Your brain- use it or lose it

I just don't get it when people are so determined to stick with "the party line" that they say idiotic things just because "their side" always takes that side.

Liberals against guns is one example, as is conservatives against drugs.

Think for yourself. Weigh the arguments for yourself. Decide for yourself. Stop listening to other people as a shortcut to avoid doing what you should be doing. Stop parroting what "your side" says automatically whenever a topic comes up.

It will make you smarter.

.

Yeah, I care

Every time someone is "arrested" on drug charges, my own liberty is violated just a little bit more.

Every time someone is "arrested" on some weapons violation, my own liberty is eroded by a fraction.

Every time someone is "arrested" for "prostitution", gambling, or "tax evasion" my own liberty is being stomped on.

Every time someone is "fined" for some code violation, going faster than some arbitrary speed, for not completely stopping for 4 seconds* at a "STOP" sign, for not licensing their dog, for driving without a "license" or not having the State's tags on their car, for building or remodeling or running a business without a permit, or anything else that doesn't involve aggression or property violations, my own liberty gets chipped away.

And people ask me why I care?

How could I not care?

-

*One of my ex-wives was told by a cop who pulled her over that she didn't stop "long enough"- his claim was that she was supposed to stop for at least 4 seconds. Seriously.

.

"Don't vote and the other side wins!"

One of the biggest justifications for voting goes something like this: "The enemies of liberty always vote. If we don't vote, they win!"

Voting, and who wins, only matters if you intend to comply and obey. Their "victory" is empty unless you give it the weight of your consent. Stop it!

But, really, when both "sides" are "the other side"- neither any good for liberty- what benefit is there in voting for someone who is your enemy to a slightly lesser degree? The "other side" wins regardless. "They" always win, no matter which guy gets the office.

The people making that claim always assume one side is less dangerous to liberty than the "other side"- in the liberty-lover sphere, the "less dangerous" side being promoted is usually "conservatives" or Republicans. That hasn't been my experience, and isn't borne out by observation.

If you allow an enemy into your house because you are wrongly told it is either him or some other enemy, who is to blame when your throat is cut in the dead of the night? He is, but you share some blame for being dumb enough to let him in. Be responsible and don't invite either guy into your house. If you do, and it turns out he isn't as wonderful as you had hoped, you have no one to blame but yourself. In fact, if I were prone to thinking like a DemoCRAPublican, I might even say "if you vote, you can't complain".

Yes, some bad guy will win the election whether or not you vote. And he will impose "laws" that will violate your Rightful Liberty a little more than the previous "laws" did. Perhaps he may weaken some bad, liberty-violating "laws", too.

That stuff only matters if you let it.

You have an absolute, fundamental human right to do anything that doesn't violate the other guy's identical right. Do it and stop asking permission and stop voting for the next slave administrator.

.

"They should know better..."

Sometimes I think I'm harder on "conservatives" than I am on "liberals". That may be because I grew up around "conservatives" and I was able to see through the nonsense. I think they should know better, too. But, all too often, they refuse.

I don't really know what goes on in "liberal" social circles and families, so I can't say whether they should know better. I would hope they would be able to. They are human, and possess a physical brain, after all.

But, for all humans, the dangers of holding wrong beliefs have been greatly reduced, which makes it too safe to be stupid. That's not a good thing for the future of civilization- or the species.

But you can't make stupid people reject their stupidity. You can only control yourself. Try to pay attention and avoid being caught up in the stampede into the ravine.

.

Statist attempts to discredit the alternative

I'm sure you've heard some of these:

"Anarchists are 'useful idiots' for totalitarians."

Sure, because statism has been so successful at keeping totalitarians at bay for thousands of years.

"Anarchists are childish."

Because it's not like any backwards tribe 20,000 years ago- or any schoolyard bully today- could have come up with the bright idea of ordering others around and taking their stuff.

"Anarchists just hate everything civilization has given them."
Hmmm. The way I see it I hate The State for interfering and preventing civilization from developing even more good stuff. Society and civilization are held back by the State- every time, everywhere States arise.

If you examine a statist objection to liberty, it always falls apart quickly.

.

Everything I needed to know about life, I learned from "The Twilight Zone"

Maybe that's because I never went to kindergarten.

