Brain Control- the State's goal

The most dangerous weapon- in fact, the ONLY weapon there is- is the brain.

Let me say that again: there in NO such thing as a weapon beyond the human brain.

Without it a gun or a rock or a fist or a pointy stick or a frozen tuna can't hurt anyone except in extraordinary accidental circumstances.

So, never forget that the final stage of any anti-gun "laws" is to remove you from your brain.  The State doesn't want you to even be able to imagine defending yourself or others from attack.  Because, when all is said and done, agents of The State intend to be the last attackers you will encounter.

Government's need stupid people.

.

NM's reps Chavez and Gray deserve some credit

I'll assume you own and carry a gun.  So, why haven't you started murdering people yet?  What's your problem?  What are you waiting for?  You're just letting your gun go to waste!

That's the sort of "logic" being used against a couple of New Mexico legislators, Rep. Ernest H. Chavez (D - Albuquerque) and Rep. William "Bill" Gray (R - Artesia), who didn't initiate force against anyone in the past year by proposing new violations of liberty or property.

KRQE asks "What do you call a lawmaker who doesn't propose any laws?"

I'd say "A good first step!"

KRQE's reporting on this "crisis" shows just how perverted "thinking" has become in America.

To propose, or pass, a new "law" means you are a failure.  Personally and professionally.  Even if that is supposedly your "job".  It means that instead of convincing people to do what you want them to do, you have decided to cheat by using governmental power to force them to go along- under threat of coercive violence.

I'm sure Chavez and Gray still voted for plenty of "laws", so they aren't completely unstained by the blood of innocents, but if every legislator followed their example there would be no new "laws" out there harming people.

There has been no need for any new "law" for thousands of years.  Since the first person "got it" and realized that murder is wrong, that attacking someone who isn't attacking or stealing is wrong, and that taking other people's stuff is wrong, all the necessary laws have been in existence.  And those never even needed to be written down.

So, if Gray or Chavez read this (yeah, right...) I'd like to encourage them to not bend to peer pressure.  Just because you carry a gun- or can propose "laws"- it doesn't mean it's a good thing to use that power to harm your innocent neighbors.  In fact, quite the opposite.  You will have then become part of the problem.  Live to a higher standard.

.

"11 Steps to Fascism"

I found this picture on Facebook.  The person who posted the picture said "Almost there".  I think he is being overly optimistic.  All the steps have obviously been taken, with the possible exception of the final step: "Disarm the citizen".

I think all the steps have been taken.  We are there.

Most citizens are already effectively disarmed. Otherwise they would NEVER comply with "gun free zones" ("slaughter houses") or any other anti-gun "laws". They would never apply for permits, nor go through NICS screenings. They wouldn't bother getting permission to own and to carry fully-automatic firearms, or sawed-off shotguns, or silencers.

They beg for permission to exercise a fundamental human right, and wait 'til the "laws" are changed to do so. They have been brainwashed into believing that "laws" are legitimate, when they are not. Screw that.


.

The State versus the 2nd Amendment

Have you ever noticed that people arrested on gun charges are not allowed to argue their innocence based upon the Second Amendment?  In other words, they are not allowed to use the fact that the Second Amendment makes all gun "laws" illegal as part of their defense.

Why might that be?

The reason is very simple: The State knows they'd lose. They realize they don't have a leg to stand on.

Given the "authority" to rule you, a werewolf wouldn't allow you to use a silver bullet, either.  A vampire would forbid garlic, sunlight, crosses, and wooden stakes.  A rapist would never permit you to use a gun to fend him off, and the US government will never allow one of its victims to point out that the Constitution makes it a serious crime to advocate, pass, or enforce ANY anti-gun "law", no matter how "trivial".

Shall NOT be infringed!

So, when forbidden- by your attacker- to use the one tool that could kill him in one simple stroke, what do you do?  You certainly don't claim that this makes him right.  You point out that this is because he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is dead wrong.  He knows he is the bad guy, and he can't win unless he rigs the "game".

All legitimacy is lost.

(Ironically today, December 15th, is Bill of Rights Day.)

.

Gun rights vs. Health care rights

I have seen people complaining today that in America gun ownership is a right, but health care (specifically, mental health care) is not.

