Accept the truth of the "crazy stuff"

I read where Scott Adams of "Dilbert" was claiming to be "Libertarian, but without the crazy stuff".

Of course what that really means is that he claims to be a libertarian without consistency. That's sad.

It is easy to agree that The State, and specifically the US Federal government, has gotten too big, too powerful, and too corrupt. It seems to be a little harder to admit that this is where externally-imposed government will always, inevitably lead.

Someone sent me a couple of links a while ago that are incredibly good reading, and are wonderful tools for stripping away those inconsistencies. Both are a little long, but I highly recommend you check them out.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

The obviousness of Anarchy

*

Donate?

Arguing with 'The State's' True Believers

The more I experience the truth of liberty- whether you call it anarchism, voluntaryism, libertarianism, sovereign individualism, or whatever- the less need I feel to justify it to others.

It's like wasting my time trying to get people to see that cows don't have 6 legs (generally) while they keep insisting that, yes, they do. Whatever.

The truth is there for anyone to see if they want to look. It doesn't go away because they keep chanting that it doesn't exist. It doesn't care what they believe. It doesn't care what they want or "need" to be true. It just is what it is.

So, yes, I keep inserting my two cents (real copper) where and when I feel inspired to do so, but it really doesn't matter that much to me anymore whether anyone believes me or not.

Property codes violation of rights

Property codes violation of rights

One man's blight is another man's freedom. Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

A big aspect of socialism is placing the supposed benefit to society above the inalienable rights of the individual. This means that all socialism has the myth of "the common good" or "the general welfare" at its heart, and nothing but socialism can come from this myth. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve of it, can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications for it, and even if you benefit from it.

One of the first casualties of socialism is the right to use your private property as you see fit without first getting approval of others.

I oppose, without reservation, all calls for "property codes" to be used as a tool against "blight". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal".

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else or their property is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. Otherwise their property is none of your business, no matter what.

If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, because of breezy conditions or intentional tossing, or if it is causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. If there is a credible danger that a person's junk may catch fire and endanger your property you have the right to seek arbitration and to hold the other property owner accountable in case of damage. Reality indicates that lack of "blight" is no guarantee that no harm will ever come from a neighbor's property.

In a free society, where fire fighting would be a true free market enterprise, fire fighting companies could refuse to contract with those whose property was an unreasonable fire risk, or could charge higher rates to offset the higher risk. In a government monopoly, as long as the taxation is being paid, the fire department can not ethically discriminate. This encourages irresponsible behavior, which is then discouraged through property rights-violating "laws". It's an unhealthy system..

I realize many people are concerned that a neighbor's property could impact the value of their own property. If this is a concern you have the right to live in a neighborhood in which all the residents have voluntarily, and UNANIMOUSLY, agreed to certain conditions and restrictions. You and your other neighbors do not have the right to impose these restrictions on a neighbor who doesn't agree to them.

I don't like "blight" any more than anyone else, but I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

(As originally written; not as published. Yes, this is similar to other things I have written, but I felt it was "safe", considering...)

*

Donate?

Making outlandish claims with no evidence to back them up

I was just reading a comment on The Dilbert Blog where a person made the claim "Government has a significant role to play in a modern, market based economy. Those that think otherwise are badly mistaken."

Yeah, I see nonsense like this all the time, yet the person making the claim never backs it up with anything real. We are supposed to bow to their wisdom and just accept the claim as if it is a given, handed down from above.

You can have a "market", or you can have government playing a "significant role". You can not have both no matter what you believe, and no matter how much time you have spent as a priest for The State in its indoctrination camps.

Added: Yeah, it's "just" The Dilbert Blog, but if any of you out there care to drop by and give me a hand I'd appreciate it.

"Joint Land Use Resolution"

One topic that keeps showing up in the Clovis news, and that I know better than to try to write about in the Clovis paper, is the air force's "Joint Land Use Resolution" that it keeps seeking to impose on local property owners.

I have no problem with two people working out a mutually-voluntary agreement so they can both use real estate they both own- like a time share arrangement.

But this "joint land use" topic that keeps coming up is no different than me driving out to some place I think looks like a useful area (useful to me) and telling the property owners that we are going to work out an arrangement wherein I will shoot my deer rifle across their land and over their homes, and they must accommodate me. They will not be allowed to interfere nor build anything new that sticks up that I might hit. Maybe I'll even get an airplane and buzz their property. What's the difference?

This is just another bit of proof that the US military is a force for evil, not a protector of liberty.

*

Donate?

Human Failings and Libertarians

We are all human and have all-too-human failings and shortcomings. However, when considering libertarians, those failings fall short of our principles.

There is no room for revenge, or nationalism, or aggression, or racism, or thievery in libertarianism. You can still be a libertarian and harbor those things deep inside, of course, but those things are not libertarian. And if you don't get rid of them, they may come out at the worst possible moment of weakness and cause you to act in ways that violate your foundational stated principles.

If that happens and you are not bothered by it, or don't recognize the inconsistency in it, you may not really be libertarian.

Mother Nature, Bring it on!

I hate to admit it, but I love a good crisis (or potential crisis). Not in the "never let a good crisis go to waste" way the thugs of the fe(de)ral government love a crisis, though. They love a crisis because it gives them an excuse to violate the liberty and the rights of others. They love the harm it does to others and the panic that it causes and the power they are able to grab in the wake of the crisis.

I love a crisis because it makes me feel more alive and challenges me in a way I find invigorating. The crisis can be a purely personal thing that doesn't even involve other people at all. I wish no damage on anyone. Well, no one who is innocent, anyway.

I was thinking about this tonight in relation to the huge winter storm that is supposedly bearing down on a big chunk of North America. Even though I am on the southern edge of the storm path and not expecting anything very crisis-like in this area it is fun to think about.

The thought of a big storm with impassible roads and power outages is very exciting for me. Mostly because I feel prepared to handle it, and have lived through similar things before with no problem. I even enjoy the slight "inconveniences". It's an adventure!

There is an exception, though. I hate financial crises. This is because I feel inadequate and unable to handle those. Money hears me coming and runs away. I guess it all depends on how well you are able to weather a particular storm as to whether it is a fearful thing or an adventure.

*

Donate or buy my books to help me through my ongoing financial crisis.

"Pro-life" people alienate me

I get really tired of running into "pro-life" people who refuse to discuss anything relating to liberty until the "question" of abortion is resolved the way they want it.

To balk at any move toward liberty simply because we can't agree on abortion is insane. Let's get rid of all the liberty-crushing counterfeit "laws" first, and then we can work out the details on abortion.

The "pro-lifers" won't even discuss anything without the ridiculous insistence that everything, all good and all evil, flows from- and revolves around- the issue of abortion.

I am against abortion, especially as a form of birth control, but am also against government getting involved. If that's the way the "pro-lifers" want it they might just make me change sides. They may just make me decide I must be for abortion if the alternative is to be on the same side, even philosophically, as people who are so ignorant and bullheaded.

OK, so I don't really base my principles on other people, but it really is very tiresome. Work with me to get The State out of all areas of our lives and then we can settle the rest. OK?

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?