Old postcard to Mrs. J. Proctor Moore

My mom has an old postcard that she found in- I believe- her piano many years ago. I'm just posting this so that any relatives of the people mentioned, if they happen to do a Google search on the names, might be able to get the information.

The postcard was mailed from Lamar, Missouri to Mrs. J. Proctor (Maria?) Moore, Liberal, Missouri and postmarked on January 15, 1946. Unfortunately, I am not certain of some of the names that are written. Particularly the recipient. Marie? Maria? Mavis? Marin?

It says (original spelling and all):

Tues 1000 A.M. Dear Maria (?). Sure enough colder this A.M I want to tell you I feel real proud of my work I did yester-d. I used the Maytag & it works fine. So- I washed evrything on the place that was dirty & all dried nice but two chroched rugs. I washed 4 woven and they were aft dry. So brot evrything in. have my ironing all done. I wrote to Norma (?) last night. got a letter from N.A. & Mable yester A.M. were all well. I havent been off of place. didn't go to ch Sun night too cold. Ora came in yester P.M.brot me some M (?) Im so thankful Im able to work. And may God bless you & yours.

love --- Mother

Elbert got home this am

.

Harm and hurt

I don't think "hurting someone" and "harming someone" are necessarily the exact same thing. To me it seems like it is possible to "hurt" someone without harming them. And to harm someone without hurting them.

Let me explain. I have been hurt many times. I have cut myself more times than I can count. I have had scrapes and bruises. Most of these left no lasting effects. Any "harm" was temporary. I got over it (even if it wasn't a happy thing at the moment it happened). I don't think those things really harmed me in any way.

On the other hand I have been harmed by things that left no physical damage, but that I will never really heal from. For example, I was abandoned by The Love of My Life a little over 8 years ago. That harmed me, in many ways more than any physical damage I have ever suffered- including a bike wreck that did cause lasting damage.

So, although I realize that to be hurt in any way causes at least temporary harm, I guess when I think of "harm" I am thinking of something a little more permanent.

Sometimes you might even need to hurt someone in order to protect them from harm. It's not a good position to find yourself in.

Now, that doesn't mean that hurting someone or harming them is not a violation of the ZAP; in this case harm and hurt could both be wrong. It depends if they started it. And, sometimes, someone who is innocent may be hurt or harmed by something you did, and you may still have not done anything actually wrong. Accidents happen. You might have a debt to pay in that case, and by shirking your responsibility you would then be doing something wrong.

Just something to consider.

.

More Dangerous thoughts

Why is it OK to self-medicate with ibuprofen when you have a headache, or with an antihistamine when you have allergies, or with an over-the-counter sleep aid when insomnia strikes, but not OK to self-medicate with marijuana if you are suffering from boredom?

Boredom is probably more likely to be fatal than a minor headache, nasal allergies, or temporary insomnia would be, yet it is seen as somehow "wrong" to self-medicate- using a very safe medicine, by the way- to alleviate boredom's symptoms. That doesn't make sense.

.

Dangerous thoughts

I just had a random thought. One that might be seen as dangerous by some people.

If an individual owns their own body (a foundational concept of liberty) and can therefore put anything they wish into that body, wouldn't the corollary be that they can also take anything out of their own body if they don't want it there? Even if they chose to put it there in the first place?

.

History didn't begin with "9-11"

Thinking back on the posts of the past couple of days made me realize something. For all their blathering about "history", most statists seem to act as though history began on September 11, 2001.

Nothing that happened before that counts. All the decades (or centuries) of meddling in the Middle East never happened. The world was just spinning along, like it had every day since it was created in 4004 BCE, when out of the blue, terrorists attacked and suddenly the slate of history was wiped clean and revenge was justified. Hmmm.

Interesting (lack of) perspective, I think.

.

Not every problem needs a solution

Not every problem needs a solution

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 16, 2011)

Everyone knows there are problems in the world. There is theft. There is child abuse. There is poverty. And many more. The question becomes "How do you fix it?"

