Thousands of innocents dead

Assuming for a moment that the government story about the "9/11" attacks are true... is it worse to kill 3000 presumably innocent people in one day, or 3000 presumably innocent people over the course of a year or two? Or many times that number over a longer stretch of time? Just as the US government has been doing and continues to do in all the middle east countries that are being punished for "9/11". Who's the terrorist? I keep forgetting, and I can't tell them apart based on their behavior and the outcome.

.

State creates made-up problems

State creates made-up problems (But, obviously, they become real problems that could have been avoided, if only...)

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 30, 2012.)

It amuses me how many problems which have a government-mandated "solution" are caused by previous government mandates which came about as misguided solutions for previously manufactured problems. And, because the majority of "The People" have become convinced that the earlier mandates are "The Way it's Always Been Done" (rather than a relatively recent "gum, tape, and string" contraption), they believe there is no rational, voluntary way to solve the problems they see around them now. After all, you can't alter one element without exposing the mess that was created before that, and so on. It's quite a cycle.

As the late Robert Lafevre is supposed to have said, "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Truer words have seldom been spoken.

If you see a problem in society, you will be safe in betting its root cause, when you dig deep enough, is The State.

Prices rise because government has made the value of money drop like a rock. Counterfeiting on a grand scale will do that to money. To counter this, even more money is printed. Which makes the value of the money go even lower, which makes prices rise more.

Unemployment is rampant because minimum wage laws and other government edicts raise the bar too high for many new workers. I may not be worth whatever the dictated minimum wage is, but be willing to work for less to gain experience. Government forbids me from striking my own mutually-satisfactory deal with a potential employer. I have tried and found employers afraid to risk being caught.

Crime seems rampant because laws make it a criminal act to defend yourself with the most effective defensive tools ever created. Except under strict guidelines; with prior permission. This makes the bad guys bold, which causes politicians and bureaucrats to call for more restrictions on acts, and the tools, of self defense, which protects the bad guys from the real consequences of their acts, and so on.

Government is a societal virus; similar in action to a computer virus. I'm sure many of you have clicked on the wrong link at some time and gotten a computer virus that offers to sell you a security program to get rid of the virus they just put on your computer. The ones I have suffered even hijacked my computer to prevent it from going to any page other than the site where I could pay to get rid of their virus. Sound familiar? Keep people believing you are the only solution and you can get away with just about anything.

.

Let them ALL "win"

Thinking back on a previous blog post gave me an idea. One that seems it would make Repubmocratican voters of any sort happy and complacent. Although it wouldn't do much for liberty-lovers in that department.

There should be some way to convince everyone who votes "mainstream" that their candidate won. And that for the next four years, he is the one holding the office of president.

After all, Democrats are quiet and happy as long as the president directing the war crimes is a Democrat, and Republicans are quiet and happy as long as the president building the US police state is a Republican. Or, is it vice versa on the preferred violations?

In any case, the acts never differ depending on the vermin holding the office, so the only thing I can see that determines whether a voter thinks the president is dandy or despicable is whether that president belongs to the party that the voter belongs to. So, let them believe it. All of them. Internet and mass media technology should make that possible. Starting with reporting the election results.

Let FOX News praise the latest genocide encouraged by President Romney and let MSNBC get all weak in the knees over brave President Obama's latest drone strike on an elementary school in Wastelandistan. Do the same filtering with the internet that voters are likely to browse- after all, the "experts" claim we all avoid hearing opinions that differ with ours anyway- so the self-selection should be automatic. And don't get wires crossed about who talks about which president.

Then, with all the voters happy, and presumably half-asleep, maybe the rest of us can make some changes behind the scenes.

.

"School is..."

"School is a place where children learn to be stupid."

Great observation. From this video.

.

Self deception

A "conservative" relative put the accompanying picture on her Facebook page.

What she, and the vast majority of Republican voters refuse to recognize is that a vote for Mitt Wrongney IS a vote for Obama.

If you feel you have to vote (which, trust me, you really don't have to) vote for the LP candidate or Ron Paul or write in a name.

Do not fool yourself into believing (yes, "believing", since there is no thinking involved) that Mitt Wrongney is any different than Obama. He isn't. Not one bit.

I realize the human capacity for self deception is boundless, but that doesn't mean I won't stop trying to deceive myself into hoping I can wake up a few people. I try because I care and because I see you sawing off your own arm with a rusty butter knife while it's your foot caught in the trap.

.

Obey the will of Landru (or not)

Do you believe The State doesn't believe it owns your kids- and you? Check out this news item about "A pregnant Las Cruces mother wanted for child abuse who took her kids from school without permission..."

