The truth is not "nice"

I was pointing out that Obamney 2.0 is no different from Obamney 1.0 by saying:

"If you are not happy about the turd sandwich you have been eating, flip it over and see if it tastes better. That's a bigger difference than the difference between Obamney 1.0 and Obamney 2.0." (I wish I could remember where I first read that because I love it!)

And I was told that if I can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.  Apparently the truth is not "nice".  Too bad.

Then I was "educated" about how much Obamney 2.0 "truly loves America and wants it to be the great country it once was".  How he is "change" and will "put our country back on track".  (Where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah...)

The other person in the conversation and I were told "we have to do what we can to get Obama [sic] out of office".  Why?  Replacing a crooked thug with a crooked thug doesn't accomplish anything.

Then, the most absurd claim of all:  "...he believes in the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the American people. With a foundation like that, I think he is heading in the right direction."

Ummmm... has the person not been paying attention to what Obamney 2.0 actually does? He might "believe in" those things, but only as a hyena "believes in" the baby gazelle he is eating.  Every action Obamney 2.0 took as governor violated the Constitution and the intent and spirit of the Delaration of Independence.  A tyrant who doesn't trust "the American people" with guns (and Obamney 2.0 is as venomously anti-gun as 1.0) doesn't "believe in" them.  If his direction is "right" then so is his opponent's.  But they are not heading in the right direction.  After all, they both imposed ObamneyCare on their victims.

She says "If I'm wrong about Romney [sic]..shoot me".  No.  I know for a fact that she would oppose Obamney 2.0 with everything she has if there were a "conservative" candidate running; the only reason she supports this parasite is because she believes it's either him or the current clown.  And she is so blinded by hatred for Obamney 1.0 that she'd be voting for a rotting groundhog (an improvement over the current candidates) if it were running as a Republican.

So, I will not shoot desperate Obamney 2.0 (or 1.0) supporters.  And I won't try to educate them directly.  But if they come to me, I will not be "nice" by lying to make them feel better about their delusions.

.

Protectors of "laws"- enemies of liberty

Cops- reavers- don't protect you from bad guys.  Their true purpose is to protect the "law" from you and me.  To keep the "law" from being broken.  Liberty breaks "laws".

No one obeys most "laws" anymore because the "law" is right; they obey (when they do) to keep from being killed.  The ones primarily doing the killing are those enforcing the "law": the reavers.

That makes them my enemy.

You are in no real danger from most "lawbreakers"- you are one yourself whether you accept it or not.  The danger is from the "law" and those enforcing it.

The guy smoking pot is no threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing the anti-marijuana "laws" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I have never smoked pot in my life.

The guy who crossed some imaginary line on a map is not a threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing "border control" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I was born in America and have never crossed a border.

The guy building machine guns in his garage is no threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing the anti-gun "laws" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I have never touched a gun in my life.

Those who work to protect "laws" from the liberty of my fellow human beings are the threat and are the enemy, and I will NEVER forget it.


.

In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". 

"Initiate", as in "start it". That's what "aggression" is.  Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. 

Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to harm an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence / aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force from self defensive violence. That is because the authoriturds believe that only they can properly use violence- against the rest of us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their offenses. The predators among us need to be reintroduced to fear. Violence in the form of self defense must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.


(From my archives.  Originally published April 12, 2007.  Updated.)
.

Laws create excuse for meddling

Laws create excuse for meddling

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 31, 2012. Hmmm... Haven't they used this headline before?)

Even if you could make murder rare by banning or regulating guns and knives, it would still not be right to violate the fundamental right of every human to own and to carry whatever type of weapon we desire, wherever we may go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone.

Even if ending prohibition would result in a massive increase in the use of politically-incorrect drugs and result in more deaths, it is still the right thing to do because no one has the right or the legitimate authority to tell other people what they can or can not put into their own body.

Even if targeted taxation and regulation forces people to eat healthier diets and lose weight, that kind of social engineering will always be wrong to impose, for the same reason prohibition is always wrong.

