What if you lived on a newly discovered planet somewhere and, unbeknownst to you, someone decided to make agreements among themselves claiming all the land, and then started selling the land back and forth under your feet. In that case, would you really be a trespasser?
Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.
I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.
It's just something I was thinking about. I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.
.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Knocking CEOs
My CNJ column explained why raising the minimum wage won't solve anything. But, what then is the solution?
What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?
Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true. But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes. Don't like how much he is paid? Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.
Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees. One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**. I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway. This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.
I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.
I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him. Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite. I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.
*Corporations are a government-created fiction. They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion. I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.
**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.
Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.
What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?
Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true. But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes. Don't like how much he is paid? Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.
Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees. One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**. I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway. This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.
I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.
I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him. Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite. I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.
_
*Corporations are a government-created fiction. They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion. I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.
**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.
Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Just a vector
Should I be disturbed that the most blog visits I have gotten in ages- even more than my post about the death of Chris Kyle, or the recent one pointing out that cops are cowards, or even my consistent "top post" of the past 3 months about Edward Snowden- was just a link to someone else's work?
Whether I should be bothered or not, I am. Just a little.
I suppose any page views are good. Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes. Eventually.
So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.
.
Whether I should be bothered or not, I am. Just a little.
I suppose any page views are good. Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes. Eventually.
So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.
.
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Supporters are awesome!
Just a quick note to say "Thank you!!" to all those who have made donations to help keep me blogging and eating. And to help me keep KentForLiberty online.
It's because of your support that I can afford to speak my mind without fear of losing a job for extreme "political incorrectness".
If you haven't pitched in, but you'd like to, the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons are there on the left.
Thanks again!
.
It's because of your support that I can afford to speak my mind without fear of losing a job for extreme "political incorrectness".
If you haven't pitched in, but you'd like to, the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons are there on the left.
Thanks again!
.
If it makes you feel good, it's probably illegal
Often, after I read some really inspiring anarchist or libertarian writing, I feel so good it's amazing. I feel taller, stronger, better than I was before. The day seems sunnier, other people seem nicer. Everything just looks and feels clearer. More focused and sharper. I feel happy.
So, I wonder if statists get the same rush after reading Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, or after visiting the Daily Kos or FOX News.
.
So, I wonder if statists get the same rush after reading Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, or after visiting the Daily Kos or FOX News.
.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Healthcare best off in free market
Healthcare best off in free market
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 4, 2013)
If someone has a broken ankle you can't solve their problem by shooting them in the kneecap. If the problem is the cost of medical care you can't solve it by socializing medicine and giving government even more control. Government interference is what drove the price up to begin with.
The way to bring the price back down is to ensure a separation of medicine and state.
This would mean an end to ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, to the FDA and the DEA (and the DEA's war on politically incorrect drugs), and the end of state licensing (and therefore rationing) of medical professionals.
There are people who can't afford health care. The proper way to solve the problem is two-fold: reduce the cost of medical care and then help those who still can't afford it. Charities have always been an excellent solution to the latter problem- except when driven out of the market by coercive welfare.
The way to reduce the cost of health care is incredibly simple, but requires letting go of some carefully crafted misconceptions. The biggest of those is that only government can adequately oversee safety and protect the patients.
The FDA wouldn't necessarily have to be abolished, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, nor should it have the final say. Let independent labs determine the safety and effectiveness of new medications, putting their reputations behind the release of the new treatments they approve. Let doctors and patients decide what treatments they want to try.
On the other hand, the DEA needs to die a quick death and be forced out of the business of driving up the price of drugs through prohibition and the prescription scam. Drug abuse is bad; drug prohibition is worse by every measure.
No one needs multiple years of medical school to set a broken arm or to diagnose and treat a flu. Allow those interested in practicing the healing arts to be certified by competing agencies. If you've heard good things about the doctors trained or certified by "Docs R Us", and have less confidence in the doctors turned out by "Bob's Skool of Medasin", make your decisions accordingly. Let people hang up a shingle and compete for patients. If a medical condition is beyond the healer's ability, make it easy for them to admit this and refer the patient to a more skilled provider.
