Cop cars, and the costs of taking them home

Cop cars, and the costs of taking them home

I'm not talking about the costs if you or I decided, on the spur of the moment, to take a cop car home with us. Even though we do own them. I'm talking about a diversionary debate a government has dreamed up.

The Albuquerque city council is looking into the costs associated with APD officers who drive their police cars to and from work. And well they should. Wear and tear on the vehicles costs "taxpayers' money".

However, whether the LEOs take their official "lighted extortion units" home with them, or drive their personal vehicles to work and back, the money to pay all those costs still comes from the same place: your pocket.

You do realize that any money a "public employee" spends was originally taken out of the market in order to pay his or her salary. Right? That money wasn't earned through voluntary trade; it was coercively confiscated through "taxation", fees, licenses, fines and other governmental methods of theft. That means even if those cops are using "their own" cars, and paying for "their own" fuel, ultimately the money was taken from you. That being the case, you have a right to say how and where your money is being spent. If those who are on the dole don't like it, they can always get an honest job.

Now, if you like having your money taken this way, that is your business. Throw all your own money away in whatever way you like. Just don't demand that everyone else do the same, and then cheer when people are killed for wanting to keep their own personal property. That's not nice or honest.

Remember: anything worth doing can be done voluntarily. Without relying on coercion and force. Without adopting gangland tactics. Without needing an "Only One" class.

Trade deficits- not just irrelevant, but completely imaginary

Trade deficits- not just irrelevant, but completely imaginary

I was once again watching John Stossel's show. This latest episode was on "free trade", and talked a lot about the myth of "trade deficits" being a bad thing. Yet, the show missed the biggest, and (to me) most obvious point.

Stossel was very good at defending free trade, and exposed Lou Dobbs as a source of a lot of hot air without a foundation. But, one thing Stossel didn't point out is that there can be no such thing as a "trade deficit". Maybe he has bought into the myth, just a little, himself. Maybe he hasn't thought this through, yet. The truth is there can be trade, or there can be theft. The component that makes the distinction, by its presence or absence, is coercion.

The example that is much overused in regard to "trade deficits" is China. Chinese manufacturers make stuff, cheap, 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. When we give a Chinese manufacturer dollars, we have made an even trade. Dollars for products. There is no deficit. 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.

That is, unless you claim that the money traded for the products is worth more than the product you got in return, in which case you are an idiot to agree to the trade. Personally, as an individual. Or unless you wish to admit that US dollars are worthless (or worth-less), in which case 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 price I am willing to pay at the time. 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.
_______________________

Albuquerque "Public" Schools (government indoctrination camps) superintendent Brooks warns students that they can only voice their opinions as long as they do so in a way he approves (and he doesn't have to listen), and reminds them that they are prisoners and can't leave just because they want to. Of course, he uses more dishonest words to say this, but the meaning is clear.

Education is much too important to leave to government and self-serving bureaucrats like Brooks. Separate school and state.

Arizona 'law' generates Albuquerque protest

Arizona 'law' generates Albuquerque protest

There was a protest, Saturday, in Albuquerque spurred by Arizona's new immigration "law".
The new "law" is wrong and is an abomination. The Constitution doesn't authorize immigration control. The only thing it mentions that could be construed as controlling immigration actually probably refers to importing slaves, and it passes that particular buck onto the states.

However, this is not a Tenth Amendment issue either, since anything that violates a human right is a counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in legitimacy, whether "authorized" in the Constitution or not.

Nor is this about "trespassing"; you can bar anyone from crossing your property for any reason (unless they happen to be government-sanctioned trespassers out to rob or kill you). The government has no legitimate authority over your property concerning whom you allow on it or bar from it. The government does not legitimately own any property since it owns nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen money. A thief does not own the stolen property he possesses- regardless of his claims to the contrary.

Wrong is wrong. Stop allowing the state, in any of its manifestations, to criminalize self-defense and defense of property. End welfare. ALL welfare. End the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Do all this and there is no more "illegal immigration" issue, unless your issue is racism, in which case there's nothing I can say to cure that.