Even if repealing every unconstitutional immigration-control measure resulted in hordes of immigrants moving into the area, it would still be the right thing to do since no government should attempt to dictate to property owners whom they are allowed to admit onto their own property, or tell people whom they are allowed to do business with.

Even if utterly ending welfare caused some children to go to bed hungry, it is still wrong- downright evil- to pretend to be "generous" with other people's money or property.

Even if getting rid of speed limits, seat belt "laws", traffic signals, and drunk driving [sic] "laws" caused more people to be killed or injured on the road, it would still be more ethical than sending out an army of enforcers to patrol the roads and interfere with the right to travel unmolested.

None of these liberty-killing measures has ever been necessary, and none of them actually achieve the desired result; instead, each exacerbates the fundamental problem it was supposed to address. The worst thing each of the above does is increase dependency and create excuses for more meddling when it inevitably fails to fix the problem it was supposed to address. If these tyrannical tactics were abandoned the worst-case scenario which is presented, and that the fear-mongers seem to hope for, would never come to pass. And nothing eliminates your responsibility if, in doing what you have a right to do, you harm some innocent person.

Even if liberty scares you or raises some risks it is still always the right thing to support. It is time to put on your grown-up pants, be responsible for yourself. and stop trying to run other people's lives.

Five Dollars to change the world

... Not change it a lot, you know.

If anyone would just like to send me $5 by Paypal so that I can avoid a $30 overdraft fee, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Update- It has been taken care of.  Thanks!


.

It ain't what it used to be...

It always amuses me when my mom says something like "democracy is the worst form of government, not counting all the others". She is deeply "patriotic" and believes she has an obligation to support the USA no matter what- while still protesting the things she sees as "non-Christian" that it does.  This shows me that she doesn't get it.

I also get amused at those who say "America is a republic, not a democracy". That may have been true in the beginning, but no more.

It stopped being a republic the first time the Constitution didn't stop a gun "law" from being passed and enforced- whether that was Wyatt Earp's doing or whoever. If not before.

It is now a democracy where the "majority" (even when they are a minority) can get anything imposed on the rest regardless of the laws that were supposed to protect the minority from the majority.

The only authentic laws are those which protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (including property) of the individual.  And they weren't even necessary.  All other "laws" are counterfeit.

No, there is nothing "good" about a democracy.  And, while the notion of a republic might have been well-intentioned, the reality sucks.

"Laws" can change.  It doesn't even take a majority to change them.  It only takes one congresscritter who can bribe other congresscritters.  It only takes one corrupt judge.  It only takes one power-mad president.  Sometimes, it only takes a small, loud group of whiny activists who have connections.  As long as "laws" that violate the liberty of someone else can be passed and enforced just because they are popular, you have a democracy.  You have tyranny.


.

Flip-flopping

Unlike a lot of people who think puppeticians are necessary and The State is a good way to employ them, I have no problem with those who "flip-flop".

To honestly change your mind just means you got more, better, or new information.  Sometimes that means your opinion on a matter will go through several stages before you finally end up simply fine-tuning it.

Concerning voting and the Constitution I have flip-flopped several times, and I may do it some more.  More information and new ideas come my way a lot.  I seem to have settled into a view that only gets minor adjustments now, rather than big flip-flops, but you get the idea.

Now, to change what you claim is your opinion, depending on who your audience is, is not "flip-flopping"; it is lying.  This is what most puppeticians do, rather than "flip-flopping".


.

Don't "legalize" anything

The whole concept of "legalization" is looking at things backwards.  It seems to me it is taking things that are "illegal" and then having the government say "we could have killed you for doing this yesterday, but today we'll let you live- as long as you pay all the applicable extortion... um, 'taxes'."

Instead of "legalizing" anything- marijuana, gay marriage, concealed carry, raw milk, whatever- The State needs to keep its perverted hands OFF.  The State has no real authority to "legalize" or "criminalize" anything.