She was wanted (they caught her according to the confusingly written/edited story) for "child abuse" because she, rather oddly, took her kids to a hospital claiming someone had possibly hurt them, and "Although there were no obvious injuries, police began an investigation...". Of course they did. So, perhaps her mental state wasn't quite right, and maybe her kids really were in some sort of danger... but child abuse?

Ah, finally, we get to the heart of the matter: "has been charged with child abuse for remove [sic] the girls from their elementary school without permission."

Yep. The State (through it perverted employees) believes it owns you and that you need permission from its minions before taking your kids out of one of its indoctrination centers.

__

*How's this for a bizarre coincidence: I wrote the title for this post yesterday and scheduled it to be posted automatically (which, for some reason hasn't been working this past week, but that's another story) and then, many hours later, I found this!

.

Doing the right thing

Thinking back over previous posts, recent and ancient (in internet terms, anyway), has me considering something that I suppose I should make clear:

I want to do the right thing even when I don't like it. And even if others think I'm wrong.

That doesn't mean I always have, or always will. But I do think I'm getting better. And, from what I observe, the libertarian way is always more right than the coercive, authoritarian way. So that's good.

.

Judge "justifies" himself

Yesterday, on Debbie Harbeson's THE SUBURBAN VOLUNTARYIST blog, she posted a retired judge's response to her criticisms of his questionable (and I think, downright crooked) acts while in his position of coercive power.

One of the parts she quoted has the judge writing:

I suppose when you view the world from her “all government is evil” libertarian perspective, some of what I wrote in my response really does seem “hysterical” to her.

How could any person honestly see the government as anything other than evil? Unless he or she was so invested in the system that they had built a fortress of denial around themselves. Of course, the former judge we are discussing proved by his actions that he probably doesn't see anything "honestly". (You can read the entire story on Debbie's blog and judge the judge yourself.)

Sure, sometimes government might do something good, but it can only accomplish those good things through evil means. Coercion and theft negate any "good" that might come about as a result- and every single thing government at any level accomplishes is accomplished through coercion and theft. Without exception. The former judge is guilty of participating in this, and now of defending it. That shows his lack of character very clearly, whether he wants it to or not.

So, he can try to sound condescendingly "reasonable" by saying his critics are "hysterical", but he can't hide from the truth. He can justify the theft and coercion he precipitated, but they were still wrong. He can point to supposed "good outcomes" or "benefits" of the theft and coercion he facilitated, but the means to the end are important, and even his "ends" are wrong and a violation of liberty.

He denies the presence of the gun in the room because to see it would be to admit he is a thug. A member of a violent, aggressive gang which will (and does) murder anyone who resists submitting to the theft and coercion long enough.

He claims "...most of us can distinguish between reasonable exercises of governmental authority, like requiring us to stop at red lights versus the Gestapo coming for us in the middle of the night..." without realizing this is only a matter of degree.

Remember the success of cities which have dispensed with traffic signals, then consider what happens if a reaver tries to stop and fine you (rob you) for failure to stop at a red light (even in the dead of night with no other cars anywhere near). If you resist, the reaver will shoot you. The penalty is always death. It's just that few people refuse to comply up to that point- for obvious reasons. This is not "reasonable", and the government has no legitimate authority to do it. The same is true for almost anything the State claims the authority to do.

He thinks that the fact that "...all governments make people do some things and refrain from doing other things" justifies it. No, it just shows that all governments are thugs. "He does it too!"

If a government is making someone do something against their will- such as hand over some of their property or submit to gate rape- that government is doing evil. If a government is forcing people to refrain from doing something they have a fundamental human right to do- such as carry any kind of weapon wherever they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission from anyone, ever... or introducing any substance into their body they want- then that government is committing evil. This doesn't prove your government isn't a tyranny, ex-judge; quite the opposite. It shows it is impossible for any government to be anything other than a tyranny.

A couple of times he uses the word "libertarian" as if he is smugly insulting Debbie. It backfires. He shows what a statist scum he is by his failed attempt at an insult.

He goes on to quibble over the meaning of "fine" and "fee". Theft is theft, no matter what fancy words you call it by. The only way it isn't is if it is voluntary, or is restitution to be paid to an individual who has been harmed. There is no such individual here.

He tries very hard to explain why he did what he did- not that his scheme was more evil than the state police extortion scam; his was just no better. That you took people's property from them is the offence- who you gave the stolen property to is of no consequence.

He drones on about all the good gestapo programs the stolen money was used to finance, such as the irredeemably stupid and evil war on (some) drugs. And how he hopes "the majority of citizens who accept the validity of traffic laws and consequences for breaking them" will approve of his dispensing of the fruits of theft in a way that keeps the loot at home- well, in a local kleptocracy's treasury, anyway.