If you excuse or ignore Constitutional violations and rights violations you happen to like, then who will stand up for you during Constitutional and/or rights violations you don't like, and which may target you personally?

New Mexico number two in census non-compliance

New Mexico number two in census non-compliance

Yay! We're number two!

Even including urban areas like Albuquerque, which are prone to obeying "authority" no matter how bogus, New Mexico comes in second in the number of census resisters and ignorers. Just behind that last frontier and land of individualism: Alaska. Good start. Now, when the minion of the state comes to your door in the person of a living, breathing busybody, don't cave in. It is still none of their business.

While the Constitution authorizes the government to count heads, and not one thing more, nowhere does it require you or me to cooperate with the enumeration, nor does it authorize legal consequences for refusal to cooperate. That doesn't mean there would be no "legal" consequences, just that by pursuing them the government would demonstrate, once again, its status as an illegitimate occupying force of invaders rather than a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The myth is exposed.
_____________________

Want a good examination of the issue of anarchism, and an illustration of the opposing views? Head over to Sipsey Street, read Mike V's post, and especially check out the comments, pro and con. This is why I am an anarchist. I especially enjoyed this essay which I found by following a link in the comments. Statists have had thousands of years to get "government" right. It's delusional. It's utopian. It won't happen; it can't happen. Time's up.

Same planet; different worlds

Read this story about a city park (link) in a city just across the state line from me, and then read my letter-to-the editor, which coincidentally came out on the same day in a different newspaper (my local one, which has no website), and notice the completely different mindsets at work. Only 10 miles or so separate us, but we exist in different worlds.

I'll reproduce my letter below, since it is probably impossible to read the scanned image:

I'm going to step up on my soap box for a minute to make a couple of
observations about the Farwell city park. If you don't use the park, then
I am not speaking to you. In your case, you already do more for the park
than you should since you have your property coercively confiscated to pay for
the park's maintenance. For this insult to your rights and property, I
sympathize. I am only speaking to those of us who use the
park.

Well, not everyone who uses the park. I am also not talking to the
unrepentantly irresponsible individuals who smash glass bottles and drop their
waste wherever they happen to be. They wouldn't listen to me, even if they
read a newspaper.

I am speaking about all the trash that winds up on the ground in the
park. The trash cans scattered around the park are worse than useless when
they are full. I notice that they rarely get emptied, since I see
individually distinguishable items sit in the cans for months at a time.
If the can is full, and you stuff some items on top, you may as well toss your
trash on the ground. That is where it will soon end up, after all.
Of course, there is a convenient alternative: there are dumpsters along the
edges of the park that are emptied weekly. You might consider taking a few
extra steps and putting your trash in them. Or, if nothing else appeals to
you, take your trash home with you.

Parties at the park are great, but they produce more trash than the little
cans will hold. Your paper plates, cake boxes, dismembered pinata corpses,
and gift wrap overflow the cans and end up blowing all over the place.
Consider bringing a trash bag for this excess waste and then putting it all in
one of the dumpsters as you leave.

It is not "the city's responsibility". It is yours, as a park
user. Trying to make "the city" responsible just gives "the city" an
excuse to either "tax" you more to "fix it", or to pass silly ordinances that
will violate your liberty. The problems, and the only real solutions, lie
with each of us individually. Your choice is to either listen to me, or
discount me as a crank. It doesn't matter to me which you choose.
Either way, I wish you well.

I was reminded that I should have used the opportunity to advocate privatization, and I kick myself for overlooking that, since it is something that runs through my mind all the time. I wish I could always think of everything that needs to be said in every circumstance!

Burglar has been lucky so far

Burglar has been lucky so far

As if you need more proof that the "justice system" is not "just" and is not organized well-enough to be called a "system", here's this:

An Albuquerque man keeps getting caught after burglarizing houses, yet since he has been found "incompetent" he can't be imprisoned for long, and since his thefts have so far been non-violent he can't be committed to a mental facility.

