Hosni Mubarack Obama

Has anyone else noticed the little game that can be played with the names of Egypt's and America's tyrants? Hosni Mubarak + Barack Obama = Hosni Mubarack Obama.

If I were superstitious I might think there's a message there. Maybe Obama is seeing his own near future in the current troubles of his soul mate in Egypt. Is one tyrant really that different from another tyrant? Should we pay attention to Mubarak to see what may happen to Obama? Interesting times.

Heretics and nonbelievers

Most of the systematic torture in the world has been done to preserve superstition of one sort or another from being exposed as superstition.

Both of the Big Superstitions, religion and government, have shared in the guilt. Sure there have been cruel freelance torturers, but their offenses have been a drop in the bucket, barely even measurable, compared to the vast scale of the cruelty committed by goons trying to enforce adherence to the notions of The State or religion.

I think it is because a substantial percentage of people really, deep down, know better. They see through the scam, so obedience and the appearance of agreement must be enforced in both cases. Either through torture or the threat of torture.

Of course, in both cases there are also "True Believers" who will continue to believe what they want to believe no matter how overpowering the preponderance of evidence may be.

From these ranks come the ones who cheer on the torturers and try to prevent the truth from having an impact. These are the useful idiots.

There are also some "True Believers" who don't contribute to the evil, but too few of these actively oppose it. By their silence they betray humanity.

There are also a few, very few, who remain "True Believers" while supporting the right of others to disagree with their superstition, and who openly oppose inquisitions and torture. These are the good, though still deluded, "True Believers".

"My"

The word "my" can mean ownership, such as "my gun", "my clothes", or "my hair".

It can also mean a relationship, such as "my daughter", "my friend", or "my family". Maybe even "my shadow". This is why saying "my child" is not a claim of ownership over that child, but is an acknowledgement of the relationship I have with that child.

"Good"- the definition

To me "good" is anything that voluntarily helps someone who deserves to be helped. That would be what I consider "actively good".

It can also be anything that avoids harming those who do not deserve to be harmed, although many people would probably just think of this as an ethically neutral act. I think of this as being "passively good".

There is no obligation to be actively good, while there is an obligation to be at least passively good.

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Never, ever call the police. And never speak to reporters.

A couple of Albuquerque teens are facing possible legal trouble after catching a thief and then beating him up.

Did they go too far? Maybe. It depends on what the truth is, and that may never be known. However, the burglar admitted being a burglar. And he was caught trespassing. The teens had every right to track him down to recover stolen property. If the thief then attacked them with a knife as they claim, they did the right thing by defending themselves.

In all cases I think it is right to give the benefit of the doubt to those who did not initiate force, fraud, or theft. The burglar committed theft, and doesn't deny it.

The cops do not wish to be seen as unnecessary. It is hard to justify living on stolen money, taken by coercion, if people can handle situations themselves. Yet, we can and they are unnecessary, and even promote crime by their very existence through the very mechanism displayed here. The "cooperate with the bad guys and just call the professionals" mantra. That is a recipe for defeatism.

It is a lesson the authorities hope we all learn. No thanks.

*
Donate?

The evil of "The Other" is sometimes real

I read a lot of warnings about thinking of "the other" as evil and yourself as good. It applies accurately to the silly "Democrat vs Republican" thing. It also applies very well to the "America vs AnyOtherCountry" thinking.

Where it utterly breaks down is in the "Liberty vs Tyranny" or the "Attacker vs Victim" realms.

There, any pretense that one choice is just as valid as the other is simply denial. The denial that the bad guy is bad serves no useful purpose for you. Tyranny, the systematic denial and violation of individual liberty in favor of power for The State, is completely wrong. It has no good side, even if it results in superficially "good" results. Liberty, even if it seems scary and dangerous, is the only ethical choice. Liberty is right, and tyranny is wrong. Completely, and without any equivocation.

If you are being attacked, your attacker is completely wrong (at that moment), while you are in the right if you choose to fight back with all you have. The one who "started it" bears all the blame if he is killed in the ensuing conflict. Yet, if you harm someone else during your defensive actions (perhaps the attacker's family member who wasn't involved), YOU become the attacker, subject to the laws of consequences.

Of course, this evil can be seen with your own eyes rather than being preached by the priests of The State to unquestioning believers who have witnessed nothing but what those priests have chosen to show (or stage) for their own ends. In other words, if someone has to convince you that someone is out to get you, with no evidence that can be seen, you would be better to laugh it off. And, conversely, if you see evil being committed don't buy the justifications that those supporters of the bad guys will try to bury you under.

You are being delusional if you think there is not real right and real wrong. If you are being attacked by a thug who wants to steal your property or rape and kill you, it is insane to think he might have a valid point of view as you stare down the barrel of his gun. He is the bad guy.