But, really, from The Twilight Zone I learned important things such as always have spare glasses.

And: Don't panic- the situation may not be what you believe.

Plus: Fitting in may not be the best thing.

Or: You may be the monster.

And, I also learned many of the characters made their own trouble by looking at things the wrong way. In one episode a guy has made a deal with the Devil to be immortal- and ends up facing life in prison. So he uses the "escape clause" to have a heart attack and die. That was completely pointless. He wanted life and excitement, and there was a perfect opportunity. Why not use his immortality to seek adventure in escape attempts and planning? I know, because that ruined the irony of the situation for "entertainment purposes". But, really...

.

Costco missed chance for good will

Costco missed chance for good will

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 4, 2014. Here's the background.)

Like just about everyone else around here, I was dismayed to see 58 truckloads- 950,000 jars- of perfectly good Sunland peanut butter, packaged for Costco Wholesale, go into the Clovis landfill. That is a tremendous waste.

Facilitating the sale of the bankrupt Sunland Inc. was one of the justifications given. I'm not aware of all the skulduggery required to "expedite" a bankruptcy sale of this magnitude, but if the "law" makes things like this necessary, the "law" is clearly wrong. How can laws trump common sense and still have any meaning?

There were other excuses given as well. It seems the jars had leaked some peanut oil. Was this the reason the peanut butter was rejected? If so, it seems awfully petty, especially considering the alternatives the company had.

Maybe this oil damaged the labels, and would not have appeared professional. Maybe the Costco decision makers thought the oil meant inadequately sealed jars. Perhaps Costco was worried about liability and didn't trust all the tests which indicated the peanut butter was perfectly safe. Can't a product be donated "as is", with those who accept it doing so at their own risk? I would have eaten it. Well, not all 25 tons.

Costco wouldn't even allow the peanut butter to be repackaged to remove their name from it and then donated.

I really don't know much about Costco, having never been in one. Now I will never again hear the name "Costco" without thinking of this waste.

The peanut butter was Costco's property, to be used- or not- as they wished. However, the company's choice has forever tainted the way I will view them, and if I am ever in a position to do business with Costco, I will remember the peanut butter, and I will most likely not spend my money there.

Sometimes doing something you have every right to do is not the wisest path you can take, for reasons you may not even see at the time.

Costco wasn't obligated to share their property- that would be socialism. However, they missed an opportunity for a windfall of good will and positive publicity, trading it instead for a black eye on their reputation.

If one person in the company was responsible for the decision, then that one person has single-handedly damaged the company's good name and may need to be looking for a new job soon. If the "law" gave him no choice, which seems unlikely since the peanut butter had been cleared for sale, then the law is where the blame lies. Either way, each and every one of us can pay attention to this situation and remember.

.

The price of being correct

It's a shame there has to be a price for being right when "the majority" is wrong. But, there is, so...

Since that's the case, I would rather be shunned for being right, than to be accepted for being wrong along with "the majority".

Of course, there are worse things. Worst of all is to be shunned for being wrong when "the crowd" is actually right, and being too stubborn to see it. I've probably been there, too.

.

“Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”

I admit I haven't watched this video. I may later.

I don't quite believe Ron Paul is the guru of liberty that some seem to see him as, but I do think he's better than just about anyone else who has been a part of Leviathan. How much better could he have been if he had stayed out of that gang and spent his energies in more constructive ways? I don't know, since maybe no one would have ever listened to him in that case.

Still I have often enjoyed what he had to say, even if I rolled my eyes when some statism was clinging to what he said.

Anyway, here's the video: “Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”

.

Cops, lawyers, and their child porn violations

Cops are not "special"- well, unless you are discussing the fact that a normal (or higher) IQ disqualifies applicants from police "work". Cops were never intended to have "special rights" (if such a thing could even exist)- if a "law" applies to you it also applies identically to a cop.

So, any cop (and by this I mean any enforcer working for government at any level, magically granted the "authority" to kidnap and/or murder people who break the "laws" they are enforcing) who finds and confiscates "child pornography"- as well as the court's prosecutors and judges- is also guilty of looking at and possessing it. And the state's databases which compile "child porn" for "research purposes" or for prosecutorial purposes are gigantic stashes, and everyone who works for them is guilty of possessing and distributing child porn. I don't care how they attempt to justify it, how "necessary" they claim it to be, or what kind of "safeguards" they say are in place.