How I wish... But he will never get it. He is too deeply invested and wants, desperately, to believe he isn't a bad guy. He is lying to himself first, and to everyone who listens to him second. What a waste.

Being nice

There is right, there is "justified", and there is nice.

And by "right", I mean both contexts.

If you have a right to do something, no one needs to give you permission to do it. It may not make other people happy, and may seem "selfish", but as long as you are not attacking, stealing, or trespassing, other people's opinions only matter if you let them.

Then, if something is the right thing to do, you should do it because to do otherwise is probably not quite as good a choice; being either wrong or neutral.

Sometimes things aren't right, but are understandable; human nature, biology, and physiology being what it is. These are the things I sometimes categorize as "justified". This category is wishy-washy and depends a lot on personal values and opinions, created over a lifetime of experiences.

Then there are things that you do, or avoid doing, because you are considerate of someone else's preferences. You are being nice. You may have a right to do something, but you don't do it to be "nice". Or, something may be "justified" but you are able to get past your baser instincts and be "nice". Or you may have no obligation to do something at all, but you go out of your way to be nice and do it anyway.

"Nice" is where I wish we could all exist at all times.

.

Landfills bear future treasures

Landfills bear future treasures

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 23, 2012. I figured I upset the "right" last week, so this week it was the "left's" turn.)

I picked up a magazine the other day and suddenly a flurry of those familiar and annoying advertising cards fluttered to the floor. As I was picking them up to toss them in the trash, I noticed one said something to the effect that I should read it on my way to the recycling bin. How optimistic. I confess: I rarely recycle.

When recycling becomes viable, in other words when the economics of recycling make sense, no one will have to make laws ordering people to do it. It will happen spontaneously. That's why a lot of people recycle aluminum cans without being forced to do so. Yet, aluminum is only marginally recyclable; recycling cans is just about a break-even proposition. The effort that goes into collecting the cans, compared to the money you get when you cash them in, is only worth it to a minority of people. The payoff just isn't great enough yet.

But I have good news. There's no reason to feel guilty if you are one of us whose time is better spent on things other than sorting your trash. Sending things you no longer want to the landfill is not being wasteful at all. In fact, you are helping to amass this future wealth in one easily accessible location. It's like you are burying treasure. Want to ensure that your descendants, somewhere down the line, are rich? Buy up old landfills. When the recycling technology advances to the point where recycling makes economic sense, those places will be mined for the abundant resources they contain just below the surface.

You're welcome.

The only possible flaw in that plan is The State. It is increasingly likely that government will declare old landfills to be a dangerous hazard and take ownership of them all, "for our own good" of course, and to keep the vast riches therein for itself. Unfortunately, you can say the same about any investment for the future. It has even happened in the past with gold.

Maybe the safer bet is to work to find ways to make recycling profitable. Develop recycling technology and design the methods and machines that will be used to mine to old landfills and collect, sort, and process the next generation of raw materials. In that way, no matter who owns the landfills when that happens, you'll win.

.

What is "public school"?

"Public school"-

A misnomer for a prison established by a government to punish kids for the crime of interfering with their parents' ability to work sufficient hours to pay "taxes", some of which are used to finance the "public school". Sometimes education happens by accident in these prisons but generally the kids learn less intellectual information while imprisoned therein than they would have otherwise, and what they do learn is usually of a lower quality and doesn't make a lasting impression. They do, however, learn about being bullied (by fellow prisoners as well as by the "authorities" who herd them) which they would probably never get the chance to learn outside this system.

.

Aretae's Libertarian Omnibus Post

I think, or hope, I've said most of these things in one way or another over the years, but Aretae has said them all together, now. And he sounds more scholarly while doing it. Go. Read.

.

I am Trayvon; I am also Zimmerman. Sorta.

I guess one reason I keep getting scolded for my views on the Zimmerman/Martin incident is that I can see myself as either man, in a superficially similar situation. I can put myself in either man's shoes.

I'm guessing from the reactions that most people can picture themselves walking along, minding their own business and being followed and cornered by a gun-wielding, testosterone-crazed enforcer thug. And then being shot in the ensuing encounter. Yeah, I can picture myself in that situation without much trouble at all.

However, I can also picture myself getting into "legal" trouble (and being crucified by pundits everywhere) for confronting a trespasser (not on my property, mind you, but not on his own property, either) whom I suspect might be up to no good; feeling threatened enough by his demeanor and attitude when I confront him that the fact he isn't carrying a gun doesn't mean much and at some point I feel I have to shoot him to protect myself, and doing so.