So many inconsistencies...

I've written about unlibertarian libertarians before. Several times, in fact. It still gets me how someone who is libertarian can be so blind in some areas.

I'm not saying they aren't libertarian, just that they hold on to inconsistencies that are not libertarian. How many inconsistencies can a person hold and still be what they claim to be? How many statist beliefs can a person support before others laugh at their insistence that they put liberty first?

In mild cases it would be like someone claiming to be a Christian, but worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the first Tuesday of each month. (Substitute the belief systems of your choice.)

In the worst cases it would be like someone claiming to be Christian, but instead worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster all the time, with occasional nods to the God they claim to worship- as long as it's convenient and doesn't get in the way of their normal worshiping routine or threaten their belief in FSM.

It is certainly bewildering.

*

Donate?

Accidents are not crimes

The indictment of Clovis police officer Stephen Gallegos on vehicular homicide charges is a good first step toward giving the appearance of fairness. All we should demand is that there be no double standards and that we are all equals "under the law" regardless of our employer. This indictment serves the purpose adequately.

Now, how to get justice? Surprisingly, or perhaps not, were I seated on the jury that will be asked to determine his fate, I would have to return a "not guilty" verdict. It's simply the right thing to do. Accidents are not crimes and are not within the legitimate realm of the current justice system. For a real crime to exist there must have been an intent to cause harm to another person or their property. Officer Gallegos is not alleged by anyone to have intended to harm the women he collided with.

On the other hand I do think Gallegos owes restitution to the dead woman's family, and to the injured survivor of the accident. The core of any legitimate justice system must be restitution. Intentional or not, harm was caused, and this incurs a debt. The details of the restitution should be between the victims and Gallegos, and no one else. This should be a private matter that is none of my business and none of yours unless you were involved.

Of course, in the current broken incarnation of a justice system, fines and imprisonment are the most popular recourse. Imprisonment doesn't often serve the cause of justice. It can not return the dead to life, nor heal the injured, nor even repay a financial wrong. However, if that were the only restitution the victims would accept, then they should work out the details of who will pay for his imprisonment. The most fair solution in that case would be for Gallegos to pay for his own upkeep, perhaps with help from his family, friends, and supporters. To make "the taxpayers" foot the bill is not justice. Two wrongs never make a right.

The same goes for the practice of levying a fine. The State (or any political subdivisions thereof) are not the victim here, and are owed nothing. Fines are simply another "tax" that goes to feed the beast without helping those who have been injured. Most of the time when fines are collected there was never any harm to anyone anyway, but merely the violation of some counterfeit substitute for a law that attempts to regulate something other than aggression or theft. Once again, this has no relation to real justice.

I can only hope any jury that is seated in Officer Gallegos' case, or any other case, keeps these things in mind while deliberating, and also remembers their historical duty and obligation to judge not only the facts of the case, but the legitimacy of the "law" that is being used against the defendant, regardless of the instructions of the court. Doing so would set Stephen Gallegos free. (www.fija.org is an excellent resource for jury education.)

*
This was to be my weekly Clovis News Journal column, but was rejected due to it being seen as an attempt to influence potential jurors in a local case. So there will be no CNJ column from me this week as the deadline had already passed when I was informed of the decision. What this means for me is that I am going to be short 25% of my pay this month. Therefore if anyone feels inclined to help me make up the shortfall this month, I would be grateful. Donate?

Is a free society unworkable?

Discuss the benefits of trying liberty rather than statism as the basis of a society* and you will hear many people drone on and on about how it won't work. One common example is the "Somalia blah blah blah" retort. As if that has any bearing on what a free society would be.

When liberty is given a real shot we can then discuss the results.

Even if anarchy or an other wise free society is "unworkable", that doesn't mean the statist alternative is right. Statism is also unworkable, as has been shown amply throughout recorded history. To deny that statism results in calamity is just silly. Plus, based as statism always is (by definition) on theft and coercion, it is wrong.

Given the choice, I would rather live in a failed society based upon liberty rather than an equally failed society based upon authoritarianism. Liberty is right, at least.

If liberty also fails to produce a workable society, then the obvious conclusion is that society itself is the problem. Maybe society* is a false concept and can never be truly workable.

*I am using the term "society" as short-hand for the interactions of all people who actually deal with one another in some way, not as some real, physical thing (like some collectivists seem to believe).

*

Donate?

Lever Action is back!

L. Neil Smith has announced that his book Lever Action is back!

If you are not familiar with the book, you should be.

