The armed and badged New Mexico wildlife thieves (backed up by other gangs of LEOs) were setting up checkpoints yesterday, to try to catch folks who dared take "wild" food without their permission. I had the unfortunate experience of having to pass through their Nazi-esque checkpoint as I crossed the state line. I hadn't been hunting or fishing, and I think it was obvious I hadn't been, so I didn't have much extra trouble, besides being delayed and having to speak to the tax addicts, but I hate talking to these parasites.
All over something as imaginary as "poaching", or harvesting the "wrong" game, I suppose.
A thief claims property that is not his to claim, and in many cases backs that claim with the threat (or the actuality) of violence. It's what is behind most cases of theft-by-state-employee. They let you do the work to get the property, then they take it at gunpoint- claiming it was theirs all along. And rob you of your tools and money, as well. And possibly kidnap you. And murder you if you resist.
The wildlife doesn't belong to anyone in "government", nor to some nebulous "public". There is no such thing as "poaching" unless you are trespassing on private property and taking the game that is there. Even in that case your offense doesn't involve "the state" in any way; only the property owner you have violated. Let him deal with you as he sees fit.
I should never be put in a position to "need" to speak to an enforcer- unless, perhaps, I am attacking or stealing. In fact, peaceable individuals should be able to live their entire lives without ever having to see or speak to a government employee at all- without ever even being aware these people exist, in fact. I am absolutely sick to death of being put in the position of having to be civil to people who are a mortal threat to me and my daughter. Every time a cop stops a peaceable person, the cop deserves to be shot and killed. Every single time. Think I'm being overly sensitive? Consider: every interaction between an enforcer and you is a gamble that you are on the losing side of. The "house" always has the advantage at this point in history, and if you keep playing you WILL lose. As the police state ramps up, more and more things will be excuses to stop and search and kidnap and rob. And "officer safety" will excuse your murder as long as the cowardly cops say you scared them.
The lack of effective resistance thus far just emboldens these vermin.
I'm not saying killing every cop that stops you is a smart thing to do at this point in time- it's not, because they have a bigger gang and still have most people brainwashed into believing they are the "good guys"- but it wouldn't be wrong. Not anymore. It is self defense, plain and simple. That's the sad reality of the unfortunate times and the police state I find myself living in. The cops should change their ways before the risks of civil interactions outweigh the risks of violent resistance for the average person. Because it IS heading that direction quickly.
.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
"... and with $100 you get this $2 totebag..."
Except that you don't actually get a totebag in this case.
I could use at least $10 if anyone is feeling so inclined today. If not, that's perfectly understandable. As always, your family comes first and I would never want anyone to have any hardship because of donating to me.
Thanks.
.
I could use at least $10 if anyone is feeling so inclined today. If not, that's perfectly understandable. As always, your family comes first and I would never want anyone to have any hardship because of donating to me.
Thanks.
.
American facts approved by the US government
I was laughing at the "facts" about North Korea that the North Korean "government" morons promote- and then, in the midst of the laughter I started thinking about the "facts" the US "government" morons promote. You know, stuff like:
"The USA is the freest country in the world."
"Soldiers give you your freedom."
"The Civil War was fought over slavery."
"Cops are heroes."
"Taxes are necessary and refusing to pay makes you a criminal."
"Without government schools you would be illiterate and ignorant."
"Government created the internet."
"The US troops in all those other countries are there to help the people there be safe and free."
"Voting matters and is important."
"Rights come from the Constitution and are all subject to reasonable restrictions, and can be cancelled in emergencies."
"Respect the office, if not the man."
"Without government, no one could stop you from murdering or being murdered."
"Prohibition is good and necessary."
...and balderdash of that sort. I guess every criminal gang has its own ideas it tries to brainwash into others.
.
"The USA is the freest country in the world."
"Soldiers give you your freedom."
"The Civil War was fought over slavery."
"Cops are heroes."
"Taxes are necessary and refusing to pay makes you a criminal."
"Without government schools you would be illiterate and ignorant."
"Government created the internet."
"The US troops in all those other countries are there to help the people there be safe and free."
