...taught* at the park.
A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park. It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...
Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids. There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so. One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.
I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends. The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.
The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike. The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".
OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike. At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.
As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear. OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.
My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared. Not sure which.
I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB. He turned and looked at me.
He said "I'm not messing with him".
I said "Yes, you are. Now stop."
YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear. He said OB hit him. OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.
OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything". I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.
So OB changed tactics. He said that he only wanted to ride the bike. I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that. OB said that he bought the bike for YB. I asked "Did you give it to him?" He said he had. So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to. OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it. I said "not unless he wants you to".
So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing. No personal responsibility for his own actions.
OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance. OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching. Finally YB said he was going home. OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".
I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me. I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing. Social standing needed to be recovered. I'm fine with that.
(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)
.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Law tantrums from spoiled brat Bloomberg
LawGiver Bloomberg may (or may not) be smart, but if he has a high IQ then he is a high IQ idiot.
His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot. He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child. (I like Joel's take on it.)
Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization. I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now. In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now. They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared. They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better. They count on you not seeing them as they really are.
That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life. I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings. But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.
.
His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot. He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child. (I like Joel's take on it.)
Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization. I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now. In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now. They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared. They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better. They count on you not seeing them as they really are.
That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life. I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings. But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.
.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Don’t wait to stand up for rights
Don’t wait to stand up for rights
How many times have you thought to yourself that you wish others would "wake up" and realize how important some issue is? Probably as many times as I have.
Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.
People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".
It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".
The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.
Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.
These are disaster-level "awakening events".
Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 8, 2013)
Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.
People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".
It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".
The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.
Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.
These are disaster-level "awakening events".
Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.
.
Nutty for Liberty?
One of my fellow CNJ/PNT columnists wrote something about secession the other day.
He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway. But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions." I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land? Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner? But we'll pretend for a moment.
His vision for my future? Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:
"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic] bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic] criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."
Sounds pretty good to me! I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.
He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway. But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions." I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land? Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner? But we'll pretend for a moment.
His vision for my future? Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:
"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic] bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic] criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."
Sounds pretty good to me! I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.
And, I seriously doubt that such a free society (even if we left the fence standing) would permit "police and military protection" at all. Self defense and militia- of course. But not professional "Only Ones" who are paid through theft and allowed to initiate force and get away scot free.
He assumes that inside the "escape-proof, tumbleweed-lined fence would truly be a government-free, man-eat-dog, shoot-Big-Birds, survival-of-the-nuttiest nirvana" for folks like me. Sounds like a concentration camp, or one of those FEMA camps we hear about. Which brings up just about the only flaw.
The only problem with his suggestion is that there is no such thing as "a" secession advocate. Some want secession for anti-liberty purposes, or just because they happen to hate a particular person who calls himself "president", but would be fine with some other idiot occupying the same chair. Me? I've already seceded and laugh at the whole circus act. I need no "government" or any of its parts and pieces. It's believers may surround me, but they are the problem, not their imaginary "frienemy".
I'd be willing to move to Mars or any other survivable (with the right technology) planet (or whatever) for just the sort of chance he's denigrating and ridiculing. That's how sure I am that liberty really works in the real world we inhabit, and is vastly better than any other "system".
.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Sure, I'll help... LOL
All you Nigerian princes, widowed diplomat's wives, orphaned African bank president's adult children, dying heiresses, lottery winners, and US soldiers "serving" in Muslim countries who have multi-millions of dollars you desperately want to send me so that I can help you sneak it out of wherever... go ahead. Send it to me. You can trust me. My Paypal donation button is right over there on the side. Or you can change the money into Bitcoins and send it to me that way. Just attach a note saying who you are and how much my cut is, and give me a hint when you'll want yours.
I promise I will split it with you however you want. Later. After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.
But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).
Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.
Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".
Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.
.