While it seems most people think a new law or tougher enforcement is the answer, libertarians see those "solutions" as only exacerbating the problems. We also see the current infatuation with statutory law as a reason that so many of the problems surrounding us now seem to have no effective solution.

Not every problem can be fixed, or even should be fixed. The biggest flaw in the "Serenity Prayer" is the line "...Courage to change the things I can..." because not everything that can be changed should be changed. Real wisdom accepts that.

Another fact of reality is that any solved problem creates new problems. The trick is to make sure the problems created by your solution are more minor- easier to solve or live with- than the problem you started with. If a solution seems likely to have consequences worse than the problem, it is best to do nothing until a better solution presents itself. Always be prepared to quickly reject your solution if its unintended consequences are worse than the original problem. Laws never fair well when judged against this benchmark.

A common statutory solution for crime is to ban self defense, or at least regulate it to the point that victims of an attack who fight back will then be at risk of being attacked by the legal system. This emboldens those who care nothing about right and wrong, much less laws, which creates unnecessary hardship and fear for the people who were not doing anything wrong to begin with.

The libertarian solution for crime is, first of all, to recognize that without a specific individual who was attacked or robbed there was no crime, and then remove the barriers to effective self defense, which includes defense of property. The benefit of a doubt must be given to the person who was just going about his business; not to the one who was looking for trouble.

The same goes for other problems. Most of them can be solved, but solutions that harm the innocent are not worth pursuing. You can't be generous and caring by giving away other people's money. You can't protect the innocent by legalizing the violation of eternal human rights.

.

Confession...

Yes, I admit it. I enjoy coming up with hare-brained schemes. Most, maybe all, go nowhere. but they do bring me joy. And that is what life should have more of. And, someday, who knows. Maybe one of my ideas will bear fruit. In the meantime I'll keep thinking up more.

.

Paul or Obama petition

Here's the petition "Dedicated Dad" made for you to sign (and spread) to tell the Repubs what you're thinking: Ron Paul or Obama: Your Choice

Have fun with it.

.

Nominate Ron Paul- or else! (a bad idea?)

I don't believe in voting. Neither do I believe politics is an ethical way to get anything done. But, I wonder if or how a political threat might work. Yeah it probably violates the ZAP in that if voting is an initiation of force (which it seems it might be), then threatening to vote is advocating or delegating an initiation of force.

However, ignoring all that for a moment...

I wonder what would happen if liberty lovers, en masse, told Republicans in no uncertain terms that if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, we will all vote for Obama. Even if we have to register to vote to do it. Even if we otherwise would never even consider voting, period.

Think of it as putting a mortally injured, dying America out of its misery, if the offer of medicine* is refused.

Just a thought.

I may try this out on my "conservative" relatives. Or, I may post the "threat", without all this post's contemplation, and minus all the uncertainties, somewhere in this form:

Notice is hereby given to the Republican party and all Republican voters: You have a chance to do the right thing. You can nominate Ron Paul. If you nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, I will register to vote, and I will vote for Obama. I will encourage all of my liberty-loving friends, contacts, and acquaintances to do the same- even if they have not voted before or in many years. You will be throwing away your nomination by nominating anyone other than Ron Paul. Is that what you really want to do? It's your call.

Added: I just thought of a shorter way to phrase this threat: "Republicans- I will vote this time, for the first time in years. But, I will either vote for Ron Paul or I will vote for Obama. Your choice." And, no, I don't really intend to vote.

And now there's a petition, too!

(*Yeah, it could be debated whether this is medicine or a placebo. Or even a poison. I'd still enjoy seeing what Repubs would say or do if this idea went viral. I'm not perfect.)

.

Is minding your own business "dangerous"?

Once again, I'm not endorsing Ron Paul since voting lends an illusion of legitimacy to a completely illegitimate system. And because you can't vote yourself free.