"Voting matters and is important."
"Rights come from the Constitution and are all subject to reasonable restrictions, and can be cancelled in emergencies."
"Respect the office, if not the man."
"Without government, no one could stop you from murdering or being murdered."
"Prohibition is good and necessary."
...and balderdash of that sort. I guess every criminal gang has its own ideas it tries to brainwash into others.
.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Politics or reality?
"More guns" isn't a political thing- it's a sensible, safety thing.
Getting (or "requiring") permits for those guns, now that's a political thing. One I find disturbing.
.
Getting (or "requiring") permits for those guns, now that's a political thing. One I find disturbing.
.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Disarm the military!
Yes, seriously.
You and I know the Second Amendment was intended to be a protection from a tyrannical US government. Yes, as uncomfortable as the truth makes some people, that means shooting and killing politicians and "troops" (including, now, cops) when they become a threat to rightful liberty* (as they all are now), and when they refuse to stand down when facing "citizens" and free individuals (as they do every day).
But the anti-liberty bigots like to say that even if this were the case, you and I, with our hunting rifles, shotguns, Glocks, and 1911s could never defeat the US military with its fully-automatic weaponry, missiles, bombs, jets, helicopters and unlimited amounts of ammunition.
Maybe... although it only takes one well-placed .22 round to make that superior weaponry change ownership... correction: to liberate it from the thief's agent and give it back to the true owner who paid for it in the first place.
Anyway, assuming the claim that "resistance is futile" is true, it means the Second Amendment has a subtext that has been ignored and needs to be rediscovered.
It means the military must be disarmed until they are no longer a threat to individuals intent on restoring liberty. They must be rendered technologically inferior to deer hunters and farmers and inner city gangbangers. All the weaponry which has made the military a superior fighting force must be distributed among the people who paid for it.
This would end the empire-building and make you and me safer by ending the ongoing terrorist recruitment campaigns; the US military actions around the planet. And, if a real external threat ever cropped up again- as unlikely as that is- I'd gladly either take up arms myself or hand my "military weapons" over to someone who would.
.
*"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ~ Thomas Jefferson
.
You and I know the Second Amendment was intended to be a protection from a tyrannical US government. Yes, as uncomfortable as the truth makes some people, that means shooting and killing politicians and "troops" (including, now, cops) when they become a threat to rightful liberty* (as they all are now), and when they refuse to stand down when facing "citizens" and free individuals (as they do every day).
But the anti-liberty bigots like to say that even if this were the case, you and I, with our hunting rifles, shotguns, Glocks, and 1911s could never defeat the US military with its fully-automatic weaponry, missiles, bombs, jets, helicopters and unlimited amounts of ammunition.
Maybe... although it only takes one well-placed .22 round to make that superior weaponry change ownership... correction: to liberate it from the thief's agent and give it back to the true owner who paid for it in the first place.
Anyway, assuming the claim that "resistance is futile" is true, it means the Second Amendment has a subtext that has been ignored and needs to be rediscovered.
It means the military must be disarmed until they are no longer a threat to individuals intent on restoring liberty. They must be rendered technologically inferior to deer hunters and farmers and inner city gangbangers. All the weaponry which has made the military a superior fighting force must be distributed among the people who paid for it.
This would end the empire-building and make you and me safer by ending the ongoing terrorist recruitment campaigns; the US military actions around the planet. And, if a real external threat ever cropped up again- as unlikely as that is- I'd gladly either take up arms myself or hand my "military weapons" over to someone who would.
.
*"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ~ Thomas Jefferson
.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
"Guaranteed minimum income"?
If there were a "guaranteed minimum income" it would quickly become the new zero.
Then, someone would demand the minimum be increased. Again and again.
Why are "smart" people too dumb to see this?
.
Then, someone would demand the minimum be increased. Again and again.
Why are "smart" people too dumb to see this?
.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Wage hikes feel good, solve little
Wage hikes feel good, solve little
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 8, 2013)
I have seen many well-meaning people calling for an increase in the "minimum wage" as a way to fight poverty. If only it were that simple. How much do you raise it? To $100 per hour? More?
