents restitution and usually does nothing but cause the imprisoned person to go further in the wrong direction. I don't want that for anyone.

But, if she did what she is accused of doing (and it seems she did), she was wrong. She owes a debt to her victim. If I could, I would gladly pay it on her behalf, but I can't.

I can care about someone and still acknowledge when they do the wrong thing.

I wish it hadn't happened. I wish I had been able to help her before it happened (I did try to give emotional support). And I wish I could fix it now.

At this point, the only way I could help is if I were a really good lawyer. Not to "get her off", but to help find mutually agreeable restitution instead of a cage.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

It's that time again

It's "Random Acts of Anarchy Day".

Go do something nice or helpful or useful, without getting a permit or license.

Have fun!

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

What the Second Amendment is, and isn't

Remember- The Second Amendment doesn't apply to you, so it can't "give you a right" to do anything.

 All it does is make it a serious crime for any "law" concerning guns to be passed or enforced. It is a clear prohibition on government weapons "laws". That's it. It does nothing else.

So, it only applies to lawmakers and law enforcers by making it illegal for them to prohibit or restrict weapons to you and me, in any way. Or for them to demand we pay for permits, background checks, or pay "taxes" on weapons, or not carry in certain places they control (they own no places). They have no say in who can buy, sell, own, or carry a weapon. If they try to anyway, they are criminals. And, they are not "Pro-gun" except in their own delusional heads (and quite possibly in the heads of the "leadership" of the anti-gun NRA).

Any government employee who tries to disarm you if you aren't currently attacking or threatening to attack innocent people (everyone has the right to intervene in this case) is a violent criminal, no matter his excuse. His safety does NOT trump yours. Not ever.

If he says he needs you to hand over your weapon "for your safety and mine" he is lying. He is a coward who knows he is committing a wrong, and doesn't want to face the consequences of his actions.

Government has zero legitimate say in weapon possession, and the Second Amendment makes that very clear- leaving no room for "debate".

Yes, the bad guys in government ignore this law and break it with impunity every day. They keep getting away with it... until the day they don't. Then they will be very surprised for a very short, quite painful, moment. Good riddance to bad trash.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Don't be fooled by appearances

When people first see me they are often fooled.

Some of the mistakes people have made as to what I am are even contradictory, but people see what they want to see.

I have been assumed to be a drug addict or dealer.
I have been assumed to be an undercover cop.
I have been assumed to hate gays- or to be gay.
It has been assumed that I am uneducated- a "hick".
I have been confused for a cowboy, and a hippie.
I have been assumed to be a religious fundamentalist.
A guy recently assumed I was an ex-Marine.

None of those are true about me.

I have also been wildly wrong about other people based on appearances or first impressions.

One of my best friends looked "snooty" to me the first time I met her. I was very wrong.

On the other hand, I have thought some people were smarter or nicer than they turned out to be- sometimes with tragic results. I'll leave out details.

There have been times I looked at someone and thought there couldn't be anything we had in common, and when I got to know them discovered just how much alike we were. Personally, I love when this happens because it always expands my horizons.

So, don't assume the person you encounter is going to hate or fear liberty based on how they dress or how they act. Until they demonstrate that they do. Give them a chance and the benefit of a doubt, just as you probably hope others do for you. They might just surprise you.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Laws sign of corrupt government

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 13, 2016)

People complain about government corruption, at least when they notice it interfering with their own life. They realize it's a problem, and usually believe something should be done about it. They are adept at pointing out this poisonous fruit without observing the diseased tree on which it grows.

With their continued support of that which creates the problem, they remind me of a morbidly obese person complaining about his weight and its effects on his health while continuing to overeat.

Sometime around the year 100 AD, Roman politician and historian Tacitus said "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates".

Government dreams up laws. It's pretty much its defining trait. Laws are a sure sign of corruption, but people refuse to see the connection. Corruption is as natural to government as hairballs are to my cat.

Yet, people still judge legislators by how many of these nuggets of corruption they squeeze out while in office. People have gotten this suicidal notion into their heads that unless laws are being dreamed up and enacted, government isn't doing anything. That's as absurd as encouraging the exterminator to release termites and rats into your home.

Of the two ways to get rid of government corruption, the most obvious is to eliminate the State. If you prefer to "control" the cancer rather than removing it from your body, you must at the very least reverse the runaway train of legislation.