I discovered Lever Action from a short, not entirely positive, review in the back of an NRA magazine soon after the book was first printed- probably in the winter or spring of 2002*. I had no money at the time, but I cut out the review and held on to it for a few months until I was able to order a copy. It changed my life. Seriously. I would not be writing this, or anything else, had I not read Lever Action.

I had never known there was anyone else out there who thought the way I did. I had thought there were "conservatives" and "liberals" and then there was me. I knew I didn't fit in either category, so I just considered myself a lone misfit. Lever Action was the first realization that other people did think the way I did. It brought me from being an aberration to being a libertarian. Or at least gave me the realization that there was a name for my particular ideology. For that sense of belonging I am forever grateful. Thanks again El Neil.

*If you have a copy of that review, please let me know. I kept my copy for a long time, but somewhere in all the moves, homelessness, storage units, and etc. it was misplaced. L. Neil has expressed an interest in seeing that review.

Compulsive liars telling the truth?

You know what, I personally DO believe the US government (through its official spokescritters) has lied about the JFK assassination, "9/11", Obama's citizenship, the ratification of the 16th Amendment, and various other liberty-destroying things. After all, when have you ever heard anything truthful come out of Washington DC (unless it was Ron Paul saying it)?

It would be a conspiracy theory beyond belief to believe that on those subjects, the official story is completely true, while the evidence of innumerable other lies, both big and small, is so completely overwhelming for everything else. Look at anything, anything at all, the government claims and you will uncover lies if you dig just a little. Compulsive liars simply don't tell the truth on "big stories" while routinely lying about mundane things. To think they do is ... well, it just isn't rational.

But, on the other hand, none of those things makes any difference in how I relate to people who claim it is OK for them to steal, kidnap, attack, and murder people who have initiated no force, theft, or deception. It is simply a tiny bit more evidence that The State is a force for harm in civilization. The State is inexcusable.

'Shall not be infringed' is The Law. Obey it.

'Shall not be infringed' is The Law. Obey it.

In the Albuquerque news I see that a bill to further depoliticize "concealed carry" has been introduced in the state legislature. While I support such an act, it is not necessary.

All that is necessary is that the state, and its enforcers, start obeying the law that already strictly limits what they can legally do, and ignoring the illegal counterfeit "laws" that violate those limits.

The stupidity of the anti-liberty side is copiously demonstrated by Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino, an Albuquerque Politicrat who is quoted as whining “The week after the Tucson Massacre, to have dreamed this up - really?” Yes, really. When tragedies happen, intelligent people see ways to make a repeat less likely to happen. Laws didn't stop Loughner, and apparently don't stop senators either. More guns in the hands of good people will go a long ways toward this goal. Get over your religious delusions to the contrary and deal with it Senator. Just because you fail to acknowledge the blood on your hands doesn't mean it's really nail polish.

"Shall not be infringed" is not just a popular quote with liberty-minded folk; it is The Law. Get used to it, politicians. It isn't negotiable. It is absolutely required of those who seek to be a part of government. You break that law and you lose any legitimacy you may have thought you had. In other words you become a common thug trying to violate the rights of your neighbors to empower or enrich yourself, rather than an official thug doing the same while still following the written laws that apply to your actions.

No new laws are needed. All "laws" that violate the higher law simply need to be repealed, abandoned, and/or ignored. And, if you somehow manage to get that higher law repealed, the basic human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we choose, in any way we see fit- openly or concealed- everywhere we go without asking permission of anyone, will still exist- just as it has since before the dawn of history.

*
Donate?

Kent's Dictionary

Click on the word for the meaning I have when I use the word

Aggression

Anarchy

Arrest

Chaos

Coercion

Collective *

Common Good

Conspiracy

Credible Threat

Crime

Ethics

Evil

Fraud

Freedom

Good

Government

"Greater Good"

Greed *

Harm

Inflation

Innocent

Justice

LEO

Libertarian

Liberty

Money

Morality

"My"

Politicians / Thieves

Politics

"Puppetician"

Reavers

Rightful Liberty

Rights

Ruler

"Social Justice"

[The] State

Statists

Trespasser

.
* Things that were suggested I add, but which I don't necessarily think about enough to need to define otherwise.

"Basics of Liberty" video series

I thought I'd post an update with all my "Basics of Liberty" videos listed in one place.

Zero Aggression Principle

Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Bubble Theory of Property Rights

Understanding Right and Wrong

Love it or Leave it

Theft by Any Other Name

If/when I make more videos I will update this post and change the date to make it current.

"Decriminalize"?

I dislike the word "decriminalize"; often used in association with the efforts to end the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. It sounds like the speaker/writer is asking The State for a favor.

I think a couple of more accurate terms would apply. Such as "degovern" or "depoliticize". The point is that these things are none of the government's business under any circumstances.