No, murder shouldn't even be "illegal", since it has nothing to do with The State.  Yes, murder is wrong; the "laws" against it have nothing to do with its wrongness.  And even when "legalized"- such as "war" or murder by cop, it is STILL wrong.

Government has stolen more than your money and other property.  It has stolen your sovereignty and, in most cases, your ability to act on it without risk of being kidnapped, robbed, and/or murdered.  Take it back and stop asking permission.

"Mommycrats" and "Daddylicans"

I think that, at least when I consider each half of the National Socialist Part separately, instead of thinking of them as "Democrats" and "Republicans", I will think of them as the "Mommycrats" and the "Daddylicans".  (I'm sure someone else has come up with those names before; they are too self-evident.)

Yeah, that last one sounds a little naughty, but compared to the actions of those in the party... well, I don't think there's any way to make them sound worse than they are.

Anyway, the new names reflect their approach to controlling you.

Mommycrats go about it like an insane mother.

"You are a baby, no matter your age, and you need constant care so you don't get a booboo.  And so you don't hurt your sister.  Of course, you shouldn't pick up pointy things, or touch anything that involves fire.  Eat your veggies and ... say, aren't you getting a little fat?  No more soft drinks for you!  And, if you misbehave, just wait til your father gets home!"  (Because Mommycrats are pretty happy to let Daddylicans punish you, as long as the punishment doesn't go too far.)

Daddylicans embrace the way of the sick father.

"You are an idiot child.  You are lazy and evil, and it is up to me to beat some sense into your empty skull.  You WILL respect me.  You WILL sit there in church and keep your disgusting mouth shut no matter how irrational the message is- and don't even consider any other message!  You will respect the family traditions and not question whether what I tell you is true.  It is truer than true because I say so.  Everyone out there is out to get you, and only I can stop them.  Buck up.  It's not your lot to be happy- it is your responsibility to do as I say."

Of course, they often join forces to control those of us who grew up to see that we don't need a life-long control-freak "parent".

Bernanke's imaginary water hose

And it isn't just Bernanke.  The Federal Reserve, Social Security, the entire State seems to believe this as well.  The State operates as if this were reality.

Just remember that it isn't and stay out of the way.


.

Strike at the Root of Evil

Do you think corporations are destroying the economy and enslaving people?
Strike at the root and disable The State so that corporations can't use it to their advantage.

Do you think GMO crops and Monsanto are poisoning the food supply?
Strike at the root and remove the government's favoritism and the maintenance of the corrupt monopoly.

Do you think "chemtrails" are real and a threat?
Strike at the root and take away The State's ability to do anything to anyone.

Do you worry about FEMA camps?
Strike at the root and withdraw consent so that The State loses its ability to force anyone (or pay them) to carry out any plans.

Do you suspect "9/11" was in inside job?
Strike at the root and take away government's ability to get away with anything or to keep secrets.

Do you believe the government either carries out "false flag" operations as an excuse to pass anti-gun laws or takes advantage of random events for that purpose?  Do you think government may try gun confiscation?
Strike at the root and stop allowing anyone to violate your human right to self defense under any pretext.

Do you see that elections are rigged?
Strike at the root by refusing to play a rigged game.

Do you worry about the Federal Reserve's hundred-year counterfeiting scheme?
Strike at the root and use free market money when possible.

Even if the "conspiracy theory" is wrong, removing the State is a good thing.  And if they are right, your life might just depend on dismantling the Empire.  Liberty is always the right path.


.

Fear not, take control of your life

Fear not, take control of your life

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 24, 2012.)

I was talking to a really nice guy recently who said he doesn't agree with a lot of what I write. That's understandable. It happens all the time. But what bothered me, and frankly left me without a response at the time, is that he referred to the world as "terrifying".

Is the world "terrifying"? It seems a lot of people find it so. Why?

Some people are terrified by freelance criminals. Others are scared by the prospect of having people they don't agree with controlling the coercive force of The State; whether domestically passing oppressive "laws", or around the world creating anti-American sentiment that fosters blow-back. Many are undoubtedly afraid of things that fear-mongers with an agenda have placed into their minds- things that seem plausible and are easily imagined, but may never come to pass. I don't know what form this man's fear takes, but I think all fear comes from the same place.