Every halfway legitimate law was imposed centuries ago- although some weren't applied to everyone equally. Since then only harmful laws have come along; laws which violate life, liberty, and property.

It's long past time to turn this around and applaud only those legislators who "accomplish something" by abolishing laws. Any new law imposed, no matter how necessary you believe it to be, must count against them. Many people have a superstitious belief that just because a law was dreamed up and approved by a person holding a political position it must be obeyed until it is abolished. The absurdity of that belief should be obvious.

Of course, the simplest way to deal with all these harmful counterfeit "laws" is to simply ignore them. There's no need to go through the ritual of abolishing them. Illegitimate "laws" are nothing, and nothing doesn't need to be cleaned up.

So, stop permitting more laws to be enacted against the life, liberty, and property of yourself and those around you. Stop supporting corruption.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

Frustration with anti-gun bigots

(Previously posted to Patreon)

It is so frustrating that people tolerate anti-gun "laws", and that they don't treat people who ban guns from private property like people claiming the right to rape-- as long as they "only" rape in their own home.

I realize my views on this are extreme- even for a libertarian.

I am not saying a private property owner doesn't have the right to ban guns as a condition of entering his property, I am saying he is a foolish bad guy for doing so. He is making his guests much less safe, while lying and claiming he is only doing it for their safety. Good people wouldn't do that.

Such people should be shunned, ridiculed, and viewed as what they are.

If someone doesn't trust you with a gun, they don't trust you, period. If they don't trust you, why would you trust them? If you don't trust them, why would you do business with them, or associate with them in any way?

I know many people have a soft spot for those who fear guns and want to stay away from them. I have yet to determine if this soft spot is in the heart or between the ears. I lean more toward the latter.

Anti-gun "laws" should be absolutely intolerable to anyone who values liberty. And anti-gun property owners should be avoided and despised- on their own property or off.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Orlando- "no guns"

A "no guns" sign is nothing but a filter.

It filters out the guns which might be used to defend you, while those which would be used to murder the innocent pass right by, utterly unaffected. It works the same everywhere, every time, without exception.

The same for "no guns" rules.

How anyone could ever believe this is a good thing is something I can't wrap my head around. It is a delusion too bizarre for words.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Truth? Who cares? See how deeply I feel!

"Truth is useless for persuasion whenever emotions are involved." ~ Scott Adams

Yes, it is. And that's a shame, but reality doesn't care if you like it or not.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in the anti-liberty bigots' response to the Orlando mass murder by a religious extremist.

Liberty is supported by facts, reason, logic, ethics, history, etc. But statists are driven by an emotional attachment to their cult, so they reject reality and substitute their own matrix of feelings and wishes in its place. Feelings and wishes that run counter to the truth, but "feel right" to them.

Liberty can appeal to feelings, too. What's better than owning your life and the products of your life? But most liberty lovers have a harder time expressing that particular dimension than do statists, who are driven by emotion rather than by truth. I know I have a hard time expressing my emotions the way statists do.

I have feelings, but I feel (ha!) my feelings are less important than the truth- than reality. If I like a comfy lie, I feel bad about liking it and would rather focus on reality until I like that instead.

If I like the truth, I want to express that truth rather than worry about how liking it makes me feel.

I want my feelings to align with the truth because reality is what really matters to me.

But, to persuade people you've got to sink to their level, and that means you need to ignore truth and focus on feelings. Especially in politics, truth has no place, unless you are talking about how you truly feel.

So, here's a bit of truth and "feelz" for you:

It deeply saddens me that anti-liberty bigots care so little about innocent lives that they keep doing everything they can to make it easier and easier for bad guys set on murder to carry out their plans in the most efficient way possible. With as little risk of being stopped "too early" by an armed good guy. Anti-liberty bigots don't care about you or "the children" at all, or else they wouldn't be anti-liberty bigots. They only care that their agenda is pushed. If you have to die because of it, well, that's a price they are eager to pay.

How does that truth make you feel?

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Orlando mass murder. Will people ever learn?

A guy intent on murder has succeeded again, largely due to "gun control laws". Yes, he is ultimately responsible, but politicians (and property owners) practically held his hand, led him to his killing floor, and pointed out targets for him to kill. Because some of them are so blinded by a political agenda that they still believe saying "no guns" will save lives.