Guess what, rights are the same everywhere- in Ghana, Japan, America, Antarctica, Italy, Argentina, Tasmania, Iceland, wherever.  Rights are identical for every human being no matter where they live.  The local government can either respect those rights or violate them, but they can't alter them one tiny bit.

So, yes, in America (and everywhere else) gun ownership is a right.

As is health care- as long as you provide it for yourself.

No one is obligated to give you a gun you didn't buy, and no one is obligated to treat your health issues for free either.

You have the fundamental human right to own and carry the gun you obtained without theft or coercion, and you have the fundamental human right to seek any health care you want as long as you don't get it through theft or coercion.

Forcing a medical provider to treat you for "free", or to force someone else to pay the fee for you, is slavery.  It is WRONG.

So, whining about gun rights as opposed to health care rights is exposing yourself as an idiot.


.

Fear? No. Resolve.

I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to defy those who want me to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I will never comply with those who would wish to take away the tools that allow me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.

.

Elementary school shooting- like tragic clockwork

Once again, "conveniently" just as puppeticians are discussing a plot to violate your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of gun you desire, everywhere you go, in any manner you see fit, without ever asking permission from anyone, a "Manchurian Shooter" has been activated.

I see some anti-liberty bigots crying that "this isn't the time for politics".  Well, they would be right if their anti-liberty politics were not directly to blame.

The story doesn't change; only the details do.

Put innocent people in a place where the good guys are forbidden to have guns.  Make sure escape is made difficult- a bottleneck is good, especially if there are doors that can be locked in a "lock-down" so that no one can get out of harm's way.  Propose some new anti-gun "laws".  Activate the shooter.  Then scream that people who didn't kill or harm anyone must be punished for the acts of a bad guy who broke every law in existence in order to carry out his act.

A person who has no compunction about murdering children will NOT obey your newest anti-gun "law".  And neither will anyone else who sees that you are handing society over to the murderers a little more with every new anti-liberty "law" you parasites propose, pass, and enforce.  It is past time to say "Enough!  Not one more inch!"

New "laws" will NEVER prevent this.  Only by getting rid of counterfeit "laws" that criminalize self-defense and the tools to effectively carry it out will you prevent most of these massacres.  But nothing- not even rounding up all gun owners and putting them in the ovens- will prevent them all.

People who are determined to kill a bunch of people will always find a way to make the attempt.  Do you want to make sure their intended victims are helpless in the face of the attack, or do you want to make sure there is a chance to stop the attack before the body count climbs?

Don't even give me that tired crap about how you don't "think" more guns is the answer.  Because it most assuredly is.  Don't lie about "bullets flying", or "body armor" (which the Aurora shooter has been shown to have NOT been wearing, by the way).  Don't start spewing lies about cops being the only ones "well-trained enough" to be able to stop these attacks.  Because cops never do manage to stop anything in these "gun free zones".

If you advocate regulating the right of self defense, and the guns that make it more likely to survive, then YOU have blood on your hands.  YOU are guilty of aiding and abetting the murderers.  Don't you dare start trying to point the finger at those of us who work to prevent these acts that get you so excited.  Your Blood Dancing disgusts me.  You are evil.

I hate the fact that there is never time to grieve for the innocents murdered due to the Blood Dancers, those Mass-Murderer Fan Club goons, immediately using this "opportunity" to try to attack me.  And you.  I have to put away my feelings and prepare to defend myself from those who hate liberty.  I can cry later.


.

Don't pledge? Hand hecklers a card

Yesterday's Pledge of Allegiance problem, and an exchange with L. Neil Smith, resulted in this project:

How about a business card that you can hand to anyone who objects to your act of self-ownership?

I made them in PDF form, and for Avery template 8371 and I'll email the files to anyone who requests them.  Later, I may add them to one of my websites for downloading, but I'll wait and see what people think.

As I do with most of my work, I offer this for free.  Feel free to tip me for my work if you feel so inclined, because, as always, I could really use the money, but it is not necessary to do so if you'd like the files.  Really.


.

Today, I was "this guy"

No, I am no August Landmesser.  I did follow my conscience, though.