I think fear is a result of feeling that you have no control over events that will affect your life and the lives of your loved-ones. Some events you truly can't control, but you have more control over most events than you might believe, if you take the initiative and grab it. Your life is in your hands. Don't rely on others to do things that are your responsibility. 

Your safety, which is a big issue, can't be delegated to anyone else even if they insist that you must. All your actions have consequences that you will have to deal with even if you would rather not. If you try to hand your consequences or responsibilities to someone else, that very act will create the consequences you will now be dealing with, which may well be worse than those you were avoiding.

I am not terrified by the world. I am certainly not afraid of other people's liberty, nor of my own. Reality is what it is. Bad things will always happen, no matter whether you live in a "safe, controlled" police state or in a "chaotic" free society. Volcanoes will erupt in Libertopia just as they will in Controlistan- but more freedom gives more leeway and more resiliency in dealing with the unexpected events. "Top-down" control is just too rigid to deal with unknowns. Why add to the unpreventable events by enabling those which could be avoided by simply taking back your responsibility? No one knows how to run your life better than you do. So, fear or not, step up and do what you need to do. You will be fine.

.

Kickstarter

No, I haven't started my own Kickstarter project (although I have been tempted and given it some thought).

I was just thinking how much fun it would be to be rich and look around Kickstarter for projects to fully fund.  It would probably be smart to do it anonymously so that I wouldn't be hassled by every person with an idea, but just imagine how it would feel to be able to give someone the chance they need.


.

Consultant on libertarianism

I'm always looking for interesting ways to make money- ways that don't make me want to hang myself. Being hit by another surprise financial disaster makes me brainstorm some more, and I came upon an idea.

I think the entertainment industry needs me as a "libertarianism consultant".

I was thinking about the TV show "Parks & Recreation". One of the main characters is supposedly a libertarian. But how much more entertaining could the show, and that character, be if the character actually was libertarian. I see many opportunities for humorous story lines there.

I'm radical enough that I could advise them well- they could soften it for TV if they needed to while still being libertarian enough to be different, and giving a more accurate picture of what it means- and I can see the humor in libertarianism. Without being condescending towards it. Just imagine the humor of living in a society that is so self-contradictory about violence and theft, while being one of the few who sees the double standards. (Actually, if you are one of my regular readers I'm sure I don't have to tell you about that.)

I could rent my services to movies, too.

Many people would probably say that entertainment insiders have no interest in being accurate about anything, but I know that isn't exactly true. They want to entertain and make money, and I wouldn't mind helping them when possible.

I'm sure the thought of me having any influence beyond this tiny little blog is scary to many people, though.

.

Political Prisoners

How many of us know someone who is in jail or prison for violating some counterfeit "law"? I would guess most of us do. How many of us have been fined for some imaginary infraction?

There are really only two categories of "mala in se" acts. For those guilty of aggression, jailing the violators who survive the encounter with their armed targets is even seen by some libertarians as necessary (although I now think there's a better way). For those guilty of theft, restitution would be much more sensible.

Everyone else in prison is a political prisoner.

They are guilty of nothing other than living independently of the edicts of government stooges (mala prohibita "offenses").

For violators of counterfeit "laws" immediate release is the first step in serving justice.

The next step is getting restitution from those who kidnapped the victim of government. Using the real laws against force and fraud, anyone who fines, arrests, jails, harasses, or kills anyone who violates a mala prohibita "law" becomes the aggressor and therefore is subject to the consequences. And any monetary restitution must come from their OWN pockets, not from mythical "public funds". Anyone who assumes "authority" over another must be held to a higher standard, and must be extremely careful to avoid any violation of rights. If they are not willing to pay the price of their transgressions, they need to get a legitimate job.

Counterfeit "laws" include, but are not limited to, laws regarding: guns, consensual sex, drugs, licenses and permits, private property uses, consensual commerce, taxes, broadcasting, unpopular speech, marriage, free travel, etc.