Unfortunately, economics doesn't work that way. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the fewer people a business can afford to employ. Many people will be priced out of a job altogether.
A higher minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, which means prices will have to go up or businesses will close. Employees getting the new minimum wage will soon be facing proportionally higher prices for everything they buy- completely negating any benefit they thought they were getting, thus creating a vicious cycle.
The economy isn't a pie; it's a pie that can grow exponentially. A dollar someone else pockets doesn't necessarily take a dollar out of your pocket, unless that dollar is gained through theft or coercion.
Many CEOs are paid a ridiculously inflated amount, but the solution isn't to raise the "minimum wage", it's to eliminate the fiction of the corporation, and get government OUT of the "business" of controlling business. That includes completely eliminating "minimum wages". When businesses are privately owned, but are told by government how they can operate, what they must pay, how much they can charge for their services, and are forced to pay a percentage to the State, that is the socialist economic system properly called "fascism".
But what if the "minimum wage" had simply kept up with the cost of living? Wouldn't that solve everything?
If the minimum wage had "kept up" with the cost of living, unemployment and inflation would have been proportionally higher all along. The reason the cost of living keeps rising is the devaluation- the counterfeiting- of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Strike at the root of the problem, not the side effects.
Even a minimum wage of $100 per hour or more wouldn't make everyone happy. If the average person brought home the same amount as a vastly overpaid CEO, or what the average plastic surgeon makes, it wouldn't be long before everything cost many times what it costs now. That's just a basic law of economics- supply and demand, and the ability to produce enough to meet demand without a free market. The same number of items will always be out of reach of the average person, no matter how high you make the minimum (or average) wage.
Don't fall for the feel-good solutions which solve nothing.
I have seen many well-meaning people calling for an increase in the "minimum wage" as a way to fight poverty. If only it were that simple. How much do you raise it? To $100 per hour? More?
Unfortunately, economics doesn't work that way. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the fewer people a business can afford to employ. Many people will be priced out of a job altogether.
A higher minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, which means prices will have to go up or businesses will close. Employees getting the new minimum wage will soon be facing proportionally higher prices for everything they buy- completely negating any benefit they thought they were getting, thus creating a vicious cycle.
The economy isn't a pie; it's a pie that can grow exponentially. A dollar someone else pockets doesn't necessarily take a dollar out of your pocket, unless that dollar is gained through theft or coercion.
Many CEOs are paid a ridiculously inflated amount, but the solution isn't to raise the "minimum wage", it's to eliminate the fiction of the corporation, and get government OUT of the "business" of controlling business. That includes completely eliminating "minimum wages". When businesses are privately owned, but are told by government how they can operate, what they must pay, how much they can charge for their services, and are forced to pay a percentage to the State, that is the socialist economic system properly called "fascism".
But what if the "minimum wage" had simply kept up with the cost of living? Wouldn't that solve everything?
If the minimum wage had "kept up" with the cost of living, unemployment and inflation would have been proportionally higher all along. The reason the cost of living keeps rising is the devaluation- the counterfeiting- of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Strike at the root of the problem, not the side effects.
Even a minimum wage of $100 per hour or more wouldn't make everyone happy. If the average person brought home the same amount as a vastly overpaid CEO, or what the average plastic surgeon makes, it wouldn't be long before everything cost many times what it costs now. That's just a basic law of economics- supply and demand, and the ability to produce enough to meet demand without a free market. The same number of items will always be out of reach of the average person, no matter how high you make the minimum (or average) wage.
Don't fall for the feel-good solutions which solve nothing.
.
Which would you be?
Warlords and Protectors.
That is what many guys naturally tend toward. They are just opposite sides of the same coin, I think.
Every statist seems to worry that everyone inclined in this way will become a Warlord if the State collapses, but wouldn't more people choose to become Protectors when freed of the silly notion that "that's government's responsibility"?
If that's the kind of person I was, I would certainly get more satisfaction out of coming to the rescue than I would subjugating others to my will.
Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?
.
That is what many guys naturally tend toward. They are just opposite sides of the same coin, I think.