It may not have been exactly a Nazi rally, and I probably wasn't in any real danger, but if you won't stand up (or remain seated) for what's right when it is easy, how do you expect to stand up for what's right when it is hard?

You have read of my difficulties since my daughter chose to enroll in the government school.  Today her kindergarten class had a Christmas concert (complete with State-sponsored Christianity).  I was shocked, although I probably shouldn't have been, when they began the program with a Nazi ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance.

I did not stand or chant with the crowd, and may have been the only to not do so.  I try very hard to avoid places and situations where this ritual will be followed- sometimes despite my best efforts I find myself in the middle of it.  I have not participated in years.

Yes, I felt self-conscious, but that's better than feeling like a Nazi.  I was also a little afraid of some "good ol' boy" wanting to make an example of me.  I'm glad nothing happened.


.

Election does not change abuse

Election does not change abuse

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 9, 2012.)


The election has come and gone, and even though I am writing this before any actual results are in, I already know the outcome with absolute certainty. Once again a crooked politician has won the presidency and America- specifically the liberty which is the only thing that distinguishes America from any second-rate banana republic- has been stomped down a little more. If you don't believe me let's discuss this again in three years or so and see where the situation stands at that time.

It is the same story every election. If the incumbent wins re-election he interprets this as a "mandate" for every scatterbrained socialist scheme he has been pursuing and throttles up his rush to destruction. If the opposition wins, he takes the helm with reckless abandon and continues the disastrous policies of his predecessor, with more vigor since he is fresh and energized and has a "mandate".

No new president changes course, or even puts on the brakes. Instead, after winning the election by pretending to differ from the incumbent, they all embrace the powers the other guy wielded and abused, put their own twist on the use and abuse, and start collecting more powers to hand off to the next guy, for him to wield and abuse in exciting new ways.

I can't believe some people don't see this.

In the long run, while the political clowns desperately want you to believe it matters what they do, it really doesn't. Remember this when choosing where to spend your precious energy.

Now that this quadrennial national circus is over for a while perhaps Americans can concentrate on important things.

Things like watching out for your neighbor without prying into his business.

Things like exploring new ways to make money and help the local economy while helping yourself- voluntarily.

Things like respecting other people's choices to do as they see fit, even if you really hate their particular choices, as long as they respect the same liberty for others.

Things like keeping your own house in order by refusing to attack the innocent, refusing to take any other person's property without their permission, and refusing to hire anyone to do either on your behalf.

In other words, acting like a neighbor instead of looking for a political advantage over anyone.

It will be a refreshing change. And, just maybe, the next time elections roll around you'll remember the important things instead of listening to the childish clowns and getting drawn into their playground squabbles.


.

"Planet Government" on Libertopia

I just posted another entry on Dispatches From Libertopia.  It is about the "Planet Government" project.

Enjoy.

.

It's about power

It's not about Obama.  It wasn't about Bush.  It wasn't about FDR or "America's Lenin", the mis-sainted Abraham Lincoln.

It's about giving the guy who demonstrates nothing but the fact that he can win an election the power to control things that are none of his business.

It doesn't matter if you like giving him that power, or if you only want him to use it against those people you don't like.  He doesn't deserve that power- no one does- and he can't use it without hurting innocent people.


.

No new ideas?

It used to bother me when I came up with a thought, a "new idea", and then discovered that other people (Lysander Spooner, H. D. Thoreau, etc.) had thought the same thought long before I did.

This doesn't bother me much anymore.

Some things are just so self-evident that people who think will continue to come up with the same ideas over and over again.  This is a very good thing.

The fact that I have an idea isn't very influential.  Perhaps someday someone more influential than me will have the idea and it will spread like wildfire.  Or, perhaps someday enough people will have the same idea at the same time and it will cause a huge shift in society.

Keep thinking those thoughts and don't worry that countless others throughout history have probably thought of the same thing.  There may be no new ideas, but there are certainly new situations where those old ideas are needed.

And be sure and take those liberty-enhancing thoughts you have and put them to work in the real world instead of keeping them hidden inside your head.  Because, ultimately, that's the only real value to having the ideas.


.

"Fighting for honor"?