(From my archives. Originally posted September 7, 2006. Updated.)

.

Property taxes

By the time I was around 10 years old I had already developed a sense that I wanted a cabin in the mountains where I would hunt and gather my own food, make my own buckskin clothes, and just be left alone to live as I wanted (much to the eternal distress of my conventional parents).

I had it all figured out ... until my parents informed me that if I didn't pay "property tax" on the land the government would take it away from me.

Even at that age, I knew that this was ridiculous and wrong. If you own something, you OWN it. You don't have to pay a yearly ransom to keep it!

I think "property tax" is fundamentally more evil than other "taxes". ALL "taxes" are theft-by-government at gunpoint and not justifiable, but "property tax" raises the bar for evil. And those stolen dollars are used to fund the despicable government indoctrination system.

Consider this: If you do not want to pay "sales tax" you could theoretically barter and trade for all the goods that you couldn't produce for yourself.

Hate the "income tax"? Do what I did and reduce your income to zero (or barely above that).

But how to have a HOME and not have "property tax"? Some people claim you can avoid "property taxes" by renting. I think they are wrong. You could rent, but even then the landlord has to include the cost of the "property tax" into the rent, or he loses money- and will probably ultimately lose the house and you'll still be out of a home. To really avoid "property taxes" you could be a squatter, or you could be a "permanent tourist". These strategies work for some people but have their own risks and problems.

Unfortunately the desire to have a homestead is one of the strongest urges for humans. We are very territorial creatures. Governments exploit this basic human desire because they are allowed to.

(From my archives. Originally posted September 07, 2006. Updated.)

.

...to Own and to Carry any Weapon...

Those of us who are interested in owning firearms and other defensive weapons put up with a lot of abuse at the hand of The State.

Do you realize that the Second Amendment does not give you the right to "keep and bear arms"? It recognizes a right that is yours simply because you were born a Human Being.

No part of the Bill of Rights even applies to you unless you work for government; then it tells you exactly what things you are absolutely prohibited from doing. The rights existed before government; they will exist long after government is in the compost pile of history.

Any politician, enforcer, or bureaucrat who violates any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which supersedes the Constitution) has broken the highest governmental law and has illustrated that government is the worst criminal organization, and is subject to justified self-defensive violence.

Yet, even if the Constitution permitted gun "laws" they would still be wrong. All gun "laws" are counterfeit "laws". In fact, almost all US laws are counterfeit. Real laws (those in line with Natural Law) do not need to be enforced. Counterfeit "laws" must NOT be enforced. Only an evil person will advocate, pass, or attempt to enforce a counterfeit "law".

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

Blaming the Victim

I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that frequently when we hear of a murder, rape, or other crime of violence, people say "if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town..." (whatever that means), or "if only she hadn't been dressed like that", or "you shouldn't flash money around that way", or some other drivel.

This is just blaming the victim.

It is a psychological defense mechanism that allows us to delude ourselves that if only we behave a certain way, bad things will never happen to us, personally.

I see a similar phenomenon in libertarian thought on occasion. Instead of blaming the heartless cop who is "only enforcing the law", or the soulless reavers of the IRS who steal the livelihood from our friends and neighbors, or the mindless bureaucrats who take up valuable space, some will blame their victims.

They insist that others fight back as "they" believe they ought to, instead of seeing that they may have too much at stake to make a scene at this time. Or they may simply have other priorities.

If you refuse to submit to a "driver's license", or ignore income taxes, or reject a "Social Security Number"; if you build without a permit, or carry a gun without government permission, or any of the other nice ways we can fight back, then that is wonderful. I support your defiance 100%. Just do not despise your neighbor whose family would not survive if she went to jail or got murdered for refusing to cooperate with the government thugs. She is not the problem; she is the victim. Blaming the victim is a mental problem that hides reality from your conscious mind.

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

No one represents you in election

No one represents you in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 17, 2012)

Obama or Romney. Or, should that be "Obamney"?