There is an obvious, very inexpensive, solution. And, if the man keeps doing what he's been doing, according to "the authorities", he will eventually solve the problem himself when he surprises a responsible property owner in a supposedly empty house. The odds are not with him.

Yet, there might be a less bloody solution, too.

I can't help but wonder if a security company might not want to hire this man, and keep him on a "leash" of sorts, in order to test their systems. He certainly has the experience necessary for the job. He could still pursue his hobby, and still make money at it, without the risk of meeting an indignant and frightened person who has been sitting at home, with the lights and TV off due to a migraine. It's a win-win situation. Of course, if he really is incompetent he might not recognize this fact.

Either way, has he been expected to pay restitution to the property owners he has stolen from (and probably left damage in his wake)? Why not? That is an essential part of "justice". Are the property owners who have been harmed allowed to post his picture everywhere they go, to shun him and educate others about what this man does in his spare time?

Follow the link to the news story, memorize the man's face, and when you see him out on the streets in coming weeks, and if you trust what the authorities claim about this man, follow him around and see if he burglarizes anything while you watch. It might be amusing for you and educational for him.

Giving up liberty for ... nothing

Giving up liberty for ... nothing

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin

A few years ago, a person I know gave up almost everything he enjoyed for the promise of financial security. He thought, at the time, it was an acceptable trade. Then this promise of financial security turned out to be a complete fabrication. His enjoyment was sold for nothing, and he found himself in a situation where getting out would cause even more problems than staying in. He deserved to lose the things he loved because he was too willing to sell them for security, and so, he ended up with neither.

I'm not sure if Ben Franklin was speaking only of "countries" or if he was thinking, too, of individuals when he made his famous statement. Either way, he was so very, tragically, right.

In a slightly less individual way, Americans have sold their liberty for false promises of security from government. Government which has turned out to be the biggest threat to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ever encountered.

To have "borders" to "protect us" from immigrants, they have traded their liberty to travel freely, even inside those "borders", for government control and usurpation of private property rights. And still no safety has resulted, not even from "immigrants". Only tyranny.

Faced with the fact that not all businesses are operated in an honest way, Americans traded the free market for fascism that, while not having government owning the businesses outright, completely controls them through regulations while stealing a huge chunk of their profits. And yet people still get scammed and harmed.

Because people fear for their safety while flying, they allowed a government takeover of "security" at airports, yet if a bad person is determined, he can still, obviously, wreak havoc. And, they know that none of the good people aboard a plane will be sufficiently armed to resist effectively due to government controls. Security theater, and the disarming of the decent people, hasn't resulted in safety, but in opportunities. Both for "terrorists" and "TSAerrorists".

Security is an illusion. If you seek it you will end up being hurt and enslaved. You are better off taking your chances in the real world, knowing there are no guarantees, than handing over your liberty to someone who has only your subjugation in mind.
________________________

In Albuquerque area news, the fe(de)ral government is targeting Native American communities with anti-meth advertisements. Paid for with your money, of course, like everything government does.

Here's a better idea: stop criminalizing the stuff and let people seek treatment for themselves and their loved ones without fear of prosecution. Stop enabling social stigma that is based upon nothing more than "illegality". Stop making excuses for theft and aggression, and stop criminalizing self defense and the necessary tools to exercise it.

Let people defend themselves from theft and attack no matter who is doing the thieving or attacking, and regardless of what mind-altering substance the guilty party may be on.
More "laws" are not the answer. Stronger enforcement is not the answer. Advertisements are not the answer. Waking up to reality is the only answer.

To add insult to injury, I notice that in the official list of "root causes" (poverty, lack of opportunity, loss of language and culture, challenging family circumstances, hopelessness), almost all of them are a direct result of governmental treatment of the Native population. Now, the prime offenders think they have the solution? Don't bet on it.