However, I was talking to a "conservative" statist (a redundancy, I know) who said he thought Ron Paul was the best candidate, except that the mainstream will never accept him enough to elect him because of his foreign policy. He says, in less honest words, that it is just too dangerous to not meddle. If I used such language I would have responded "WTF?"

How has the meddling in other countries' business worked out so far? Has it kept radical individuals from killing innocent Americans? Has it spread liberty around the globe?

No to both.

Intervention is more honestly called trespassing. Intervention led to the act of aggression known as "9-11". Intervention led to all the deaths, American and otherwise, in all the unconstitutional wars (which are actually terrorism) since then. Intervention led to the death of liberty in America. Intervention grows new generations of individuals, in America and around the world, who hate the US government and who are willing to kill and die to try to hurt it. Intervention (among other Crimes of State) led to the growing worthlessness of the money in your bank account and in your wallet.

Intervention leads to more intervention in a feedback loop. It's like beating your dog because he is whining and limping. The more you beat him, the more he will whine and limp. Until he either dies or rips your throat out for being such a cruel jerk. If he dies, an interventionist will get a new dog to kick around since he needs that feeling of being a big, tough guy.

And, intervention abroad leads to the justification for intervention in your private life.

The State has no business intervening anywhere for any reason. It has no justification to exist. I got over it; I wish everyone would.

.

"Please repost this..."

Facebook. Repost this or that. Statuses expressing concern or support for cancer patients, deceased babies, victims of abuse, etc. Repost instead of actually doing anything to help.

I think facebook statuses have replaced, or at least joined, prayer as the silly "pretend to do something helpful while not really" activity.

One person doing is more helpful than a million people praying- or reposting.

.

Childish "Paternalism" and fear of Ron Paul

Most of the people I interact with in real life call themselves "conservatives". You and I both see the falsehood there. However, recently in The Libertarian Enterprise, L. Neil Smith spelled it out a little more clearly than I had ever seen done.

It inspired me to make the diagram which accompanies this post. (You can click on it to make it easier to read.)

The description of "Paternalism" fits the "conservatives" in my life to a "T".

And, it shows why they are scared of Ron Paul. He doesn't allow them to be bullies by proxy- using the military force of the US government to impose their own version of the "Paternalism" corner of the triangle on those who already have their own version of that same corner imposed on their own society. A Ron Paul presidency would get in the way of the chest thumping and swaggering.

I don't need a president or a government. I have no use for discredited myths and delusions such as The State. I don't need Ron Paul to be president over a government I have long since withdrawn consent from. But I do wonder if these "conservatives" would actually prefer to have 4 more years of Obama over Ron Paul. They will never admit it, but I think- judging by their actions and reactions- they would. They are hypocrites and crybabies. I wish I would live to see them all grow up and get over it.

.

Modernity hatred- New Luddites?

"Modernity hatred". I'm not sure what else to call what I see so much of.

You'll never find a person who likes the "old ways" more than I do. Yet, the constant hand-wringing over "new stuff" bewilders me. Cell phones, computers, the internet, fast food, birth control, some social changes, etc. If it was invented after about 1950 many people seem to recoil in horror or rail against it.

And, that would be fine if they didn't meddle with the choices and preferences of others, especially through the application of "laws".

Things change. Get used to it.

Hold onto the old things that you like, but don't insist that everyone must follow your lead (or refuse to go anywhere, depending on how you look at it). I enjoy some of the "new" stuff, too, but not all of it. The way I look at it, we can pick and choose from the knowledge of many thousands of years of humans who have come before us. From our early stone age ancestors to Steve Jobs. Why limit yourself, and why try to remove the freedom of choice from others?

I can keep starting fires with a bow/drill, keep washing with lye soap, keep using kerosene lanterns, keep eating weeds and jerky, and wear brain-tanned buckskin, but there is nothing "better" about those choices- they are just things I like. I can also use a high-tech firesteel or eat a Big Mac, when the mood strikes me without being "guilty" of anything. I would never demand you live the way I do, and I especially would never consider forcing you to live according to my wishes through "laws".