You are smart enough to decide where to buy a car, or who to marry, and you are mature enough to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Medical care is no different.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 4, 2013)
If someone has a broken ankle you can't solve their problem by shooting them in the kneecap. If the problem is the cost of medical care you can't solve it by socializing medicine and giving government even more control. Government interference is what drove the price up to begin with.
The way to bring the price back down is to ensure a separation of medicine and state.
This would mean an end to ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, to the FDA and the DEA (and the DEA's war on politically incorrect drugs), and the end of state licensing (and therefore rationing) of medical professionals.
There are people who can't afford health care. The proper way to solve the problem is two-fold: reduce the cost of medical care and then help those who still can't afford it. Charities have always been an excellent solution to the latter problem- except when driven out of the market by coercive welfare.
The way to reduce the cost of health care is incredibly simple, but requires letting go of some carefully crafted misconceptions. The biggest of those is that only government can adequately oversee safety and protect the patients.
The FDA wouldn't necessarily have to be abolished, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, nor should it have the final say. Let independent labs determine the safety and effectiveness of new medications, putting their reputations behind the release of the new treatments they approve. Let doctors and patients decide what treatments they want to try.
On the other hand, the DEA needs to die a quick death and be forced out of the business of driving up the price of drugs through prohibition and the prescription scam. Drug abuse is bad; drug prohibition is worse by every measure.
No one needs multiple years of medical school to set a broken arm or to diagnose and treat a flu. Allow those interested in practicing the healing arts to be certified by competing agencies. If you've heard good things about the doctors trained or certified by "Docs R Us", and have less confidence in the doctors turned out by "Bob's Skool of Medasin", make your decisions accordingly. Let people hang up a shingle and compete for patients. If a medical condition is beyond the healer's ability, make it easy for them to admit this and refer the patient to a more skilled provider.
You are smart enough to decide where to buy a car, or who to marry, and you are mature enough to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Medical care is no different.
.
The Caprock people
Libertarians are really radical compared to "the majority" today.
It wasn't always that way; not to the degree it is now.
The libertarian is like a stone that stays in place as the landscape around it erodes. A caprock. Over time, people on the eroded land look up and say "That stone is getting higher all the time!" They don't realize that the stone hasn't moved; the ground they are standing on has kept getting lower.
This is why libertarians are now considered so "radical" when observed by the degraded people around us. Of course, they are also standing on their heads so they see us as the degraded ones, but I suppose that's a topic for another day.
.
It wasn't always that way; not to the degree it is now.
The libertarian is like a stone that stays in place as the landscape around it erodes. A caprock. Over time, people on the eroded land look up and say "That stone is getting higher all the time!" They don't realize that the stone hasn't moved; the ground they are standing on has kept getting lower.
This is why libertarians are now considered so "radical" when observed by the degraded people around us. Of course, they are also standing on their heads so they see us as the degraded ones, but I suppose that's a topic for another day.
.
Monday, November 04, 2013
Compromise means you lose
Excellent! And, the same thing I've been saying for years. (H/T to Robert's Gun Shop)
And, thanks for your support!
.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Fun with spammers
Here's one of the best spam comments I have gotten in a long time:
Yeah... not really sure what was being "communicated" there, other than the spammer's link. But it was sure hilarious to read. You have to watch out for those unpredicted emotions.
.
"What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious experience concerning unpredicted emotions."
Yeah... not really sure what was being "communicated" there, other than the spammer's link. But it was sure hilarious to read. You have to watch out for those unpredicted emotions.
.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Do I hope ObamaCare doesn't work?
I read a silly rant by someone claiming that ObamaCare's critics are just scared it will work. What tripe.
I hope ObamaCare does work. Just like I hope hyperinflation never hits America and like I hope the US government's "leaders" never get genocidally tyrannical. Just like I hope no one I know and love ever gets sick, injured, or dies.
But I know that's an impossible wish. And every nation with socialized medicine is already a failure by my definition.
America has already dodged too many bullets that "no nation in history has ever __ and not had __ happen to it". That "luck" can't hold out forever, and some day, when we least expect it, the bill will come due. The piper will be paid.
But how can ObamaCare "work"? Well, it depends on how you define "work", and whether you ignore larger issues.