Parking lots teach a lesson

Parking lots teach a lesson

I was driving across a parking lot recently and I realized that just about everyone, including me, considers the signs and striping in a parking lot to be a suggestion, rather than an order. Yet, while accidents do happen, they are fairly rare. Nothing at all like the "chaos" that is predicted by people who think there needs to be a cop on every corner.

Spontaneous order takes over because most people don't want to be hit by another car, and don't want to do the hitting either. If a rude person is blasting across the lot, other, responsible, drivers stop for him no matter who thinks they have the right-of-way. It is self-preservation and makes perfect sense to do so.

Knowing that a car could come from almost any direction at any moment, you pay closer attention to your surroundings, and you watch out for those who are not watching out for you. If two "oblividiots" encounter one another, an accident can occur. Just as can and will happen out on the roads, where fine-hungry LEOs prowl, and every move not forbidden is mandatory.
________________________

Las Cruces' government seems to think it has fallen behind the times. There are now digital, electronic signage (who knew?) and no laws have been enacted to limit the technological advance yet. So, they are seeing what the governments of Albuquerque, El Paso TX, Mesa AZ, and a couple other cities have done to try to keep the scary future at bay.

Government- who benefits?

Government- who benefits?

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether allowing government to exist is ethical, let's consider a different issue. Is government beneficial to anyone? I think it is.

Those on the fringes can benefit. This doesn't mean that everyone on the fringes takes advantage of "legalized coercion" for their benefit. Some of these people have a better ethical foundation than do others and understand right from wrong.

People at the peak of the social pyramid ( a "fringe group") benefit from the popularity, position, power, and wealth they can gain by using government. They also benefit from special favors, a form of welfare, they both establish and collect.

The "complete losers" at the very bottom are kept alive and rewarded by "the system" in the hopes they will thank those at the top with votes, or at least by shouting down the vast "middle" that supports the welfare state, often against their will, with the fruits of their labor.

Unfortunately, too many in the middle don't understand the position they have been put in and defend the very "system" that has been built upon their backs. The religious fervor of their defense doesn't mean they benefit, only that they don't see the truth.

Government may be OK for those on the fringes of society but it hurts everyone else. Let those fringes choose to play the government game if they want, but leave the rest of us alone.
_______________________

The Albuquerque office of the State Motor Vehicle Division in the Cottonwood Mall will be closed, and other MVD offices will have their hours reduced because of budget cuts. Here's an idea to save even more money: close them all permanently.

Nothing done in those offices is authorized by the Constitution, and all their activities are therefore illegal, and nothing done in those offices does anything other than damage "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Close the MVD offices, let honest businesses take over the buildings, and stop violating the basic human and civil right of everyone to travel freely, as long as they do not trespass, in whatever way they see fit and in whatever sort of conveyance they possess. Anything less is tyranny.

Authoritarianism attracts the worst of humanity

Authoritarianism attracts the worst of humanity

The worst traits of humans are all embodied and empowered in authoritarianism. Laziness, gluttony, greed, aggressiveness, envy.... all of these traits get bad press, whether they are really bad or not, but none of these things can cause too much harm to others by themselves.

It is when they are practiced by those who have power over the lives of others that they begin to produce real harm. This is when they lead to evil acts.

Unfortunately, people with an excess of these traits are drawn to the positions of power that government provides. They get to attain power and then use the position to feed their personality flaws at the expense of those around them.

Some people may not know they have these traits until the opportunity comes to express them.
Then they discover it is easier to live off of stolen loot than to support themselves honestly.
They discover it is easier to order other people around, and kidnap or kill them if they are uncooperative, than it is to do something themselves if they think it is worth doing. They discover it is easier to take what they want rather than earn it for themselves. If you doubt me, watch the president (any of them) or congress at work.

As Robert LeFevre pointed out

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you
don't dare have one."

_______________________________

In Albuquerque "area" news: Thieves are fighting over how to divide loot that is being collected illegally. And I mean "illegally" in the statist usage as well as the ethical usage.