.

Buy stuff?

I'm not going to beg for donations... however, I find myself needing money. Worse than usual. Again.

So, please consider buying some stuff from me. Either here or on eBay (both links are always under my picture over there on the left).

Thank you.

.

"Preps"

As I mentioned before, I am using this year to work on my "preps". Nothing too big, so far, but something, no matter how minor, every day. I've even allowed "thinking about a certain idea" to count. I'm not going to quibble over what counts. And, that "mere" thinking has paid off as I have already gone ahead and implemented some of the ideas I came up with while apparently doing nothing.

No matter how prepared you are, you could do more.

And, no matter how little you think you can do, you CAN do something. If nothing else, inventory and organize what you already have and come up with a strategy.

I, perhaps like you, have no money to spare on preparations. Yet, many things won't take money. You're on the internet; use it to learn and get ideas. And skills.

You won't regret getting ready or gaining skills unless you count on some particular disaster coming on schedule. Untie your mind from that silliness and just know that whatever happens, your life - and the lives that depend on you - will be better when you prepare for the unexpected. Really. It will increase your liberty no matter what else happens around you. I promise.

.

Advice for government employees

If a politician or bureaucrat wanted to stay legal and adhere to the Constitution, it would be better to not do something that the Constitution authorizes than to do something it does not. I wonder why that option never occurs to them?

.

I will stand up for your liberties

I will stand up for your liberties

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 9, 2011. Yes, it begins with the same H. L. Mencken quote that begins my current Liberty Lines column, but the columns are completely different, even if inspired by the same incident.)

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Rarely have I read a quote that contained more truth. It is the story of my life. In so many cases my energy is spent defending the rights of people I probably wouldn't like, who are doing things I don't necessarily approve of, simply because I am able to see how their rights are mine. And yours.

This often puts me in the position of defending scoundrels who are having their liberty violated by people with "good intentions", which puts me at odds with those who only see the good intentions and the scoundrels, but not the unintended consequences, or how those consequences could eventually harm us all.

Freedom means doing what you want to do, regardless of whether it is within your rights or not. Liberty is the freedom to do what you have a right to do. While it is sometimes proper to constrain freedom, it is never right to limit anyone's liberty.

As long as those scoundrels are within their rights- they are not attacking, stealing, or trespassing- it doesn't matter if I like them or approve of what they are doing. They still have a right to be doing it and no one has a right, or the authority, to interfere. No matter how noble the interference might seem or how much I might agree with the general objection to what is being done.

If you are willing to violate the scoundrel's rights then you shouldn't be surprised when you discover that you are someone else's scoundrel, facing the torch-bearing villagers who are anxious to storm your castle for the "common good". And, as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, I'll be right there beside you, whether I like you or approve of your actions or not.

You only have the liberty you respect in others. I am willing to fight against the violation of the liberties of others because it is the right thing to do, and my expectation is that no one will call for my liberty to be violated in any way. I'll hold up my end even if others don't reciprocate.

.

Libertarian buts

I see a lot of people who claim to be a "libertarian, but". And some who claim to just be "libertarian" while they ignore their big "but" and pretend it is a feature of all "real libertarians".

The biggest "but" is support for the military. Militia, yes. State-controlled military, no. Tax-financed, government military is not "libertarian", no matter how you try to spin it. It doesn't matter if the Constitution says it is OK, or if your family has always been a "military family" and you want to honor their lives.

The second biggest "but", which is related to the first, is belief in national borders. Usually they pretend this "but" is about property rights. If you think national borders are about property rights, just see how much the State that enforces the borders respects your property rights. Nope. It's about violating your property rights. It doesn't matter if the trespasser is an independent migrant from Mexico or an employee of some government agency. Trespassing is trespassing and the backstory doesn't matter. And, if you choose to allow a person on your property, that is your right as a property owner and no one has any say in the matter.