I promise I will split it with you however you want. Later. After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.
But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).
Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.
Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".
Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.
.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Now THAT hurts!
Well, maybe just a little.
I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."
Someone is more radical than me? Where have I gone wrong?
OK, so I'm mostly kidding. My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right. It's just that being right has become such a radical position. I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am. I suppose I still have a lot to learn.
.
I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."
Someone is more radical than me? Where have I gone wrong?
OK, so I'm mostly kidding. My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right. It's just that being right has become such a radical position. I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am. I suppose I still have a lot to learn.
.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Ground Zero!
Do you know what the above is? It's an environmental disaster- according to the feds. Mercury contamination! Sharp edges! Plastic! Yet, it wouldn't have happened if not for the feds and their silly meddling in the market.
As I was biking around town I happened to see this broken CFL (compact fluorescent light) beside the curb. No HAZMAT team was scurrying around trying to cordon off the area. I was in such horrific danger but no one came to rescue me. So I stopped to take a picture. Should I have sent this to MSNBC so they could send a team to interview the survivors? I neeeed to tell them how I feeeel about it.
I assume this is still there, if anyone wants to come save us. Or, I might use my mighty grabber tool and pick it up and illegally put it in a dumpster- if it's still there- next time I pass by.
.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
You wouldn't be wrong...
No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or your pursuit of happiness- as long as your pursuit doesn't violate the identical rights of others.
You are not wrong if you kill a person who is attempting to murder you.
The same goes for anyone who is attempting to violate your liberty or pursuit of happiness. For instance: no one has a right to insist on their right to molest or license you as your "price" of being allowed to travel.
You are not wrong if you kill someone who is trying to violate your liberty in any way. The burden lies with the aggressor.
That doesn't mean that it is smart to do so when those who most commonly violate your liberty and pursuit of happiness belong to a huge gang, who are somehow permitted to decide that you are never to be allowed to defend yourself from members of their gang, and who have claimed they get to "arbitrate" disputes that involve themselves.
But you wouldn't be wrong.
Someone trying to kidnap you? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt. Someone making up rules that violate your property rights? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt. Someone trying to enforce some rule that violates your rightful liberty in some way? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them in trying to stop them.
I'm not saying you "must", I am saying you wouldn't be wrong. You will be killed by the gangbangers for defending yourself from their "brother" gangsters- that is just a given. That's why it probably isn't a smart thing to do in the current situation in which we find ourselves. But never make the mistake of thinking someone is wrong for killing anyone who is trying to violate their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If I were on a jury and you were "on trial" for killing a liberty-violator, I wouldn't convict you no matter how much I personally didn't like you if I saw that you were only defending your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness from someone trying to violate you.
I would hope to be given the same respect, but I wouldn't expect it.
.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Better than that?
I'm better than that- I'm libertarian.
So why don't I always act better than that?
I am on the right side. There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty. No, not one.
So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line? Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds. Yet, I let them get to me. How can I let that happen?
Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses. It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it. I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive. That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.
I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that. Liberty is better than that. And I am libertarian.
.
So why don't I always act better than that?
I am on the right side. There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty. No, not one.
So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line? Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds. Yet, I let them get to me. How can I let that happen?
Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses. It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it. I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive. That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.
I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that. Liberty is better than that. And I am libertarian.
.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Selfishness not necessarily evil act
Selfishness not necessarily evil act
If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.
Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.
Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.
Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.
Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.
Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.
Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 1, 2013)
One of the self-evident tenets of libertarianism is that of self ownership. You own your life, and the products of your life.If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.
Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.
Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.
Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.
Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.
Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.
Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.
.
Fans of "Joe"
What's your favorite justification for The State? Roads? "Drunk" driving? The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? "National defense" [sic]?
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Stand up!
Recently I had read several things which spoke of how unhealthy sitting really is. Whether or not this is just another health fad, I knew it was something I had been wanting to change for a while now. Just from my own experience I knew sitting made me feel sluggish and Jabba-like. I have never been much of a sitter, but in the past few years all my writing has tied me to the computer more than I liked.