Idiots. Evil idiots.

These places are always "gun-free" slaughter zones- places where the good guys obey the evil rules saying they can't be armed, but where people who don't care about counterfeit rules (you know, like people who intend to murder a bunch of people in spite of laws forbidding murder) waltz in and start picking off the defenseless targets who have been disarmed for their convenience.

Anti-gun "laws" kill- or at least make it easy for bad guys to use those "laws" to get a large body count. Notice how the killing always comes to an end after people (in this case, other bad guys) with guns show up. Why give the bad guys that time advantage?

If a place says "no guns", remember what they are actually saying: "We don't care if you die". Oh, they'll be really sympathetic afterwards, but they'll keep their insane policy in place- or even double down- to make it easy for bad guys to kill unopposed yet again.

Do not obey anti-gun "laws". Your life depends on it.

Judging by the guy's name, I do have a suspicion that this was a Muslim "killing two birds with one stone"- killing homosexuals like his religion (among others) orders him to, and killing Americans who his politics tells him to kill. Perhaps I am being prejudiced in this suspicion and it is completely unfounded. Perhaps.

Added: Statement from the Pink Pistols on the shooting: Pink Pistols Saddened by Attack on Orlando Club

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

"We're DOOOOOMED!!!"

The worst political fears- the ones used to manipulate people into accepting (or even begging for) government coercion- almost never come to pass. They are "hobgoblins".

Yes, bad things do happen. Horrific things. But these are usually the result of government "doing something", not due to government "failing to do something". The worst thing that can ever happen when a problem is noticed is for government to step in to try to solve it.

The belief that one candidate is worse than another is another hobgoblin. The ways in which each is bad may vary a little, but not enough to actually matter to your life (if you'll switch off the "news", anyway).

Look at history before you hyperventilate over whatever it is the fearmongers are trying to scare you with.

.

Confidence, arrogance, and doubt

I am too confident in some things, and not confident enough in others.

I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that aggression and property violations are something no one has a right to do. In most cases, this means they are wrong. It doesn't matter who is doing it, or what justifications they grasp for in those cases.

I am completely confident in this truth, and that confidence may come across as arrogance. I have been told it does- and have lost friends over it when they want to worship bad guys with government "jobs" and they didn't like where principles led. It is what it is. I could pretend to have doubts about it, but I'd be lying.

In fact, though, I used to be filled with doubts over this. Each time I doubted, either due to an objection I had thought up for myself, or due to an argument someone made against it, I would examine the alternatives or the arguments. And each and every time without exception, those arguments failed. They were self-contradictory or didn't hold up in some other way. I'm not going to pretend a failed idea is valid.

That doesn't mean I won't consider opposing opinions anymore. Of course I will. But each time I do, they still fail. I will continue to give them consideration, whenever someone makes the effort to present them. But I don't expect them to succeed any more than I expect to drop a brick and have it float up and away. Past experience has been a good teacher.

If someone ever makes a reasonable case for aggression or property violations, or if I ever lose a brick to a light breeze, reality will force me to adjust my expectations, and my confidence will be shaken. Again.

Liberty has earned my confidence, and if having confidence in Liberty is "arrogance", so be it. But, I've never been arrogant about myself, regardless of how I come across.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Why can't statists act civilized?

I can dislike something and still not want government to make or enforce "laws" against it.

I can dislike a person and still not want government or its "laws" used against that person.

I can HATE someone and still object to force being initiated against them or their property being violated. By anyone. Even if I believe they "deserve" it in a karmic sense.

I can like something and still not want you to be forced to fund it.

I can love someone and still acknowledge they are dead wrong if they initiate force or violate private property.

Why can't statists do that?

Instead, they focus on silly things like "respect the office even if you don't like the person holding it". What horrible drivel! The office is the problem. Without that office, the evil fool holding that office couldn't hurt you from behind his veil of imaginary legitimacy. If he violated you, you could defend yourself without having his gang, numbering in the millions, coming after you.

And statists are always looking for ways to justify aggression and theft, even as they object to it if it is used against them. Some even "justify" aggression and theft used against them or their loved ones if they fear calling it what it is (evil) would undermine their arguments for The State.

And, yet, I am still willing to leave statists alone. But they can't seem to return the courtesy. I just don't understand that mindset at all.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

.