Perhaps that is just my nature as an INTP showing itself.

Understanding Right and Wrong- the video

And on Youtube here: link

Are you in favor of a War on Bath Salts?

Attention supporters of The State:

I am tired of treating prohibitionists as though they are rational, reasonable people. They are not. They are childish control-freaks.

People want to get high. First it's stuff like marijuana and plant-based chemical intoxicants (including alcohol), along with religion. Then came the laboratory-created drugs. The State and its useful idiots (like the tweaked morons of MADD) were anxious to ban all of these that they personally feared or hated.

Then regular people found things you evil idiots of The State hadn't specifically banned- yet. Plants or other household products. Things that often were more harmful than the things you prohibitionists originally banned.

So now I am treated like a suspected criminal when I want to buy cold or allergy medicine. I do not freakin' care how someone else might use allergy medicine, nor what they might make out of its chemicals. I am adult enough to realize it is none of my business. I probably won't be purchasing any of their products, and I can defend myself against anyone who is impaired from using those substances. I do not need your "protection" and I don't appreciate your claim that I do. I am not as pathetic and weak as you are. I do not need "the law" or its enforcers.

Still delusional enough to think you can "win"? Now, people are using bath salts and plant foods to feel altered, and apparently causing real damage to themselves. Come on, you idiots who favor prohibition and the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs, can't you see the results of your insanity? If you do, and still don't care or think you are doing good... I can't say what consequences you should face. But I know, and so do you.

People want to alter their mental states, and no matter what you do, they will find a way to do it. Even if it means spinning around to get dizzy, which can still result in serious injury, they will find a way. Your prohibitions make no difference that is good, and are making all the difference in the world for all that is bad.

What would be enough for you pinheads? Screw the "slippery slope" arguments. That slope has been slipped down long ago. You are reaching the bottom of that slope now. How much is "too much" for you? I'm afraid nothing would be seen as "too far" for authoritarian control-freak monsters like those who still, in spite of all the evidence, support prohibition. You are already killing people. What's a little more death to people like you?

So, BUTT OUT! Stop! Feel free to educate or pontificate, but don't you dare pick up the gun of The State and start to legislate (or continue to enforce previous illegitimate legislation). Doing so makes YOU a bad guy. A thug who is a danger to liberty. You are a threat.

TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video Continue reading on Examiner.com: TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video

TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video

The man who was violated by the TSA in Albuquerque and "arrested" over his refusal to comply with illegitimate demands to show his ID has been cleared of wrongdoing in "the trial [which] has been postponed until 2011". As he should have been.

I hope every trial the TSA is involved in ends this way. And it will if justice is served. Remember to visit FIJA to know how you must act if called for jury duty.
*
On another, even more important note, you need to watch Guns and Weed. No, seriously- you NEED to watch it all, share it, and then watch it again.

*
Donate?

"Guns and Weed" movie.

Watch this, then send it to everyone you know and watch it again!

Public officials here to serve us

Public officials here to serve us

Would you feel comfortable if you had a few hired hands, and maybe a maid, a butler, and a gardener, who insisted that you had no right to know what they were doing while they worked for you, maybe even locked the doors behind them while around your valuables, yet still insisted on having the run of your property? Me neither. Then why do we allow those servants in government to get away with this same behavior?

When the Curry County Citizens Courthouse Committee decided, against the better judgement of some of its members, to conduct its business in secret it demonstrated exactly why its meetings must be open to observation. If you want to be making recommendations that will affect the lives of others or will determine how other people's money will be spent, you have no expectation of privacy in that role. Power without oversight is dangerous.

When you or I want to protect our privacy from government or other meddlesome busybodies, we are told we wouldn't object if we have nothing to hide. Yet, we are the masters. Being told this by our servants is nonsense.

I realize this committee isn't exactly "government", but it isn't exactly private individuals minding their own business either. Their actions will have governmental repercussions on their neighbors. Whether these repercussions are negative or positive depends on the principles of those involved and on whether the individuals are being subjected to manipulation or are coming to their own conclusions in their own way. How can this be known if the group dynamics are not watched.

Of all secrets, government secrets are the most dangerous and the least justifiable. Government secrets often kill. Exposing filthy secrets to the sterilizing light of the sun is the only healthy choice. Using "security" as an excuse for secrecy doesn't hold water.

As Ben Franklin noted, security and liberty have a strange relationship. If you spend your precious liberty to purchase some security, you will find that the security you thought you were buying was only a photoshopped simulation made to deceive you and get your money.

Protect yourself. Watch the people behind the curtain and don't let them do anything in secret. Even when it's a small, local matter.

(As written; not as published)

*

Donate?