So, on New Year's Day I decided to do something about it. Something concrete. I didn't just "decide" to sit less; resolutions don't work well enough for me. I made it impossible for me to find the time to sit as much as I had been. I took my (disabled, formerly) "laptop" computer off of my desk and put it on a shelf I installed especially for it- one that I had to stand in order to use.
This is a picture of my work space as I write this. (Yes, I probably should have cleaned up before making it public, but I didn't. I just shut off my monitor, stepped back, and took a picture. Feel free to analyze me by what you see.)
Anyway... For the first couple of weeks I really noticed the difference in my legs and feet. I ached. I have gotten used to it now and it doesn't bother me.
I am more able to do "drive-by writing" and respond quickly to the urge to be in another part of the house. Funny how even the simple act of having to stand up from a chair made me hesitate to go do something I thought of. I also lost all the extra weight I had put on in the past few years, even though this is the fat time of the year. Who would have thought I would feel better by making one simple change? Well, Dogbert, apparently.
So, it's just something you might want to consider doing. I know I'm liking it.
.
So, on New Year's Day I decided to do something about it. Something concrete. I didn't just "decide" to sit less; resolutions don't work well enough for me. I made it impossible for me to find the time to sit as much as I had been. I took my (disabled, formerly) "laptop" computer off of my desk and put it on a shelf I installed especially for it- one that I had to stand in order to use.
This is a picture of my work space as I write this. (Yes, I probably should have cleaned up before making it public, but I didn't. I just shut off my monitor, stepped back, and took a picture. Feel free to analyze me by what you see.)
Anyway... For the first couple of weeks I really noticed the difference in my legs and feet. I ached. I have gotten used to it now and it doesn't bother me.
I am more able to do "drive-by writing" and respond quickly to the urge to be in another part of the house. Funny how even the simple act of having to stand up from a chair made me hesitate to go do something I thought of. I also lost all the extra weight I had put on in the past few years, even though this is the fat time of the year. Who would have thought I would feel better by making one simple change? Well, Dogbert, apparently.
.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Yes, I want YOU to carry a gun
This has nothing to do with "should" or "should not". This is just my personal opinion. But I want you to carry a gun with you everywhere you go.
I'm not ordering you to do so, so don't get bent out of shape over my wish.
I doesn't matter to me if you are a "felon" or if some local gang says it can tell you not to carry. Those are things you must settle inside yourself. It doesn't even depend on whether your intent is to go out and harm the innocent. If everyone carried you wouldn't survive long enough to pursue your career. In the long run more innocent lives would be saved. The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, so any general increase in the number of guns being carried will arm a lot more good guys.
It isn't "wrong" to carry a gun. It can be wrong to use it in certain ways.
Yes, there is a political aspect to this. The more people who carry a gun (or even a sword, or???) the less likely it is that the thugs will dare try to tell everyone that such is not "allowed". There is safety in numbers, because there is power in numbers. It's part of the reason that no large-scale gang of thugs has yet completely criminalized tobacco. It is too common. Call it "collectivism" if you want, but people coming together, voluntarily, to fight off a common threat is part of the benefit of being human.
How many cops would be willing to tackle and kick pregnant women in a public place if they could see, or just knew, that everyone around was armed? How many peaceable people who happen to be "open carrying" would be attacked by cops if almost everyone around was known or suspected to be armed?
But, just like the way tobacco is being incrementally demonized, possibly on the way to prohibition, guns are becoming an "oddity" in some places. Incrementalism has made the sight of a gun on the hip rare in far too many places. It has made it unlikely that a mugger will face a target who is carrying concealed. By seeming to agree, through your actions, that carrying a weapon is "extreme" you fall right into the hands of the anti-liberty bigots. That would bother me. By allowing guns to be incrementally pushed out of sight it is making it easier for the thugs to make up more severe rules, and get away with it, which will make the sight of guns even less common. You may not care about this political action, but it is affecting real people and costing lives.