Las Cruces is still using illegal red light cameras, and still collecting "fines" with them in defiance of the law. And the only real complaint is that they are not sharing the stolen money with other governmental thugs. It doesn't really surprise me, but confirms that government is nothing but bad guys with "authority".

What libertarianism is

What libertarianism is

From Libertarianism.com:

"Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your
life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against
the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and
respecting the peaceful choices of others)."

I don't see anything there that advocates or justifies an externally imposed government, nor anything that a true anarchist ("without Rulers") would object to. This is why I say "anarchism is libertarianism in full-bloom- with all the contradictions stripped away".

Of course, a person could call himself a "libertarian" and hold views that are incompatible with libertarianism. Just as many people who call themselves "anarchists" support the idea of having a Ruler as long as it is "one of their own guys". Consistency is not a strong characteristic in humans.

A person who supports the Libertarian Party is not necessarily a libertarian. It depends on whether they advocate the use of coercion in any case. If they do, then in that area they are not libertarian. You can not "tax" without coercion. You can not "secure borders" that are along property that is not your own, or along a person's property on whose behalf (without his consent) you are working, without coercion. You can not send "troops" around the world coercing "foreign" individuals to accept Rulers they do not want or to live under a government not of their choosing without violating the core principles of libertarianism. You can not order people how to live, no matter how badly their personal lives offend you, as long as they are not attacking, defrauding, or stealing from an innocent person, and still be libertarian.

A person who venerates the US Constitution is a "Constitutionalist", not a libertarian. Where the Constitution violates the basic human rights of anyone, anywhere, it is wrong. Where it "authorizes" government to use coercion to attain its goals, it is not "libertarian". This is not to say there is no libertarianism in the Constitution; there is just too much other stuff there smothering any libertarianism there might have been.

Look at your "libertarianism" closely before you advocate your non-libertarian views as "real libertarianism". What I write could violate libertarianism somewhere. If it does, call me on it. But, once we examine the disagreement, the position that advocates any form of initiated force/coercion is the position that is not "libertarian", "right" or not.

Liberty is not a cult of personality

I notice how often people who disagree with me find it necessary to attack me personally. That's about the worst way to try to make their point I can think of.

Of all people, I know I have faults, and I know what most of them are. I even have a list. That doesn't change facts.

I could be the most awful person to have ever crawled out from under a bridge, but that has no bearing on Liberty. Right is right, no matter who acknowledges it, and no matter if I live up to it or not.

The rightness of liberty, and of libertarianism, is not dependent upon me being perfect. It is not a cult of personality. Whether I am here or not, whether I believe in Liberty or not, nothing substantive has changed. When I am not perfect I know I fail to live up to my principles, but at least I have them.

So, if you hate me, that's fine. But attack the concepts I am talking about instead of pathetically trying to bring me down, thinking it will discredit Liberty and libertarianism. It won't. I am not that important.

Libertarian countries- an oxymoron

Libertarian countries- an oxymoron

One incredibly silly demand that crops up pretty often, in one form or another, is: "Show me one successful state/country that has existed by libertarian/anarchist principles."

People who are more versed in history (I know some) could show you examples, as they have shown me to my satisfaction. But this demand misses the entire point. Once you form a state you have scrapped the core principle: that a state is not a legitimate thing. A state can not exist without using coercion. By definition. Therefore a "libertarian state" violates "libertarianism" from the first.

I don't oppose efforts like the Free State Project, or Free State Wyoming, or even much smaller projects, but I tend to think real liberty is a one-person-at-a-time project. That doesn't mean I wouldn't move somewhere to add to a freedom-oriented community.

This also brings up the reason I don't advocate voting and why I don't go out of my way to support "libertarian" candidates. The only legitimate justification for holding political office would be to dismantle the system to make further ruling impossible. Not to force everyone to be "free" by taking over the political structure that exists. I have only known of one candidate who stated dismantling as his objective. Me.