It is amusing to watch the election promoters trying to make the anointed presidential candidates look different from one another. Especially when it means they are now promoting a candidate they had vigorously opposed mere months ago. Every time election season oozes across the landscape I feel sorry for voters; especially in a case where there is no substantive difference between the candidates they will be allowed to choose from. I empathize with their desperation.

Most voters will try to justify their new-found support for Candidate X. The honest voters will say "Sure it's a bad choice, but what else can I do? Just give up?"

Well, sure, you could do that, but it's not necessary.

In my opinion as a libertarian, a vote for a Democrat or Republican is always a wasted vote. For that matter, any vote is probably always a wasted vote, since no one can ever truly "represent" another person, other than on a one-to-one basis. Even then it's iffy and you can easily be betrayed. Almost no aspect of life should be subject to majority opinion or control, anyway. Society can't be "run".

However, if you still feel the need to vote, only vote for a third party candidate. You are still legitimizing an illegitimate and completely broken "system", but at least your vote won't go toward the person/party that the mainstream media and the government want you to believe to be your only option.

Another choice you always have is to refuse to play a rigged game. Withdraw consent and walk away. That's not "giving up". If you are playing cards against someone who has mirrors arranged so that he can see the cards you hold, who has a stash of aces (or whatever he might need) in his lap, and who gets to have final say in any dispute you might have concerning the outcome of the game, why would you keep sitting there and placing bets? The situation in politics is even less honest.

This realization can free you to spend your time and energy elsewhere. Instead of waiting for some politician to do things you feel are important, start the ball rolling yourself. Instead of waiting for tax money to be allocated to your cause, publicize your cause and get voluntary donations. Instead of advocating a "law" to force people to act as though they agree with your or your cause, convince them. And if all that fails go on without their help- leaving them free to go their own way. It's how decent people operate. Let's bring decency back to life.

.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need ... roads!

Building onto the "eminent domain" theme has me thinking about roads.

I am frequently asked how we will have roads if there is no government road program or fuel taxes.

Note that this isn't "the only way" roads might work in a free society, but only a possible solution. The reality would probably be different than I can even imagine.

I think that all roads should be private property. Everyone would own the road that runs through their property. Or if it runs along a boundary, they would own the half of the road that is on their side of the property line.

Now, If I owned half of the road in front of my property, would I want the bother of maintaining it, and the liability if someone were driving on it and was in an accident? No, I wouldn't. Would I close off the road to travelers? I wouldn't, but I am sure some folks would. That would be their choice. Would there be any profit in keeping the road open? Yes. (Plus, businesses have a vested interest in keeping roads open so that customers can get to them.)

No one, including me, wants a stupid toll-booth every hundred feet or so. So what would happen?

I think that the market would soon find a workable solution. My hunch is that companies would form which would buy or lease roads from land-owners, taking on all costs and liabilities, but also most of the profits. These companies (not "corporations", which are a government creation) would probably sell a form of travel insurance or something of the sort that would permit travel upon their roadways and also guarantee against road hazards, and maybe even mechanical problems.

They could also sell or lease out business locations along the shoulders.

There would probably not be enforcers and roadblocks along the road. If a road's owner allowed this to happen, competitors could profit by offering an alternative. Bad traffic problems would be a cause to find a real solution, and "one size fits all" wouldn't be the name of the game. Traffic signals could be dispensed with by those who are aware of the problems they cause.

If you think this sounds unreasonable, go back to the title of this post. If this solution didn't make everyone happy, what would happen? What would stop inventors from creating vehicles that don't use roads? It has already been done. The biggest stumbling block along this line has been (for over 50 years) the government regulations which cripple innovation with red tape and inertia. Does the FAA sound familiar?

So you will have a choice: use the roads and pay a fee (or have the fee absorbed into the cost of doing business) which would undoubtedly be less than the fuel taxes you pay now, or leave the surface entirely.

The sky is no limit when you have liberty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 5, 2006. Updated.)

.