Now, if a person is convinced they are doing the right thing prosecuting child porn, then they should be willing to pay the penalty that goes along with their "job". If not, they are a hypocrite.

I have a suspicion about people who go into that line of work, though. I suspect most of them are people who are drawn to child pornography and were smart enough to figure out a way to get to look at all they want, "legally". Just like child molesters are drawn to "jobs" like the TSA where they get to molest hundreds of people a day- including children and teens- and anyone who resists or objects can be "smote" with the full power of the federal gooberment.

It's why even this justification for "The State" doesn't wash with me.

And, speaking of child abuse, has anyone else noticed that the people who squawk loudest about this issue are often very enthusiastic advocates of spanking? Just one of those things I notice.

.

My favorite desert hermit

I see nothing wrong with Joel's idea of interior decorating, nor with his laundry. It all looks good to me! What do you think?

.

Day by Day- Times up May 4, 2014

Day by Day, 5-4-2014. 

(Also, Happy Star Wars Day! May the 4th be with you!)

Thanks, Chris! I think I'd like that girl... LOL

.

Is statism an admission of cowardice?

I see statism as an admission of cowardice. The excuse for some form of State (externally imposed government) always revolves around the state's armed goons protecting someone from something. And it's not even always personal. Sometimes it's the justification that "someone" must protect "someone else" from something.

On the home territory that "something" is often "drunk drivers" or "drug abusers". Or child molesters. Or "rich capitalists" and dishonest businesses. Or guns, illness, poverty... the list is endless.

Thinking "globally" that "something" is often "terrorists" or "foreign invaders" who are just waiting for any sign of weakness to come to your home and take over unless the US government keeps a standing military.

I really can't identify too well with either type of fear. It just didn't take root if anyone ever tried to implant it in my head. But, I can't blame people for what they are afraid of, either- it's not a rational decision which they made. I do feel sorry for them.

But, I can't let other people's fears rule my life.

If you are afraid of what would happen under liberty, then no one is forcing you to be free. However, I am under no obligation to pretend your fears are related to reality, either. Nor any obligation to allow you to box me in to make you feel better.

.

Differences of opinion

There are issues that sincere liberty lovers take opposite sides on. The Bundy ranch situation is one. Abortion is another.

Unfortunately I am cursed with the capacity to usually see both sides- and it's not as wonderful as it may sound.

Instead of meaning that half of the people agree with me, it often means that half of the people disagree- and angrily tell me why I am wrong and won't be satisfied until I usher in the subjugation of all humanity. But usually in all "caps"...

Even though I can see both sides, there is usually one side I settle on slightly more than the other for one reason or another. And the people on the other side do their best to shove me completely over the fence.

My suspicion is if there are sincere liberty lovers, who are smart and informed enough to make opposing points on an issue, then there probably is not enough real information to make a "right" choice. In that case, until more information is discovered, we'll just have to disagree. It would be better to concentrate on the things that aren't under dispute, but that doesn't seem to be the human way.

.

State Line Tribune readers...

If you came here looking for the reply I wrote to last week's letter to the editor, that post is found here: link
Thanks.

(This will be pinned to the top of the blog for the next week to give those who come across that note in the paper a chance to find it.)

.

Have you visited TOLFA recently?

I haven't posted an encouragement to go through The On Line Freedom Academy in a long time. So, here's a reminder.

It's free. It's free-ing. I think Jim Davies has put together a very useful tool you should consider using (and his books are great, too).

Check it out, if you haven't before. I don't think you'll regret it.

.

For these cannibal clowns, every day is Opposite Day

Government actions are the opposite of what is claimed.

To "prevent poaching", government goons claim ownership of things they can't own (wildlife) and steal it for themselves.

In the name of "traffic safety", cops become the greatest distraction and danger.

To prevent theft, they steal and use that money to finance even more theft and abuse in order to prevent anyone else from getting "a piece of the action".

To fight "terrorism" they become the nastiest terrorists.

They enforce anti-gun "laws"... with GUNS!

They enforce prohibition and mandate drugging kids.

I'm sure you can think of a lot more examples.