A while back on another blog, a commenter went ballistic about "fighting for honor" in some hypothetical scenario (which I don't remember).  That really stuck in my head and has been rolling around in there since then.  Fighting for honor.  It's a concept I have heard all my life, but never gave it much thought.

Honor.  What is it?

Well, if you follow the link above you'll see that Dictionary.com says "honor" is:

1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
4. such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.
5. high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.

How can you fight for any of those things?  I see nothing there that can be protected or enhanced by fighting for "honor".

If, though, you could, is it worth fighting for?

I don't think so.  In fact, I think if you fight for honor, you lose it.

I think you build honor by fighting for other things that demonstrate that you have honor, not for the honor, itself.

When you fight for the liberty of an enemy, you build honor.

When you fight for the right of others to do things that you don't personally like, but that they are not violating anyone else's rights by doing, your honor increases.

When you defend the innocent from an attacker, you show you have honor.

You don't need to fight for it.

When you fight because someone has questioned your honor, or your heritage, or your beliefs, your honor withers.

When you fight because you have been disrespected, your honor dies.

When you do evil things because you hope to boost your honor, you lose it.

At least in my eyes.  I have trouble seeing how it could be otherwise.


.

Government should open market

Government should open market

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 2, 2012.)


I will probably never understand those who feel that the solution to any problem is to get the government to do something about it, either by popular vote or government edict.

Very few things should ever be subject to a vote, and nothing that would violate the rights of the losing side should ever be put to a vote- nor imposed by law.

I recently watched an online video that told the story of how the Dutch got their bicycle paths. Instead of having those who thought it was a good idea join together in voluntary cooperation, the advocates instead joined forces to have government impose the plan on everyone. I'd agree with them that good bicycle paths are a great idea, and I'd enjoy having them, but if I force others to finance them I have taken something wonderful and turned it into something ugly. I have spat in the soup.

Why do you have to use coercion and "law" to effect changes that you think are a good idea? Is your plan not good enough that people would voluntarily support it? And is it so expensive that you can't allow those who are opposed, for whatever reason, to opt out of helping you pay for it? Nothing is that important.

The same applies to any government service.

I have no problem paying for what I use, or using what I am forced to pay for. The problem is being forced to pay for things that I neither want, nor use. Most coercively-financed things fall into this category.

In a free market situation I could choose the services that suit me best, at a price that is more appropriate for me, just by being allowed to spend my money as I see fit, rather than as some "majority" or "authority" demands.

I'm not saying force the government to stop offering its version of any service, just open the market to competition. If the government option is the best, people will support it. Voluntarily. With their own money, instead of with their neighbor's money.

The whole situation reminds me of the rich people who demand that the government raise their taxes. Nothing is stopping them from signing a bank account over to The State. The secret is, they know this already- they just want to force others to do the same thing. It is no different if the advocate of the government "solution" is poor. You can't be generous with other people's money. That is called "theft". It spoils the best of intentions.

.

Balance

There has to be a balance somewhere.

You need to be aware that the US government is capricious and evil.  You need to know that it can and will arbitrarily strand you far from home (after allowing you to leave its "borders"), and then, just maybe, "graciously" allow you to go home again- after a period of letting you sweat.

You need to be aware that cops will kidnap and murder you for doing things that are perfectly ethical.  Like carrying a gun or growing plants.

You need to be prepared for the fact that government goons can destroy your business for any number of sketchy "reasons"- that they can steal your home, car, and even your kids.

However, there have always been bad guys and there always will be- these are just the primary ones who happen to inflict this spot on the Earth at this time in history.  They aren't special.

You can't let these worthless parasites take away your joy in living.  That's what they would really like, and there's no point in handing them that trophy.

However, it isn't safe to ignore them or pretend they aren't the bad guys.

So what do you do?

I'd say, be aware, just don't obsess over them.  Stay balanced.  Find balance.  For every disgusting act of State that enrages you, find something beautiful to balance it out.  Live as free as you can in spite of the goons and their "laws".  Love deeply if you have the opportunity.  Laugh as often as you can.

And keep in mind that there will always be evil thugs who will try to destroy your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness- even in Libertopia.  Don't put them on a pedestal when their proper setting is the sewer.


.