Every statist seems to worry that everyone inclined in this way will become a Warlord if the State collapses, but wouldn't more people choose to become Protectors when freed of the silly notion that "that's government's responsibility"?
If that's the kind of person I was, I would certainly get more satisfaction out of coming to the rescue than I would subjugating others to my will.
Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?
.
Monday, December 09, 2013
Josie the Outlaw
Nice!
I'm sure you have probably already discovered her videos... but if you are one of the unfortunates who has somehow missed out, check her out. And share her videos with statists who might just want to see a hot anarchist.
Her website is here: JosieTheOutlaw.com/
.
I'm sure you have probably already discovered her videos... but if you are one of the unfortunates who has somehow missed out, check her out. And share her videos with statists who might just want to see a hot anarchist.
Her website is here: JosieTheOutlaw.com/
.
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Christmas colors: Red and Bluish Yellow
"Bluish yellow? You mean 'green'?"
"Oh, I don't like labels."
Labels exist for good reason. They can help people communicate when used correctly. They can also prevent communication when used incorrectly. If you call green "blue" your message is getting muddled.
If you call a conservative or a socialist "libertarian" you are not communicating, you are confusing. Yet major "news" sources are doing this all the time. So much, in fact, that it is probably intentional.
Be annoying. Correct them relentlessly.
.
"Oh, I don't like labels."
Labels exist for good reason. They can help people communicate when used correctly. They can also prevent communication when used incorrectly. If you call green "blue" your message is getting muddled.
If you call a conservative or a socialist "libertarian" you are not communicating, you are confusing. Yet major "news" sources are doing this all the time. So much, in fact, that it is probably intentional.
Be annoying. Correct them relentlessly.
.
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Things left unsaid...
Any subject I address- for my CNJ columns in particular- ends up being necessarily abbreviated. I am limited to "around 400 words". Take my recent column, on people being forced to work on Thanksgiving, for example.
I had to stick with a narrow peek at one aspect of all the possible things that are related in some way to the topic. I couldn't really go into the nationalization of the holiday by Lincoln. I couldn't go into whether a day set aside for being thankful really makes sense, or whether it is necessary to believe in the supernatural to feel a sense of thankfulness.
I didn't address whether holidays are silly collectivist nonsense, or a necessary diversion for humans.
I didn't have time to address every detail of whether it makes a difference if you work for a corporation or a small family business.
I didn't go into the whole load of myth and misinformation that has grown up around "The First Thanksgiving Day" and pilgrims and "indians", or "the evils of industrial farming techniques", or whether eating meat is ethical or healthy, or... well, lots of other things that certain individuals out there feel are important to tackle every time the issue of "Thanksgiving Day" is discussed. And that's just on the Thanksgiving side of it. Anything anyone writes on a subject is going to ignore more than it addresses. That's just reality.
As hard as it is for me- and it really is difficult- I have to focus on a tiny part of all the potential tangents I could explore anytime I write on anything.
And it seems that some people always manage to mention what I didn't address rather than focus on what I did. Which is fine. More can always be discussed in the comments. Right?
But, maybe that's not enough. Blogs are free to set up. Whatever you feel is not being addressed by others may be calling to YOU to address it. Start writing. If I can do it, you can, too.
.
I had to stick with a narrow peek at one aspect of all the possible things that are related in some way to the topic. I couldn't really go into the nationalization of the holiday by Lincoln. I couldn't go into whether a day set aside for being thankful really makes sense, or whether it is necessary to believe in the supernatural to feel a sense of thankfulness.
I didn't address whether holidays are silly collectivist nonsense, or a necessary diversion for humans.
I didn't have time to address every detail of whether it makes a difference if you work for a corporation or a small family business.
I didn't go into the whole load of myth and misinformation that has grown up around "The First Thanksgiving Day" and pilgrims and "indians", or "the evils of industrial farming techniques", or whether eating meat is ethical or healthy, or... well, lots of other things that certain individuals out there feel are important to tackle every time the issue of "Thanksgiving Day" is discussed. And that's just on the Thanksgiving side of it. Anything anyone writes on a subject is going to ignore more than it addresses. That's just reality.