Wanna improve "health care"? Just kill everyone who gets sick. Magically- no more sickness! That would be just as ethical as theft-funded ObamaCare. You can't accomplish good by doing evil.
.
I hope ObamaCare does work. Just like I hope hyperinflation never hits America and like I hope the US government's "leaders" never get genocidally tyrannical. Just like I hope no one I know and love ever gets sick, injured, or dies.
But I know that's an impossible wish. And every nation with socialized medicine is already a failure by my definition.
America has already dodged too many bullets that "no nation in history has ever __ and not had __ happen to it". That "luck" can't hold out forever, and some day, when we least expect it, the bill will come due. The piper will be paid.
But how can ObamaCare "work"? Well, it depends on how you define "work", and whether you ignore larger issues.
Wanna improve "health care"? Just kill everyone who gets sick. Magically- no more sickness! That would be just as ethical as theft-funded ObamaCare. You can't accomplish good by doing evil.
.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
A new investment opportunity!
No, not sending me all your money- although if you want to, I won't stop you.
This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.
It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."
That's a pretty good return!
If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps". There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity. I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps. And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps! The possibilities are endless. You can't lose.
Unless what the person claims* isn't true.
Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?
Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?
*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make. Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)
.
This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.
It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."
That's a pretty good return!
If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps". There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity. I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps. And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps! The possibilities are endless. You can't lose.
Unless what the person claims* isn't true.
Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?
Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?
*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make. Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)
.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Anonymity?
Someone just sent me this message:
I just learned something interesting that you probably don't know, Kent.
You cannot post to your blog using an anonymous proxy.
More piggery from the government!
Perhaps you should inform your readers that posting "anonymous" will still show their IP address to the pigs.
I always assumed there was no such thing as real anonymity on the internet anyway, but you might want to be aware of this tidbit of information.
.
Stay leaderless, my friends
Unlike "liberals" or "conservatives", libertarians don't have real leaders.
Oh, sure, there are those who "everybody knows", and are followed with interest, but they aren't like a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow, or even like Obama or Ron Paul.
I always see others posting the latest talking point from their leaders. But not so much with libertarians.
The "prominent" libertarians tell you what they are thinking, and expect you to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and reject it if it's crap (even if they don't like your conclusions). They may still try to convince you they are right, but it isn't easy for their opinions to become widely accepted among liberty lovers without being picked apart and found to be correct.
The "mainstream" folks don't do that when their leaders tell them what they should think. They suck it right up and repeat it everywhere.
Even of those libertarian thinkers I admire, if they say something full of crap I'll say so. And they do the same for me.
It's because libertarians don't just yap to be saying something. We think first. And we never stop thinking about what we are saying and what we'll say next. We can back up what we say with reality and evidence, even if statists reject the reality for the comfort of their delusions. Makes it very hard for statists to actually disprove what we say, so they resort to other tactics. At that point, the best thing to do is to ignore them- it's not going to end nicely.
If I were offered position of "king of the libertarians" I would turn it down. Nor would I ever blindly follow a "king of libertarians", even if I liked the person. There's no way that could help bring on more liberty. Having a leader would set libertarians back and make us as vulnerable to basic foundational errors as the others are.
.
Oh, sure, there are those who "everybody knows", and are followed with interest, but they aren't like a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow, or even like Obama or Ron Paul.
I always see others posting the latest talking point from their leaders. But not so much with libertarians.
The "prominent" libertarians tell you what they are thinking, and expect you to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and reject it if it's crap (even if they don't like your conclusions). They may still try to convince you they are right, but it isn't easy for their opinions to become widely accepted among liberty lovers without being picked apart and found to be correct.
The "mainstream" folks don't do that when their leaders tell them what they should think. They suck it right up and repeat it everywhere.
Even of those libertarian thinkers I admire, if they say something full of crap I'll say so. And they do the same for me.
It's because libertarians don't just yap to be saying something. We think first. And we never stop thinking about what we are saying and what we'll say next. We can back up what we say with reality and evidence, even if statists reject the reality for the comfort of their delusions. Makes it very hard for statists to actually disprove what we say, so they resort to other tactics. At that point, the best thing to do is to ignore them- it's not going to end nicely.