A third "but" is pretending that the US Constitution is a libertarian document. It has some good things in it and it has some horrible things in it. But none of that matters since the US government ignores it all anyway, unless they find a particular part useful to the agenda at the moment. Go ahead and use the Constitution to show that the government is not legitimate since it has unilaterally violated the agreement that bound it, but don't get hung up on this too much. There are better ways to organize a "society" voluntarily.

The last "but" I notice the most is ignoring coercion unless it is committed by The State. Coercion is wrong. The State is wrong because it relies on coercion. Coercion isn't wrong just because it is used by The State.

I'm sure there are lots more "buts" out there. All those who claim to be "libertarian, but without the crazy stuff" have at least one.

As for myself, I try to make sure I have no "but". If my first inclination, when presented with an idea that pushes the envelope of individual liberty, is to pull a "but" out of my... well, you know... then I try to look very hard at why I felt the need to have a "but". What aspect of legitimized (or justified) coercion am I trying to hold on to? And why?

.

Dumb is as dumb believes

How can smart people be so dumb?

I was watching a TED talk and it struck me once again that "smart people" can be the dumbest of all.

Now, I'll admit I lost interest and stopped watching before the end of the video. I have a rule about exposing myself to stupidity: I only do it if I don't have better uses for my time. So, maybe he ended the talk by saying something surprising and truly smart or wise. But I'm not counting on it.

I gather, from the part I did watch, that this guy, Paddy Ashdown, is a raving statist who doesn't understand economics or government. At all. Yet, there is an apparent consensus that he is "smart". Perhaps he is even considered an "expert" in those areas. He isn't.

He believes that "global" markets are unregulated unless there is a State involved in regulating them. He believes that statutory "law" trumps Natural Law. That is sufficient evidence that he is dumb.

.

Arrogance of The State

I have been called "arrogant" a time or two. Or ten. Usually because I wouldn't buy into someone else's (obviously flawed) argument. Or, because someone tried to hurt me and I, instead of reacting as they had expected, was amused. Above it. That sometimes led to a "smirk" as well.

But that's amateurish arrogance compared to governments.

Governments all seem to think they can get away with anything. Forever. Sure, they all do for a time, but none ever have forever, and none ever will.

Governments ignore their own "permission to exist documents"- their "hall pass"- and will kidnap or even kill those who point out the violations.

Governments decide they own you and can tell you what to ingest, whether you can travel (and how, how fast, and what you are "consenting to" in order to travel at all), they rape you, they demand a ransom to "allow" you to keep some of your own property. They forbid self defense and the tools to carry it out effectively. They declare that unless they "educate" the desire to learn out of your children, you are abusing them. They punish you if you know a "law" is wrong and refuse to convict a person for violating it. They decide if you can leave the territory they have fenced off, and steal most of your property if you get permission to go for good. They tell you (and your government-licensed doctor) how your ailments will be allowed to be "treated". They turn local police into militarized occupation forces instead of "peace officers"- who in the best of circumstances were still a useless drain on humanity before they became an open threat to it. They prohibit and punish basic human activities like growing food, trading, sex, hunting, being left alone... and demand you get permission from them for the things you are allowed to do anyway. And, they demand to know every detail of your life so they will know when you aren't doing as you are told. The list of real, current offenses could go on endlessly.

They act as though there will never be any consequences that will result from all this arrogance. Certainly none from the "Mundanes".

Yet, there is a limit. Not to what governments will try to get away with, but how much their targets will accept before they strike back.

There will always come a time when more threats bring less compliance rather than more. When harsher penalties bring more hatred and less obedience. When more surveillance results in too much meaningless data and smarter acts of defiance. When puppeticians and bureaucrats cease to be able to protect their worthless hides through "laws" and certain punishment. When enough people finally see The State, and its supporters, for the parasites they have always truly been, and say "Time's Up!"

I would hate to be on the side of the tyrants when that day dawns.

.