As hard as it is for me- and it really is difficult- I have to focus on a tiny part of all the potential tangents I could explore anytime I write on anything.
And it seems that some people always manage to mention what I didn't address rather than focus on what I did. Which is fine. More can always be discussed in the comments. Right?
But, maybe that's not enough. Blogs are free to set up. Whatever you feel is not being addressed by others may be calling to YOU to address it. Start writing. If I can do it, you can, too.
.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
"Hit and Run"- wrong but understandable
A strange question entered my mind after hearing about a friend who was hit in a "hit and run" accident recently.
Were there as many hit and runs before cops started making every accident into a criminal case?
I would bet there were not. I might be wrong, but I can see why people might now flee after an accident. Maybe there are some residual substances which the authoriturds criminalize in their bloodstream. Perhaps some mandated papers are missing or expired. Perhaps the driver or a passenger is "in the system" for some other infraction and an encounter with enforcers would be too costly.
And, that's besides the fact that now, in every accident, the enforcers will find a way to turn it into a "crime" and extort money from someone. Not money for the injured party as in restitution, but for their leash-holders of The State. It's what they show up for.
Sometimes accidents are just accidents. Tragedies don't need to be used to prop up the flailing police state. If I have an accident, I feel awful enough (just like when I dropped my mom's whole chocolate pie on the floor the other day). I don't need anyone to inflict extra pain on me in order to "teach me a lesson", or to finance the cowardly enforcers' retirement fund. Nor do I want enforcers doing that to other people on my behalf. Get a clue- people who don't feel bad for causing an accident don't magically change for the better because you turn them into criminals and steal some of their property for the State.
Go away, enforcer. Society can't afford to support you any more.
.
Were there as many hit and runs before cops started making every accident into a criminal case?
I would bet there were not. I might be wrong, but I can see why people might now flee after an accident. Maybe there are some residual substances which the authoriturds criminalize in their bloodstream. Perhaps some mandated papers are missing or expired. Perhaps the driver or a passenger is "in the system" for some other infraction and an encounter with enforcers would be too costly.
And, that's besides the fact that now, in every accident, the enforcers will find a way to turn it into a "crime" and extort money from someone. Not money for the injured party as in restitution, but for their leash-holders of The State. It's what they show up for.
Sometimes accidents are just accidents. Tragedies don't need to be used to prop up the flailing police state. If I have an accident, I feel awful enough (just like when I dropped my mom's whole chocolate pie on the floor the other day). I don't need anyone to inflict extra pain on me in order to "teach me a lesson", or to finance the cowardly enforcers' retirement fund. Nor do I want enforcers doing that to other people on my behalf. Get a clue- people who don't feel bad for causing an accident don't magically change for the better because you turn them into criminals and steal some of their property for the State.
Go away, enforcer. Society can't afford to support you any more.
.
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Dreaming of riches
The weird dreams I sometimes have... the ones I can mention in nice company (or even among outlaws like myself), I mean.
A few days ago I dreamed Bitcoin was at $2077 and someone donated 20 of them to me. Of course, in my dream, my mathematical abilities were on par with my waking mathematical ability, and I figured it totaled million$.
Yes, in the past I have also dreamed of cash, precious metals, and other treasures falling into my lap, so this is just a new version of the same old dream.
But, speaking of Bitcoin... I really am amused at the people having conniptions over other people choosing to use Bitcoin. Personally, I will use FRNs, silver, gold, Bitcoin, or trade goods to get what I want or need. And I have used each and every one of those forms of "money" at various times. I won't accept payment I don't want, and I would never expect anyone else to, either.
I don't totally understand how Bitcoins are mined or created, because that involves math and programming- 2 things I am not great at and don't have the ambition (or time) to really practice. But, I am not an expert on gold mining and refining and minting, either. That doesn't make me scared of gold. Yes, I wish I had bought a bunch of gold when it was really cheap, but I'm not going to insult people who own gold simply because they have more than I do.
I was highly amused when the story broke where the expert was calling Bitcoin a "Ponzi scheme". By making that association he is lending a lot of undeserved legitimacy to actual Ponzi schemes (even the "participate at gunpoint" Ponzi scheme called "Social Security").