If I were offered position of "king of the libertarians" I would turn it down. Nor would I ever blindly follow a "king of libertarians", even if I liked the person. There's no way that could help bring on more liberty. Having a leader would set libertarians back and make us as vulnerable to basic foundational errors as the others are.
.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Gadsden flag still resonates today
Gadsden flag still resonates today
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 27, 2013)
You have seen the bright yellow flags sporting the coiled rattlesnake, with the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" boldly emblazoned across the bottom, but have you ever really thought about the phrase, and what it means?
It doesn't say "Don't offend me". It doesn't say "Don't refuse to give me what I feel I am owed". It says "Don't TREAD on me". It warns against an act of physical aggressive violence; an initiation of force.
The "Don't tread on me" flag is properly referred to as the Gadsden flag, and was named after Colonel Christopher Gadsden. The flag is believed to have originated in 1775 with Colonel Gadsden, who presented one of these flags to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. Hopkins then flew the flag from his ship, the Alfred.
Some people consider the Gadsden flag to be the real American flag. It's older than the USA, older than the "Stars and Stripes", and conveys the message that "live and let live" is how America was set up to operate.
It was the flag of an earlier time- a time before the official policy was to attempt to bomb people in other parts of the world into freedom, or to preserve the liberties of Americans by violating liberty here and abroad. A time before an imperial USA came into being. A time and a spirit long since violated by NSA spying, by socialized medicine, by US military bases in the majority of countries around the globe, by never-ending wars, and by an occupied America where "freedom" is an empty word uttered under the watchful eyes of those tasked with enforcing an unknowable number of petty "laws".
A time before being trod upon was official policy.
Perhaps that is why it resonates with so many today.
Of course, some people- who don't seem to really understand the message behind the flag- use it to show disdain for the current federal administration, not realizing the message applies just as surely to every US administration since at least Lincoln's.
"Don't tread on me" is the quintessential libertarian message. It is not a statement of aggressive intent, nor is it a passive surrender. It says "I will not come after you to cause you harm, but if you step on me I will take measures to defend myself".
I love seeing the Gadsden flag flying high, but even more than that, I love it when those flying it truly understand what the flag stands for. "Don't tread on me": it's more than just a flag.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 27, 2013)
You have seen the bright yellow flags sporting the coiled rattlesnake, with the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" boldly emblazoned across the bottom, but have you ever really thought about the phrase, and what it means?
It doesn't say "Don't offend me". It doesn't say "Don't refuse to give me what I feel I am owed". It says "Don't TREAD on me". It warns against an act of physical aggressive violence; an initiation of force.
The "Don't tread on me" flag is properly referred to as the Gadsden flag, and was named after Colonel Christopher Gadsden. The flag is believed to have originated in 1775 with Colonel Gadsden, who presented one of these flags to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. Hopkins then flew the flag from his ship, the Alfred.
Some people consider the Gadsden flag to be the real American flag. It's older than the USA, older than the "Stars and Stripes", and conveys the message that "live and let live" is how America was set up to operate.
It was the flag of an earlier time- a time before the official policy was to attempt to bomb people in other parts of the world into freedom, or to preserve the liberties of Americans by violating liberty here and abroad. A time before an imperial USA came into being. A time and a spirit long since violated by NSA spying, by socialized medicine, by US military bases in the majority of countries around the globe, by never-ending wars, and by an occupied America where "freedom" is an empty word uttered under the watchful eyes of those tasked with enforcing an unknowable number of petty "laws".
A time before being trod upon was official policy.
Perhaps that is why it resonates with so many today.
Of course, some people- who don't seem to really understand the message behind the flag- use it to show disdain for the current federal administration, not realizing the message applies just as surely to every US administration since at least Lincoln's.
"Don't tread on me" is the quintessential libertarian message. It is not a statement of aggressive intent, nor is it a passive surrender. It says "I will not come after you to cause you harm, but if you step on me I will take measures to defend myself".
I love seeing the Gadsden flag flying high, but even more than that, I love it when those flying it truly understand what the flag stands for. "Don't tread on me": it's more than just a flag.
.
Mor on cops
How did the police become so bad? How did they become the occupying army that America's founders warned about?