_____________________________

An Albuquerque home builder has been given an ultimatum- finish building the houses you started or the city will demolish them. It sounds like the builder has more than just financial difficulties, but let me suggest a libertarian solution to all parties involved:

Why not sell the houses "as is" for a fair price (based upon their incomplete condition and the time they have been abandoned) and let the new owners finish building them. Habitat For Humanity or some other charitable organization could even get involved. I'm sure there is some "law" against this solution.

Boy shoots self- authorities' advice, if followed, will ensure it happens to more children

Boy shoots self- authorities' advice, if followed, will ensure it happens to more children

A four year old Albuquerque boy found a gun at home and shot and killed himself, and the "authorities" draw the wrong conclusion, and want you and me to learn the wrong lesson, from the tragedy. In fact, following their advice will ensure more tragedies of this type in the future.
Quoting what the cops reportedly said from the above-linked story:

"...this is a lesson to be learned for people who have guns out there: to
keep their guns away from kids, locked up, separate from the bullets.
That's the lesson they want to get out tonight."

No, no, ruttin' NO! This completely terrible advice from the "authorities", the worst advice they could possibly give, is the equivalent of never letting your kids see or experience water, because they could drown. Never teaching them to swim, but telling them to never go near water, no matter where they find it. And then being "surprised" when the perfectly predictable happens and a child drowns because they were kept ignorant and water was mystified instead of being explained in a truthful, educational, and fun way. The stupidity of this tactic infuriates me. It results in completely preventable deaths of innocent children. You know what that makes advice like this, don't you?

If you want to make certain your children are safe around your guns, or other people's guns, you must familiarize them with guns. Do not make the guns into mysterious, forbidden objects. That only guarantees your children will try to sneak a peek at the guns when you aren't looking; when you can't be supervising and instructing. Teach them developmentally-appropriate lessons about anything that can hurt them.

With guns, that means to let them see you handling your guns safely, and talk to them about why you handle the guns the way you do. If they wish to hold your gun, have them watch as you check and double-check to make certain it is unloaded, teach them to check for themselves, and then make sure they still handle the gun as if it were loaded. No pointing the muzzle at the gun at anything they are not willing to destroy. Take them out shooting and let them see the destructive power of a gun, yet let them understand that the gun does not have a mind of its own and it is under the handler's control, for good or bad. Counteract all the false information they will receive from "news", entertainment, and "law enforcement".

The perverted monsters who advocate "gun control" always snivel "...if it saves one life...". Well, this will save a lot more than one life. Guaranteed. If it is done. Now.

I don't know how this family raised and trained their children, so I don't mean this as an accusation of any sort against them. Sometimes, no matter what you do, tragedies will still happen. That is a fact of life in this Universe that will never change. I am glad that the grieving parents won't face a kidnapping or the threat of other punishment from the "law" since that is the "legal" equivalent of kicking a person when he is down, but I can't help but wonder if the family received "special consideration" due to the father's status as a federal Only One.

The adventure of Charles and his microchip

The adventure of Charles and his microchip

I'm sure most of you have heard by now the tale of Charles, the cat from Albuquerque who ended up in Chicago eight months after disappearing from home.

The story has a happy ending since he was found and identified because of his embedded tracking microchip.

Microchips? A good thing? Well, yes. In this case. Notice the poison ingredient that is missing from the story: Government. Mixing science (microchips) and government makes something with potential for good into a tool for harm. It's like handing a cocked and loaded gun to a drunk, angry, jealous psychopath while the object of his anger is standing three feet in front of him taunting him. The adventure of Charles has a happy ending precisely because no government got involved.

I would have no objection to people choosing to have microchips implanted, for medical or other reasons. My objection comes when microchips become mandatory (or a de facto requirement in order to function in society). Then, allowing government access to the information on the chips adds potential for extreme misuse. If you wish to have a chip implanted in you, that is your business. Just don't expect me to go along.