I never started accepting Bitcoin in order to get rich. Or even to profit from having them. I did it to have another monetary option available to myself. It has worked and I am satisfied with that option.
If you don't like Bitcoin, I have a link on the side that will allow you to get rid of the ones you might have.
.
A few days ago I dreamed Bitcoin was at $2077 and someone donated 20 of them to me. Of course, in my dream, my mathematical abilities were on par with my waking mathematical ability, and I figured it totaled million$.
Yes, in the past I have also dreamed of cash, precious metals, and other treasures falling into my lap, so this is just a new version of the same old dream.
But, speaking of Bitcoin... I really am amused at the people having conniptions over other people choosing to use Bitcoin. Personally, I will use FRNs, silver, gold, Bitcoin, or trade goods to get what I want or need. And I have used each and every one of those forms of "money" at various times. I won't accept payment I don't want, and I would never expect anyone else to, either.
I don't totally understand how Bitcoins are mined or created, because that involves math and programming- 2 things I am not great at and don't have the ambition (or time) to really practice. But, I am not an expert on gold mining and refining and minting, either. That doesn't make me scared of gold. Yes, I wish I had bought a bunch of gold when it was really cheap, but I'm not going to insult people who own gold simply because they have more than I do.
I was highly amused when the story broke where the expert was calling Bitcoin a "Ponzi scheme". By making that association he is lending a lot of undeserved legitimacy to actual Ponzi schemes (even the "participate at gunpoint" Ponzi scheme called "Social Security").
I never started accepting Bitcoin in order to get rich. Or even to profit from having them. I did it to have another monetary option available to myself. It has worked and I am satisfied with that option.
If you don't like Bitcoin, I have a link on the side that will allow you to get rid of the ones you might have.
.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Never confuse theft with charity
Never confuse theft with charity
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 1, 2013 -in the Portales News-Tribune this time)
I'm as far from being a Republican as I am from being a Democrat: as far as east is from west. But when I see misguided criticisms and flawed comparisons aimed at the wrong target, I feel the need to address it.
Recently I witnessed someone scolding Republicans for their "opposition to socialism", as demonstrated by their use of the ObamaCare boondoggle for political theatrics. "Opposed to socialism"? Republicans are enthusiastic socialists in most everything they advocate- but their favorite programs differ from those of the Democrats, therein dwells the friction.
This particular Democrat was claiming that Jesus was a socialist, as evidenced by his handing out free medical care, food, and other such necessities, therefore Republicans shouldn't be so hostile to socialism. But there's a gaping hole in this comparison, overlooked by the commenter.
Socialists' "generosity" comes through giving away things that didn't belong to them to begin with, and were not voluntarily given to be handed out. In other words, socialists steal from others and then feel superior when they distribute the stolen property. Never confuse theft with charity. You can't be generous with other people's money, time, or labor, but only with your own. When you try to do so, you are just a common thief.
Any way you look at it, that's not nice.
If theft was one of the virtues advocated by Jesus, I must have missed that part.
Anytime you take something that doesn't belong to you, against the wishes of its rightful owner, you are stealing. Even if you promise to use that property for good. Even if you say the victim of your theft is getting some necessity in return. Even if you make the claim that the person has implicitly consented through some non-voluntary "social contract". It doesn't matter if your uses for that property are "progressive" or "conservative". Once again, it comes down to the difference between sharing and being robbed.
Go ahead and advocate whatever policies or programs you like, but don't pretend those you look up to would have supported whichever Big Government welfare program you happen to love, in an attempt to make your position seem moral.
That applies to those who would claim he would have supported the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, the War on Terror, torture, immigration control, government schools, police checkpoints, NSA spying, or anti-gun laws. In this case you are clearly misrepresenting everything he stood for. What was that about "bearing false witness"?
I'm as far from being a Republican as I am from being a Democrat: as far as east is from west. But when I see misguided criticisms and flawed comparisons aimed at the wrong target, I feel the need to address it.