Cops were never intended to have any more liberty than anyone else. No special "rights" above and beyond what you or I have.
It's just not possible for one person (or "class" of people) to have rights not possessed by every other person.
They were first hired to do the low-class, messy work that lazy and irresponsible people didn't want to do for themselves. Things like stop aggressive attacks and theft. And track down those who did such things.
At first, in order to make their job easier, they were allowed to be outlaws- ignoring counterfeit "laws". I have no problem with that- I think everyone should always ignore counterfeit "laws" at every opportunity. But, cops were still told to enforce those "laws" against everyone else. That's not nice, and it's hypocrisy.
This dubious "plan" has gotten out of control. The "license" to be special enough to not be constrained by counterfeit "laws" wasn't enough for them. So, it didn't stop there. Now cops have been allowed to become outright criminals- violating laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.
Combined with the cowardice that defines how cops view you, it's a really dangerous situation. One that can't last.
Interesting times are in store.
.
Cops were never intended to have any more liberty than anyone else. No special "rights" above and beyond what you or I have.
It's just not possible for one person (or "class" of people) to have rights not possessed by every other person.
They were first hired to do the low-class, messy work that lazy and irresponsible people didn't want to do for themselves. Things like stop aggressive attacks and theft. And track down those who did such things.
At first, in order to make their job easier, they were allowed to be outlaws- ignoring counterfeit "laws". I have no problem with that- I think everyone should always ignore counterfeit "laws" at every opportunity. But, cops were still told to enforce those "laws" against everyone else. That's not nice, and it's hypocrisy.
This dubious "plan" has gotten out of control. The "license" to be special enough to not be constrained by counterfeit "laws" wasn't enough for them. So, it didn't stop there. Now cops have been allowed to become outright criminals- violating laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.
Combined with the cowardice that defines how cops view you, it's a really dangerous situation. One that can't last.
Interesting times are in store.
.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Cops are cowards
I have said it before, but it's important enough to say again. Cops are cowards.
This isn't just my opinion- there is plenty of evidence.
"Officer safety" being a giant neon sign, flashing in our faces every time one of those anointed cowards must face one of us, declaring in plain language just exactly how cowardly they all truly are.
But there are other clear signs, even if they all have "officer safety", physical or financial, at their root:
Hiding behind their gang anytime their twitchy trigger fingers get one of them in a bit of hot water. Or when they cause a car accident.
Holding lots of innocent people at gun point, and viciously assaulting them under the pretext of finding a bad guy.
Demanding that everyone around them be unarmed.
The armored vehicles, face-hiding SWAT gear, use of weapons prohibited to you and me, protection of personal information and privacy of cops whose violations make the news... it all adds up to one thing. Cowardice.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost every action a cop takes, when interacting with non-cops, is motivated by cowardice.
This will be a self-fulfilling fear.
The more cowardly cops become (as hard as it is to believe, they probably can become more cowardly) the more real reason they will have to fear you and me.
The more innocent people who are murdered in the course of enforcing counterfeit "laws", the more people who are raped or beaten during a "routine traffic stop", the more people who are held at gun point because someone else in the area shot one of those LEOs- the more people will begin to hate cops.
There is only so much abuse peaceable people will tolerate. You and I are not the problem here. Unless you, too, are a coward and support the cowardly badge thugs. The realists who see cops for what they really are will probably never be a majority- too many copsuckers out there. But it won't take a majority. And then the cops can point to the incidents as justification- claim their cowardice isn't cowardice, but prudence.
Added: And don't forget the reasons I don't like cops, and roll my eyes at those who do.
Also: Mor on cops
.
This isn't just my opinion- there is plenty of evidence.
"Officer safety" being a giant neon sign, flashing in our faces every time one of those anointed cowards must face one of us, declaring in plain language just exactly how cowardly they all truly are.
But there are other clear signs, even if they all have "officer safety", physical or financial, at their root:
Hiding behind their gang anytime their twitchy trigger fingers get one of them in a bit of hot water. Or when they cause a car accident.
Holding lots of innocent people at gun point, and viciously assaulting them under the pretext of finding a bad guy.
Demanding that everyone around them be unarmed.