And this is just me, as I am right now, without any (recognized) authoritarian baggage or beliefs.

Has no one besides me ever felt threatened by a person who wasn't pointing a gun at them at that moment? Before guns were invented, were people- bad guys and good, alike- always "unarmed"?

Does no one else see things this way at all? Can I really be that out of step with the rest of my species? If so, I apologize for poking the possum.

.

"Don't Tread on Me" or "Bite My Shiny Metal ..."

I saw an episode of Futurama recently where Bender (the above-illustrated robot) time-traveled back to the era of the first American revolution and altered history by doing something off-screen that ended up replacing the original Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag with the one above. The flag (before and after) was seen hanging from the wall in the presidents' Head Museum.

I loved the "new" design, because that's really what the original flag meant, even if the language was more polite. (In the show there were a lot of jokes based on the "s" looking like an "f" in notes that were sent.)

So, I wanted to share it with you.

(I tried to find the specific image of the flag from the show to share, but couldn't, so I made this one myself with a fair representation of the Bender image that was on the flag swiped from the internet. In the original he was holding the cigar and there was no beer bottle. This might be even better. So, yeah, that means I am probably guilty of violating at least one person's IP rights, but if someone complains I will immediately remove the image. I hope they understand I only present this out of a deep appreciation of the humor I found in the flag presented on that episode and the awesome artwork they, and the artist who drew the Bender I used, created.)


.

Misery-finders

One very miserable person I know seems to give me some insight into a couple of traits that bring misery.

For one thing, she places all her expectations on others instead of taking responsibility for herself.

Instead of taking initiative, she complains bitterly that "the other person" didn't do what she expected them to do. Never mind that it was never the other person's responsibility, and often these expectations were unspoken.

And, since she knows how everyone else should live, and they rarely live "up" to her expectations, she is not only miserable about other people not carrying the weight of her responsibilities (in ways that disappoint her and add to the things she would have to do if they were to get done), but is also miserable about things that have no bearing on her life at all. Misery by proxy. Her entire existence seems wrapped up in being miserable and downright hateful because other people don't do as she expected them to do.

As I was once told by one of her relatives "Anger makes her happy". A rather "New Agey" (and therefore questionable) video I recently watched pointed out that some people are addicted to negative emotions and need to get that fix no matter what.

It illuminates a trap I now, being aware of it, strive to avoid. Amazing how much liberty you can gain when you let other people live their own lives, and when you take responsibility for the things that matter to you.

.

Here I am, Nobel Prize Committee (Physics)

My daughter just woke me up because she couldn't find her Pooh Bear and startled me (read "scared me out of my wits") enough that I can't go back to sleep. Partially because I can't silence my noisy thoughts.

One of the various things running through my head when I awoke might be a way to explain an aspect of quantum entanglement. (Yes, these things do run through my mind at all hours.) In that case, in order to secure my status as a contender for the Nobel Prize in Physics, I'll post my idea here. (I apologize to my regular readers as this will probably not interest any of you in the slightest.)

In order to visualize this, let's visit Flatland in order to deal with this in a way that gets rid of a complicating dimension.

Perhaps entangled particles are actually two points on a loop (which was created when the particles were entangled). This loop would need to be rigid in such a way that when you twist one particle by measuring the spin (or other entangled property), the other is instantly twisted as well. (Think of those flexible screw drivers.)

The loop would need to have other properties as well.

It would have to either be able to be pinched and stretched*, so that the two points- the particles- could go from being proximate, to being a very great distance apart --- OR-the loop would need to be able to grow exponentially while maintaining its circular geometry. Or, perhaps the loop doesn't actually grow, but is passing perpendicularly through the plane of Flatland so that the points of its intersection move apart. This would mean that the loop would need to be, for all practical purposes, infinitely large since particles don't seem to slow and eventually reverse their paths.

(*If the loop were flexible enough to be pinched and stretched, might there be a case of more than two particles being entangled? The loop might "loop" around enough to pass through the plane of Flatland 2, 4, 6, or more times, which could be experimentally checked.)

Now, to visualize this idea in our Universe, return the dimension we lost by going to Flatland, and view the particles (or "strings") as "points" along a higher-dimensional "loop" where it passes through our spatial dimensions and you should be able to visualize what I am thinking.

One problem I see with this idea is that a circular loop would seem to dictate that the entangled particles should move apart very rapidly at first as the loop passed through our dimension, then slow as the sides of the loop became more and more "parallel" to one another and perpendicular to the "plane" of the Universe they passed through. This could also indicate I have the geometry wrong even if the concept is basically sound.