The non-political side of this is that I have lived in armed camps, and they are wonderfully peaceful. (I'm not talking about an armed camp in a time of war; during a time of war the "camp" will be armed whether you like it or not, but the arms may be mostly in the hands of the bad guys.) I am talking about the peace that comes from a "society" that doesn't beg for someone else to protect the individuals who are a part of it, and the peace that comes from being prepared to deal with the problems that might arise. Self responsibility.
You say you don't "need" to carry. OK. I'm glad you can see the future, but I can't. There are a few things that I think separate humans from other critters: the ability (and physical need) to make and use weapons, the ability to make fire, and our reasoning ability. I believe you should exercise those at all times. Those are the things that you can't really improvise to get around the lack of- when you need one of those things you get no second chance. None of those things is a magical cure-all, and there will be situations that you aren't prepared for no matter what, but why handicap yourself voluntarily right from the beginning? It just makes no sense to me.
Now, if you don't want to carry for whatever reason, don't. It's your choice. I wish you'd reconsider, since I want to live in a polite society again. And more guns makes us all- except the thugs- more safe. But don't complain that because I wish you would carry, and you don't, I am being extreme or not respecting your views. The complaints I get from this make me think that the objectors feel guilty for their choice. If you feel guilty maybe you need to change something.
.
I'm not ordering you to do so, so don't get bent out of shape over my wish.
I doesn't matter to me if you are a "felon" or if some local gang says it can tell you not to carry. Those are things you must settle inside yourself. It doesn't even depend on whether your intent is to go out and harm the innocent. If everyone carried you wouldn't survive long enough to pursue your career. In the long run more innocent lives would be saved. The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, so any general increase in the number of guns being carried will arm a lot more good guys.
It isn't "wrong" to carry a gun. It can be wrong to use it in certain ways.
Yes, there is a political aspect to this. The more people who carry a gun (or even a sword, or???) the less likely it is that the thugs will dare try to tell everyone that such is not "allowed". There is safety in numbers, because there is power in numbers. It's part of the reason that no large-scale gang of thugs has yet completely criminalized tobacco. It is too common. Call it "collectivism" if you want, but people coming together, voluntarily, to fight off a common threat is part of the benefit of being human.
How many cops would be willing to tackle and kick pregnant women in a public place if they could see, or just knew, that everyone around was armed? How many peaceable people who happen to be "open carrying" would be attacked by cops if almost everyone around was known or suspected to be armed?
But, just like the way tobacco is being incrementally demonized, possibly on the way to prohibition, guns are becoming an "oddity" in some places. Incrementalism has made the sight of a gun on the hip rare in far too many places. It has made it unlikely that a mugger will face a target who is carrying concealed. By seeming to agree, through your actions, that carrying a weapon is "extreme" you fall right into the hands of the anti-liberty bigots. That would bother me. By allowing guns to be incrementally pushed out of sight it is making it easier for the thugs to make up more severe rules, and get away with it, which will make the sight of guns even less common. You may not care about this political action, but it is affecting real people and costing lives.
The non-political side of this is that I have lived in armed camps, and they are wonderfully peaceful. (I'm not talking about an armed camp in a time of war; during a time of war the "camp" will be armed whether you like it or not, but the arms may be mostly in the hands of the bad guys.) I am talking about the peace that comes from a "society" that doesn't beg for someone else to protect the individuals who are a part of it, and the peace that comes from being prepared to deal with the problems that might arise. Self responsibility.