Coercion- the definition

I think all force is coercion, but not all coercion necessarily involves force.

A lot of coercion uses deceit or manipulation. Some force is justifiable, such as in self defence (it is not "initiated force" in this case), but what I call "coercion" is never justified.

I don't include self-defensive actions as coercion (by definition), even if you are able to "talk" a thug out of attacking you. He initiated the force- he is the aggressor- so your actions are strictly self-defense.

For me, coercion is purely the initiatory act of forcing or causing someone to act in a way that is against their legitimate will.

Mixing science and state- expect an explosion

Mixing science and state- expect an explosion

I like science. It is a method of examining the Universe that has helped find many ways for us to live longer, healthier, happier lives. Many other people in our modern world see science as a threat. I think they are misguided. Where the threat occurs is when you mix science and government.

I trust scientists as individuals until politics is added to the mix, either by "government-funding" their research or by needing the research to produce a particular result for "the common good". Since government is founded upon lies and hatred, once you allow that to influence science in any way, the result can not be good. Look around at all the harmful ways science has been used in the past, and notice where the driving force originated. It was not in the lab.

Scientists, being human, are obviously susceptible to coercion, intimidation, and being bribed with the promise of money to continue their research. They have bills to pay, jobs to keep, and families to support. I have fallen prey to the same things at various times in my life, so I understand the pitfalls. Remove the "legitimacy" of government coercion and you remove that threat.

All the really nasty things that have come from scientific inquiry were undertaken at the direction of government. Science was the tool, an individual government employee was the thug wielding it. Blaming science for the bad consequences of its misuse makes as much sense as blaming guns for the way bad guys use them. In other words, no sense at all.

Remember too, that corporations are in reality a part of the government before you place blame on honest businesses. Corporations depend on governmental favors and exemptions that should not exist in a market. The free market has nothing to do with corporations.

There desperately needs to be a separation of science and state, as another step in the ultimate goal of a separation of life and state. "We" can't afford to ignore the danger any longer.
_______________________

Mere "possession" of anything can never be a real "crime". In Albuquerque news, a woman has supposedly killed herself in jail after being arrested for possession of some substance the government doesn't approve of. She is another victim of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. I didn't know her, and have no idea whether she was a decent person or not, but this doesn't matter. No government program or policy is important enough for people to die for. None.

Government- to keep us safe. Or not.

Government- to keep us safe. Or not.

I really do enjoy the Stossel show. Not that I always agree with him, but he is still a breath of fresh air compared to most things I see on television. He makes me examine my principles.
One thing which he mentions on many of his shows sticks out as particularly silly, though. John Stossel wants government to "keep us safe". From what, exactly? And, how?

I want my microwave oven to change glass cookware into gold, too, but it just isn't possible. It isn't within the realm of reality, no matter how much I wish it were.

That statement about government "keeping us safe" is easily the most inconsistent thing I hear Mr. Stossel say. It is how he keeps himself from sounding like an anarchist like me. It is the anchor he grasps to keep himself from being completely consistent in his libertarianism. He is not the only person I have heard make a similar statement, either. When I run into statements like this a few times from varied sources I tend to stop to consider them and see where that consideration leads.

Now, while consistency doesn't guarantee you are right, inconsistency does guarantee you are wrong about something, somewhere.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not believe government can keep me safe, since I know the most credible threat to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or if you prefer the original wording- "life, liberty, and property") is government. Yet, even if I believed it possible for government to "keep me safe" I would not want government to do that. My "safety" is not worth violating the rights of others to "ensure", and I realize that violating the rights of other people, in the long run, makes me less safe anyway. My safety does not depend on stealing money from others in order to finance government programs or agencies. My safety does not depend on criminalizing the voluntary, consensual behavior of self-responsible people around me. Those who are not self-responsible are outside the realm of government control anyway, and are best dealt with however you need to when they reveal themselves. If I am attacked I am capable of protecting myself without stealing or violating anyone's rights. Government is absolutely incapable of that.