They discredit themselves and their "mission" with their immense hypocrisy. It's really hilarious once you see it.

.

Government not great at spying

Government not great at spying

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 28, 2014)

Maybe Malaysia Airlines' missing flight 370 will have been found by the time this gets into print. Or maybe various officials are still saying "we know where it is... we just haven't physically seen it yet". Either way, I'm pretty sure the news won't be good for the families of those missing, whenever it turns up.

I have no doubt the mystery has a mundane explanation, whatever it may be, even if it turns out to be human malice- which is unfortunately common enough to be fairly mundane, and always has been.

The one and only bright spot in this whole tragedy is the observation that apparently the governments of the world don't have quite the inescapable spying, tracking, and surveillance capabilities they would like you and me to believe they have. Big things can escape their notice and slip through their fingers.

Yes, the world is a very large place, and the plane vanished over an area that isn't exactly as populated as downtown Tokyo or New York City, but electronic communications signals aren't as limited by geography and distance as human eyes are; being routed, as they are, through a web of networks which are all interconnected. Yet, the plane- a huge Boeing 777- has been missing, assuming it hasn't yet been found, since March 8. That's about 3 weeks now.

If a whole plane full of people can disappear, even for a few weeks, perhaps you don't need to be as worried about useful information being stolen from your data as you might have thought.

It's still a good idea to refrain from using unencrypted electronic communications to send messages that would make spies and their handlers twitchy and give them reason to watch you more closely. But that has been the case throughout history. Nothing has really changed there.

The more data the snoops collect, the less likely they are to find that elusive needle in a haystack. The more they analyze, the more false "pings" they will encounter, the more dross they'll have to sift through, and the more time and computer power they'll waste. That's why you should always say things such as "She's the BOMB!, or "When did ANTHRAX become 'classic rock'?" Or "My boss went NUCLEAR when I showed up for work in my pajamas!" in your phone conversations, emails, and text messages.

Don't be stupid, but don't spend your limited lifetime worried that the bad guys are reading all your emails. And, if you want to be found in an emergency, remember it is ultimately up to you to make sure you can be.
.

Conservatives and Progressives are right

Conservatives (real conservatives, not neocons) are right about something- there are things in our society and culture which should be conserved. Worship of the military and police, and prohibition are not examples of those things.

Progressives (who used to be called "liberals", but never lived up to the label) are right about something, too- there are many ways in which "society" is in desperate need of some progress. However, violating liberty just because you are afraid of regular people owning and carrying guns is the opposite of progress. As is thinking it is "generous" to give away other people's property, and making up "special rules" by which some people are given "extra rights" that place imaginary obligations on others.

If both of those sides could get past some of their misguided delusions, they could contribute so much to life.

.

Fire all cops- and don't "replace them" with anything

If it is wrong for you to do, it is wrong for a cop to do. If it's OK for a cop to do, it's OK for you to do. It really is that simple.

Police have no special morality or ethics. In fact, most have none of any sort. And cops were never intended to have any special "authority" over you or me.

If it's OK for a cop to murder you because he is frightened and believes you might have a gun, it is OK for you to do the same to him. If it would be wrong for you to commit this murder, it is wrong for a cop to commit the murder under the same circumstances.

If it's OK for some people to stop drivers and rob them at gunpoint because they were going "too fast" according to some completely arbitrary rule, it is OK for everyone to do the same. If being a thuggish highwayman is not within your rights, it is wrong for a cop to do it.

If it's OK for a cop to carry a gun into a school or in a place that has a "no guns" sign, then it is OK for anyone else to do it. If it would be wrong for you to ignore that sign, it is wrong for a cop to boldly expect to be the exception to the rule.

If it is OK for a cop to set up a fake social media profile and entrap people into doing things that will lead to being kidnapped and molested, it is OK for anyone else to do the same. If lying and entrapping someone would be wrong of me, then it's wrong of a cop.

Cops have no special "authority"; they are just like garbage collectors in that they were hired to do a job anyone has the right to do, but most might rather not. But garbage collectors have mostly stayed honorable and helpful. Cops have most assuredly not! The fact they have grown beyond the original selling point to become the greatest burden- and threat- to society is all the reason anyone needs to call for them to all be fired.

No one "needs" cops.

.