Recently I witnessed someone scolding Republicans for their "opposition to socialism", as demonstrated by their use of the ObamaCare boondoggle for political theatrics. "Opposed to socialism"? Republicans are enthusiastic socialists in most everything they advocate- but their favorite programs differ from those of the Democrats, therein dwells the friction.
This particular Democrat was claiming that Jesus was a socialist, as evidenced by his handing out free medical care, food, and other such necessities, therefore Republicans shouldn't be so hostile to socialism. But there's a gaping hole in this comparison, overlooked by the commenter.
Socialists' "generosity" comes through giving away things that didn't belong to them to begin with, and were not voluntarily given to be handed out. In other words, socialists steal from others and then feel superior when they distribute the stolen property. Never confuse theft with charity. You can't be generous with other people's money, time, or labor, but only with your own. When you try to do so, you are just a common thief.
Any way you look at it, that's not nice.
If theft was one of the virtues advocated by Jesus, I must have missed that part.
Anytime you take something that doesn't belong to you, against the wishes of its rightful owner, you are stealing. Even if you promise to use that property for good. Even if you say the victim of your theft is getting some necessity in return. Even if you make the claim that the person has implicitly consented through some non-voluntary "social contract". It doesn't matter if your uses for that property are "progressive" or "conservative". Once again, it comes down to the difference between sharing and being robbed.
Go ahead and advocate whatever policies or programs you like, but don't pretend those you look up to would have supported whichever Big Government welfare program you happen to love, in an attempt to make your position seem moral.
That applies to those who would claim he would have supported the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, the War on Terror, torture, immigration control, government schools, police checkpoints, NSA spying, or anti-gun laws. In this case you are clearly misrepresenting everything he stood for. What was that about "bearing false witness"?
.
Nice cops
Everytime I speak the truth about cops, someone will object and tell me "there are good cops!"
No. There are not.
As I saw someone say a while back- and I wish I could remember where I saw it and who said it- there are "nice cops", but no "good cops".
A "nice cop" is one who treats you in a non-cop manner. Who holds the door for women, stops to help a stranded traveler, gives a thirsty dog a drink. Things any of us would do if we are decent people. He is nice because of who he is, and what he is doing at the moment, not because of what his job might be.
But, that same "nice cop", as soon as he enforces ONE counterfeit "law" is no longer a good person. He is being a cop. He might still do "nice" things while on the job, but the overwhelming majority of that "job" is inflicting evil upon people.
Most bad guys can't spend all their time being evil. It's too much work and would cripple their ability to live among friends and family- if they could even keep friends and family. They have to be nice to those around them most of the time, no matter what they do when they target those they consider to be "other" or "less-human". Because of this fact, you can have nice mobsters, nice muggers, and nice rapists, but none of them can be "good".
And neither can any cop. The "job" eliminates that possibility completely.
.
No. There are not.
As I saw someone say a while back- and I wish I could remember where I saw it and who said it- there are "nice cops", but no "good cops".
A "nice cop" is one who treats you in a non-cop manner. Who holds the door for women, stops to help a stranded traveler, gives a thirsty dog a drink. Things any of us would do if we are decent people. He is nice because of who he is, and what he is doing at the moment, not because of what his job might be.
But, that same "nice cop", as soon as he enforces ONE counterfeit "law" is no longer a good person. He is being a cop. He might still do "nice" things while on the job, but the overwhelming majority of that "job" is inflicting evil upon people.
Most bad guys can't spend all their time being evil. It's too much work and would cripple their ability to live among friends and family- if they could even keep friends and family. They have to be nice to those around them most of the time, no matter what they do when they target those they consider to be "other" or "less-human". Because of this fact, you can have nice mobsters, nice muggers, and nice rapists, but none of them can be "good".
And neither can any cop. The "job" eliminates that possibility completely.
.
Monday, December 02, 2013
Don't add what you don't need
A week or so ago an online friend (you know who you are) was relating a conversation he had with someone else- trying to explain that refrigeration systems don't "make cold", they remove heat, and then he mentioned that this is similar to what liberty is.