The armored vehicles, face-hiding SWAT gear, use of weapons prohibited to you and me, protection of personal information and privacy of cops whose violations make the news... it all adds up to one thing. Cowardice.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost every action a cop takes, when interacting with non-cops, is motivated by cowardice.
This will be a self-fulfilling fear.
The more cowardly cops become (as hard as it is to believe, they probably can become more cowardly) the more real reason they will have to fear you and me.
The more innocent people who are murdered in the course of enforcing counterfeit "laws", the more people who are raped or beaten during a "routine traffic stop", the more people who are held at gun point because someone else in the area shot one of those LEOs- the more people will begin to hate cops.
There is only so much abuse peaceable people will tolerate. You and I are not the problem here. Unless you, too, are a coward and support the cowardly badge thugs. The realists who see cops for what they really are will probably never be a majority- too many copsuckers out there. But it won't take a majority. And then the cops can point to the incidents as justification- claim their cowardice isn't cowardice, but prudence.
Added: And don't forget the reasons I don't like cops, and roll my eyes at those who do.
Also: Mor on cops
.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Obama's personal corpse collection
Someone else in the house was just watching a program about a kid with a terrible condition (primordial dwarfism) which usually results in death. One of the related problems is brain aneurysms which needs an MRI to diagnose, but she lives in Great Britain, with their socialized medical "care" that we are all supposed to be so envious of... and the government employees tasked with rationing medical services say she isn't eligible for an MRI because of her age.
So she'll probably die early because some bureaucrat - or a whole flock of them- is doing to health care in the UK what ObamaCare is plotting to do to health care in America.
And socialized medicine is SO wonderful.... "Free health care!" "Shouldn't America provide health care like all the other First World countries do?" "Why do you hate sick people who can't afford health care?"
The corpses will begin to pile up as soon as this "system" goes into effect. Just as they have everywhere else that socialized heath "care" has been imposed. Regardless of the lies told by the advocates of socialism.
Those deaths will be blood on the hands of every government employee who advocates this disaster, and on every congresscritter who just "went along" to appear to be "reasonable". And on every opinionator who parrots the socialist, collectivist lies that make socialized "medicine" seem anything other than barbaric.
Maybe we should start referring to corpses as "ObamaSpawn".
Separation of science, especially medicine, and state!
.
So she'll probably die early because some bureaucrat - or a whole flock of them- is doing to health care in the UK what ObamaCare is plotting to do to health care in America.
And socialized medicine is SO wonderful.... "Free health care!" "Shouldn't America provide health care like all the other First World countries do?" "Why do you hate sick people who can't afford health care?"
The corpses will begin to pile up as soon as this "system" goes into effect. Just as they have everywhere else that socialized heath "care" has been imposed. Regardless of the lies told by the advocates of socialism.
Those deaths will be blood on the hands of every government employee who advocates this disaster, and on every congresscritter who just "went along" to appear to be "reasonable". And on every opinionator who parrots the socialist, collectivist lies that make socialized "medicine" seem anything other than barbaric.
Maybe we should start referring to corpses as "ObamaSpawn".
Separation of science, especially medicine, and state!
.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Appearance of non-compliance
Have you ever noticed all the ridiculous "laws" that are passed when people find ways around the previous "laws"? Or, when the previous "laws" fail to do as advertised? Or, when it's more profitable to fine people than to reward the change in behavior that was the excuse for passing the "law" to begin with?
What am I talking about? "Laws" such as ...
Banning electronic "cigarettes".
Ticketing people for "rolling through" a stop sign.
Just for a couple of examples.
It's not about health or safety- it's about compliance. Rather, it's about stopping the appearance of non-compliance. And, it's about using that appearance of non-compliance as a way to steal even more money from even more people. It's the work of disgustingly evil people. From those who clamor for the "laws", to those who agree with them. And those who write the "laws", pass the "laws", and- ultimately- to the worthless maggot fodder who enforces those "laws".
.
What am I talking about? "Laws" such as ...
Banning electronic "cigarettes".
Ticketing people for "rolling through" a stop sign.
Just for a couple of examples.