I believe experiments could be designed to test some of the characteristics of this hypothetical loop in order to falsify the idea. But I am not the person to do the math. I'm willing to share the Nobel Prize with someone who can work out the math- and hey, if a mass-murdering puppetician like Obama can get a "peace prize", a simple mountainman like me should be a serious contender for a prize in physics. I'll await my call.

.

Instant Improvement. Really!

I understand pessimism, discouragement, and depression. Only too well.

Both in my personal life and in trying to spread the desire for liberty beyond my own brain.

With liberty, if you allow The State to dictate your definition of "success", pessimism seems inevitable. Even if you were 90% to your goal, the enemies of liberty wouldn't acknowledge it, and if you listen to them you'd think you are no closer than when you first began.

You don't have to change the whole world- you only have to change yourself- and the way you deal with the world. Your life will improve at that moment and any change beyond yourself will just be icing on the cake. What are you waiting for?

Oh, and "4/19!"

.

"That's just not the way things work..."

In a brief discussion with a relative, I distilled, once again, my "philosophy" of live and let live.

Her reply was that it would be nice, but no one else would ever let me do that. "That's just not the way things work..."

My opinion is that if individuals like me don't leave other people alone (as in not using coercion against them, whether personally, or "collectively" through The State) to do as they wish, as long as they aren't stealing or attacking, why should we expect them to leave us alone? It has to start somewhere.

Maybe that's not how the world is now. Maybe it will never be like that. However, I can still make my own life better- right here right now- by doing the right thing even if others don't. I make my stand on the principles of voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism. However that turns out, it is my choice to stand for your liberty, and thereby enhance my own.

.

Border patrol waste of taxes

Border patrol waste of taxes (as is everything else government does... and since "taxation" is theft...)

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 16, 2012)

I am not a believer in immigration "laws" or national borders. I know that's a seriously radical admission, especially in these "border states". Even more, I resent the Border Patrol vehicles I sometimes see around the area. They are not "keeping me safe", but are instead wasting tax money and bolstering the emerging US police state.

The only real borders are private property lines. If you own property and choose to forbid anyone access to it, for any reason, that is your business. But for you to own property and have someone else, or some government, tell you that you can't allow access to whomever you so choose is a violation of your property rights.

I don't care where someone was born or what paperwork and/or permission he has (or lacks). I only care whether he is stealing or attacking. Because of that, I have less in common with politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcers than I do some poor guy from another country who is only trying to find a better life for himself and his family. I recognize who the real problem is.

I've heard all the admonitions about how migration without government permission is wrong because it's illegal. I don't buy it. I've listened to all the ways the independent migrants, usually called "illegal immigrants", supposedly hurt America. The reality is that most of those issues are issues only because of socialism. Eliminate all welfare and eliminate all "laws" against self defense (including, of course, defense of your property) and you would eliminate the incentive for bad guys to immigrate. The good migrants who are coming here in order to help themselves honestly, and who end up helping the local economy as a consequence, will still come. It's a win-win situation.

Just like gun laws only disarm those who are not inclined to attack and rob, immigration laws make "legal" migration difficult and only succeed in weeding out the good people who would be willing to jump through all the ridiculous hoops and years of red tape, but for whatever reason, can't. A lot of good people come to the conclusion that it is worth the risk of getting caught to make the attempt even without permission. I accept them with a hearty "Welcome home!". Those determined to be bad guys will not be deterred by your prohibitions. They will always find a way- at least until the US government's socialist policies crash the economy and make America a less attractive destination, as is already happening.

.

"Good" statists

Continuation of a stream of thought...

You could be a pure "conservative" and oppose abortion, hate homosexuality, love God and guns, idealize tradition, treat other "races" with suspicion, put Reagan on a pedestal, and so forth*- or be a pure "liberal" and hate guns, be a tree-hugging environmentalist, think other "races" and genders need a helping hand, despise Big Business and all "Dead White Men", idolize marijuana, wear Che T-shirts, think holding hands and singing will solve everything, and all the other "progressive" things*- yet as long as you don't threaten or use coercion, individually or as a "collective", to get your way, you are acting in a "libertarian" fashion.

You could also be a self-identified libertarian while holding some of those other positions while admitting that using force to impose your preferences would be wrong. It matters less what your beliefs and preferences are than how you work to get those adopted by the rest of the world.

Just don't let your preferences trick you into believing that initiating force in order to get what you want is ever right and you'll be welcome at my fireside any time.

_____

*Yes, I am intentionally being dramatic about both positions, trying to see them as the "other side" sees them.

.