You say you don't "need" to carry. OK. I'm glad you can see the future, but I can't. There are a few things that I think separate humans from other critters: the ability (and physical need) to make and use weapons, the ability to make fire, and our reasoning ability. I believe you should exercise those at all times. Those are the things that you can't really improvise to get around the lack of- when you need one of those things you get no second chance. None of those things is a magical cure-all, and there will be situations that you aren't prepared for no matter what, but why handicap yourself voluntarily right from the beginning? It just makes no sense to me.
Now, if you don't want to carry for whatever reason, don't. It's your choice. I wish you'd reconsider, since I want to live in a polite society again. And more guns makes us all- except the thugs- more safe. But don't complain that because I wish you would carry, and you don't, I am being extreme or not respecting your views. The complaints I get from this make me think that the objectors feel guilty for their choice. If you feel guilty maybe you need to change something.
.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
A cop's duty is to die for the innocent
If we are to pretend for a moment that the ridiculous notion of having people be cops is not ridiculous, then the ultimate (in every sense of the word) responsibility of a cop is to die in place of an innocent person.
"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.
It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop. Or under a thugscrum.
If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".
No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State. The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.
Cops make it safe to be a bad guy. They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized. Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft. Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.
.
"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.
It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop. Or under a thugscrum.
If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".
No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State. The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.
Cops make it safe to be a bad guy. They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized. Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft. Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.
.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Asking the wrong questions
You know what "they" say: if they can keep you asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what you think the answers are.
Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
A person shouldn't murder. It doesn't matter what tool is used. In this case Andre used 3 knives. If he wanted to murder he could easily have done so with bare hands. Any "law" that seeks (dishonestly) to restrict Andre's right to own and to carry weapons would not have affected his ability to murder. It would only disarm those he chooses to victimize.
I support Andre's right to own and to carry weaponry, and I wish he had been shot and killed when he went on his killing spree. This wasn't a case of too many guns, but of one too few.
.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"Hurray for Washington!"
Hurray for Washington! by By Mary Theroux
Go to the link above and read it, and then consider...
Has politics ever been anything but a puppet show? Ignore that fact that you may have liked some of the shows more than the current one. It's all smoke and mirrors and you are forced to "enjoy the show" at the point of a gun. Well, how often are you really forced to participate? Sure, you may know that certain silly individuals wearing the ill-fitting hat of government demand you sit up and pay attention, but how often do you actually get grabbed if you ignore them? I'm finding it harder and harder to care what those pathetic control freaks shriek about.
Yeah, more people are beginning to figure it out, but politics is always about celebrating something largely imaginary and silly.
Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.
Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.
.
Slavism
The opposite of libertarianism isn't just statism. It isn't just authoritarianism. Those are just aspects of slavism: the love of being a slave, or the imposition of slavery on others.
I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.
They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished. While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure. They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.
Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".
.
I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.
They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished. While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure. They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.
Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".
.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Your liberty depends on their liberty
Your liberty depends on their liberty
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 25, 2013)
Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.
If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".
It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.
Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.
When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.
Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.
That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.
This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.
It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.
If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.
Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.
If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".
It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.
Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.
When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.
Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.
That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.
This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.
It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.
If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.
.
Feeling entitled?
Entitlements. Just because you really like one, and the thought of losing it makes you angry, you can't complain that your "entitlement" shouldn't be called an "entitlement".
I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".
Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.
I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her. She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.
If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.
I hate that people have been robbed and lied to. It doesn't justify continuing the theft.
I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out, "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it. The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.
Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State. It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".
Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day. Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money. There is a way to avoid the pain, too.
However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out. No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme. And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either. It's a good deal.
Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS. They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme. The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support. It's only a matter of time. It is absolutely inevitable.
Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs. Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.
.
I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".
Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.
I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her. She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.
If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.
I hate that people have been robbed and lied to. It doesn't justify continuing the theft.
I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out, "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it. The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.
Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State. It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".
Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day. Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money. There is a way to avoid the pain, too.
However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out. No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme. And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either. It's a good deal.
Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS. They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme. The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support. It's only a matter of time. It is absolutely inevitable.
Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs. Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)