US dollars = welfare? The alternative

I'm just sitting here wondering what the real difference is between Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)- US "dollars"- and welfare.

Neither has any basis in reality or inherent value.  Both are printed or electronically created out of thin air, and backed by nothing and really paid for by no one.  Other than the fact that the more of either one there is, the less value each "dollar" has.  Just like any other counterfeiting operation.

The use of either one also contributes to the coming economic collapse.

The only difference I can see is one of perception.

I haven't had a single paper "dollar" in my wallet for over a couple of weeks now, but in my pocket I have a couple of Morgan silver dollars, and a few ounces of .999 silver.  So, I'm "broke", yet I'm not.

Right now, that real money doesn't work well at most stores or for paying bills, but I don't carry it for "right now" anyway.  I carry it for when a paper (or electronic) "dollar" finds its true value.  And, I carry it in case of emergency, in the hopes that if I find myself in dire circumstances I will have something of value to trade, since I usually have no FRNs.

As long as other people keep accepting FRNs in trade, I will continue to accept them.  But the instant that trust starts to fade I will start only accepting REAL money for goods or services.  I hope others are smart enough to do the same.  Let the hyperinflation be powerless against you.


.

Economic contemplation

I should probably go out and get one of those "jobs" I've heard so much about and not spend so much time writing.

If anyone is feeling a little generous, this would be a nice time to donate a little bit to my Paypal account.

But, if not, I completely understand.

.

"No true Scotsbertarian"

How many times have you heard- or written- "No real libertarian would ever...."?  Did someone throw the "No true Scotsman" fallacy in the mix right away?  Did it actually apply?

Because it often doesn't.

If you say "no true Scotsman can survive a complete decapitation", or "no true Scotsman is native to the Moon" then you'd be correct.  By definition.  It's not the same as saying "no true Scotsman would wear pink socks".

I've seen that fallacy called into play when someone says "no libertarian can be in favor of any form of taxation" or "no libertarian can support the 'troops'"

Yet, it is accurate to say that "no true Scotsman can flap his arms and fly to the moon", because any creature which could do that would not be human.  By definition he could not be a "true Scotsman".

So it is with the "pro-tax libertarian"- taxation is theft and is enforced by violating the ZAP, and the same goes for military "service".  Since the ZAP is the definition of "libertarian", no one can support those things and be a libertarian.  At least not a consistent one.

But, if someone claims "no real libertarian would use a public library", then you'd be correct in calling this a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  There is no wrong in using what you are forced to pay for, as long as you don't advocate the continuation of the theft.  There will be a difference of opinion from person to person, and neither side is automatically eliminated from the category of "real libertarian".

Just because I apply a label to myself doesn't make the label accurate.  If I fit the definition, then I am what I say.  If I don't, then I am something other than what I claim to be.  And, that's fine.  People get confused over what words mean all the time.  It's not worth fighting over.  If you don't fit the definition, find where you do fit and correct what you call yourself.  But if you are not a Scotsman, don't be offended when someone points it out.


.

See how helpful The State is?

I ran across a story in the news a couple of days ago.  It said that "For the growing number of teenage girls who are incarcerated each year, detention may be the only time they get health care."

I see more than one disturbing thing in that sentence.

First, that the number of caged teenage girls is increasing.

Second, that State interference has made health care inaccessible to so many people.

And third, that some people try to justify the caging by pointing out that these girls need health care they aren't otherwise getting.

Even though the one girl mentioned in the story wasn't there directly as a consequence of the stupid and evil War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs, I'd be willing to bet money her crime is somehow tied to prohibition.  As is the vast majority of the abuse and other health issues discovered in the health screenings

End that idiotic policy, prohibition, and there would be a fraction of the current number of political prisoners held in cages in America in a few years- if not immediately.  And the rest of the crimes caused or exacerbated by prohibition would dwindle as well.  It would put reavers out of a job, which would be a good thing.  It would diminish the power of the judges.  It would help ALL of society.  Except those who drag society down- the drug warriors and their buddies on the violent supply side (with considerable overlap between the two) of the drug trade.  Those allies are a burden that society can't afford.  Ending prohibition would pull the rug out from under them.  Soon isn't soon enough.

.