It isn't so much "something" as a lack of something: liberty is the lack of tyranny, or coercion, or whatever you want to call it.
Why on earth would anyone want "Life, now with added tyranny!"?
.
It isn't so much "something" as a lack of something: liberty is the lack of tyranny, or coercion, or whatever you want to call it.
Why on earth would anyone want "Life, now with added tyranny!"?
.
Sunday, December 01, 2013
Can't blame a thug for trying
You can have opposing sides in an encounter both be right- even if one is otherwise wrong.
An extreme example: imagine you lived during or just before WWII in Germany, and you happened to be present as Hitler was issuing orders to kill some innocent person. You would have been right to shoot Hitler, if you'd gotten the chance at that moment, and he would have been right to violently defend himself from your attempt. I would hope you came out victorious, but I wouldn't blame Hitler for shooting you in self defense. It would be silly to fault a person for that.
No one is obligated to just sit there and be killed. No one can "lose" a right, such as the right to defend yourself. Not even by violating the same right in others.
It seems odd to me when that's what I think people are advocating. It's why "resisting arrest" is such a stupid concept for a "crime". It's why I would like to see the next death row inmate who is being lead to his execution lash out and kill a few of the prison employees before being shot to death in the hallway. If you're going to die, die like a man.
Sure, I always prefer the bad guy to be the one who loses, and if I'm involved in a violent attack I'd probably rather my attacker let me shoot him without fighting back, but I could never blame him for trying.
.
An extreme example: imagine you lived during or just before WWII in Germany, and you happened to be present as Hitler was issuing orders to kill some innocent person. You would have been right to shoot Hitler, if you'd gotten the chance at that moment, and he would have been right to violently defend himself from your attempt. I would hope you came out victorious, but I wouldn't blame Hitler for shooting you in self defense. It would be silly to fault a person for that.
No one is obligated to just sit there and be killed. No one can "lose" a right, such as the right to defend yourself. Not even by violating the same right in others.
It seems odd to me when that's what I think people are advocating. It's why "resisting arrest" is such a stupid concept for a "crime". It's why I would like to see the next death row inmate who is being lead to his execution lash out and kill a few of the prison employees before being shot to death in the hallway. If you're going to die, die like a man.
Sure, I always prefer the bad guy to be the one who loses, and if I'm involved in a violent attack I'd probably rather my attacker let me shoot him without fighting back, but I could never blame him for trying.
.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Protect the dead- eat the living?
Watching Firefly, as I often do, I am constantly coming across wise things I hadn't caught before. Or, stupid statist things that I hadn't gotten the significance of on earlier viewings.
One jumped out at me recently, when the Alliance goon said, in reference to the crew of Serenity: "Lowlife vultures, picking the flesh off the dead." As opposed to what? Lowlife thieves who eat the living with taxes and regulations, that's what.
The dead don't care if you take their stuff- they can't own anything. Funny that The State would supposedly find this more horrific than stealing from living owners- but you know they do.
.
One jumped out at me recently, when the Alliance goon said, in reference to the crew of Serenity: "Lowlife vultures, picking the flesh off the dead." As opposed to what? Lowlife thieves who eat the living with taxes and regulations, that's what.
The dead don't care if you take their stuff- they can't own anything. Funny that The State would supposedly find this more horrific than stealing from living owners- but you know they do.
.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Ah-sheh'heh
That means "Thank you" in Navaho.
Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing my posts and CNJ columns. Thank you for your support- financial, emotional, and intellectual.
Just Thank you.
.
Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing my posts and CNJ columns. Thank you for your support- financial, emotional, and intellectual.
Just Thank you.
.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Leaving a mark
Humans want to know (or at least feel) they have left some mark on the world that will outlive them.
I am happy to know I've made my mark.
I know my Time's Up flag will outlive me. Most people who use the design don't even know I designed it- and that's IF they have ever heard of me. It has taken on a life of its own. That's strangely satisfying.
I am happy to know I've made my mark.
I know my Time's Up flag will outlive me. Most people who use the design don't even know I designed it- and that's IF they have ever heard of me. It has taken on a life of its own. That's strangely satisfying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)