It's not about health or safety- it's about compliance. Rather, it's about stopping the appearance of non-compliance. And, it's about using that appearance of non-compliance as a way to steal even more money from even more people. It's the work of disgustingly evil people. From those who clamor for the "laws", to those who agree with them. And those who write the "laws", pass the "laws", and- ultimately- to the worthless maggot fodder who enforces those "laws".
.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Signing up with ObamaCare
Do you plan on signing up for ObamaCare?
To me it seems another example of "easier to avoid than to get out of".
Just think what would have happened if people had simply refused, in droves, to sign up for "driver's licenses" back when that was the new government demand.
Or, if most people had simply refused to file "tax" forms with the IRS, and most employers had ignored the demands to withhold "taxes" from their employees.
Now that both of those abominations are old news, long established "traditions", refusing to go along is "radical", and scary to most people. ObamaCare- if it survives- will be the same way. I'm thinking it will be easier to "neglect" to be pulled into the system than it would be to get out once you submit.
I'm not suggesting you announce your intentions publicly, but that you just think about what your choice will be.
.
To me it seems another example of "easier to avoid than to get out of".
Just think what would have happened if people had simply refused, in droves, to sign up for "driver's licenses" back when that was the new government demand.
Or, if most people had simply refused to file "tax" forms with the IRS, and most employers had ignored the demands to withhold "taxes" from their employees.
Now that both of those abominations are old news, long established "traditions", refusing to go along is "radical", and scary to most people. ObamaCare- if it survives- will be the same way. I'm thinking it will be easier to "neglect" to be pulled into the system than it would be to get out once you submit.
I'm not suggesting you announce your intentions publicly, but that you just think about what your choice will be.
.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Rose Wilder Lane in 2013
I've mentioned that I have been reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I just finished it. It's a great book, and I highly recommend it.
It is a very optimistic book. More so than history has shown was justified.
If I could travel freely through time I would love to go back and get Rose (she was quite a hottie!) and bring her back with me to 2013 and show her around, then get her take on what has happened.
She called the belief in authority a pagan superstition, but then she believed that the US Constitution would prevent - well, America in 2013- from ever happening, because of "the people". She thought they would never permit it. I think this is clearly another superstition, pagan or otherwise.
Near the end of the book she spoke of the tragedy of compulsory schooling (I refuse to call the indoctrination "education"). She knew it was anti-liberty and dangerous. Did she know how bad it would turn out to be? I wonder if she'd be surprised at how thoroughly its application has eliminated the expectation of freedom from most of its victims' minds. I also wonder if she'd be shocked that freedom wasn't the only casualty, but that literacy (in all areas) has been severely compromised as well.
The Constitution failed to do as she was confident it would. Few Americans know what freedom and liberty are anymore, and fewer still wish to be "burdened" with them. The pagan belief in "authority" seems to be back with a vengeance, and America's Rulers are pursuing a global empire, not of freedom, but of socialism and aggression.
It would be truly interesting to see if she'd still have the optimism she displayed in the book, or if she'd be looking beyond the next phase of the Revolution for hope.
.
It is a very optimistic book. More so than history has shown was justified.
If I could travel freely through time I would love to go back and get Rose (she was quite a hottie!) and bring her back with me to 2013 and show her around, then get her take on what has happened.
She called the belief in authority a pagan superstition, but then she believed that the US Constitution would prevent - well, America in 2013- from ever happening, because of "the people". She thought they would never permit it. I think this is clearly another superstition, pagan or otherwise.
Near the end of the book she spoke of the tragedy of compulsory schooling (I refuse to call the indoctrination "education"). She knew it was anti-liberty and dangerous. Did she know how bad it would turn out to be? I wonder if she'd be surprised at how thoroughly its application has eliminated the expectation of freedom from most of its victims' minds. I also wonder if she'd be shocked that freedom wasn't the only casualty, but that literacy (in all areas) has been severely compromised as well.
The Constitution failed to do as she was confident it would. Few Americans know what freedom and liberty are anymore, and fewer still wish to be "burdened" with them. The pagan belief in "authority" seems to be back with a vengeance, and America's Rulers are pursuing a global empire, not of freedom, but of socialism and aggression.
It would be truly interesting to see if she'd still have the optimism she displayed in the book, or if she'd be looking beyond the next phase of the Revolution for hope.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)