Am I more safe because government tries to illegally regulate firearms and self defense? No.

Am I more safe because government invades other countries and creates a new generation of people who hate the US government (and mistake Americans for that government) so much that they willingly die in order to kill a few Americans? Hardly!

Am I safer because the government enforces a national border, kills people over plants, chemicals, money, seat belts, sex, and a multitude of other things? No. I am measurably less safe because of the existence of that government.

So, John, what are you thinking when you claim you want government to keep us safe? Are you doing this out of fear of being thought "unreasonable"? Or have you really not given the matter enough thought to realize you are dreaming the impossible dream?
__________________________

Here's a bit of shiny good news. Yet, this dead monster's illegitimate offspring continues to be misused in Albuquerque when an unarmed man on the old courthouse roof "required" an eleven hour SWAT team response. This puts the lie to the "justification" for these militarized anti-liberty forces. So, do you "feel safer"?

Statism is a religion

And it's the same all over the world, with their own local versions of the same things.

Statism, the belief that "government" is a legitimate human endeavor, is a religion. The most widespread human religion of all. It is a matter of faith to its followers and questioning the precepts is seen as an act of war. Those outside the religion see it for the ridiculous and harmful myth it really is.

The statist's god, or one of them, is the State. It is not an exclusive religion since you can belong to other religions as well. Most other religions are no real threat since they reinforce Statism rather than challenging it, ignoring the fact that the State requires you have no gods above it.

Statism makes the claim that since the State makes the rules- defines the "sins", if you will- the State can do things that would be evil if done by you or me, yet maintain its holiness in the eyes of its followers. While individual priests of Statism (politicians and state apologists) can sin, the State as a concept remains unquestioned, as does its sacredness.

Since the State writes the Commandments, the State exempts itself as being above them. The State forbids you to murder, but the State can murder many orders of magnitude more victims than Ted Bundy did. And the statists approve. The State forbids you to kidnap, but the State can kidnap, especially those who dare to reject the religion. Once again, the statists cheer. The State forbids you to steal, but the State can steal, and kidnap or murder you if you resist. And the statists insist you must cooperate and enthusiastically blame you for your own destruction if you do not.

The State can do just about anything as long as the State makes the required adjustments to its followers' morality first. It does this by passing "laws". As long as State actions have been "legalized" by the State, they are assumed to be "right" by those who don't see through the smoke and mirrors. As long as the State gets to decide whether its own actions are wrong, its actions will be judged, by itself, as "just".

I am glad to be an "astatist".
_____________________

And, in Albuquerque news, a sheriff's deputy shot and killed a man who was supposedly threatening suicide. Suicide is a right, although an unpopular one. For LEOs to intervene, and then decide he is a "deadly threat" to the deputies (who are where they have no right to be) and kill the "suicidal" object of their unwanted attention, is twisted and wrong. The person who called the LEOs should be ashamed, but obviously being a follower of the Statist religion, the person is probably proud of himself for doing "the right thing". The priests of Statism will agree.

Government substitutes for attentiveness

Government substitutes for attentiveness

Bernalillo County Commissioner Art De La Cruz wants to put a barrier- a concrete wall- along an Albuquerque bike path in order to protect bicyclists from out-of-control cars. This desire is prompted by a recent tragedy- a bike rider was hit and killed by a car that ran off the road and into the bike path.

Look, life will never be "safe". No matter how many "barriers", warning signs, bubble wrap, or "laws" you hem people in with, there will still always be accidents and deaths. It is human to be moved by tragedies and want to "do something"; it is perverse to think that you can make life better by trying to "fix" every single possibility of a tragedy. Unfortunate Truth #6 states "Any solved problem creates new problems". To spend money taken at gun point on your illusory "fixes", creating a slew of new problems, borders on sociopathic.

Bike riders know that when you ride near cars, there is always danger. As the operator of the smaller vehicle, it is my responsibility as the bike rider to stay alert and watch out for myself. Nothing can replace that.