Tattoos, with "parental permission"?

The question was whether children who have parental permission should be allowed to get tattoos.

WITH PARENTAL PERMISSION!

The majority of commenters still said "no".

My comment was:

Who has the supposed "authority" to tell parents and kids (in other words, other self-owning people) what they can do tattoo-wise? How did they get that "authority" and where would it have come from?

So, a guy took offense at that apparently radical opinion and asked:

... is there anything in this world that you think might possibly be wrong or is it just open season for any and every act committed against another human being. animal, plant etc....?

I replied:

So, acknowledging that I have no authority over other peoples' lives means I don't think anything is wrong, and I advocate "open season"?`Using aggression against people is wrong. Violating private property rights is wrong. I also believe you should do all you say you'll do ("keep your word").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLUSWhtPOEo

He responded:

Where do you draw the line Kent and by what authority do you decide where the line should be drawn?

And my answer:

I outlined the "line" above. And I don't claim any authority- that would be those trying to make up rules they want to force everyone else to obey.

Truthfully, I don't even like tattoos very much, but I'm not delusional enough to believe I have the right to dictate to other people about things that can't possibly harm me or any other third person in any way.

And so it goes... check out the other comments at the link if you have a Facebook account and can see them. I seriously have a very hard time understanding how some statists "think".

-

Someone else made another comment after posting his opinion to the negative:

Why do people want to mess up what our Wonderful Loving Father In Heaven Has Made???????????????????????

So, I guess that would rule out planting flower gardens, surgery to correct a heart defect, or wearing clothes. Sigh.

.

Your shrinking opportunities to be "law abiding"

Law pollution gets worse daily.

The sphere of being "law abiding"* is getting smaller and smaller.

"Sometimes to do the right thing, you have to break a law." ~ Edward Snowden

"Sometimes"? Almost all the time anymore. But that's only a problem if you don't want to be an outlaw. Why would anyone care about that anymore? That you have to break "laws" to do the right thing says nothing bad about you, but exposes those idiots and evil monsters who are responsible for all the "laws"- and those evil monsters who enforce them.

Bad "laws"? Break 'em.

You are already a criminal "in the eyes of the Law", whether you like it or not.

It doesn't bother me at all.

Resolve to not initiate force and don't steal or otherwise violate private property and you are already doing better than anyone who is imposing those "laws" on you.

Then, just perhaps, it won't bother you, either.

-

*I'll have more to say about that disgusting term another day. Update: here it is

.

Drunken driving fixes abound

Drunken driving fixes abound

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 2, 2014)

I hate drunk driving- and the "checkpoints" and patrols excused as attempts to stop it.

The legalistic approaches inevitably violate the rights of all other drivers while trying to catch some of the guilty. The rights violations increase out of proportion to the "success" of combating "drunk driving".

A much better solution would be to prevent the drunk driving from happening in the first place, while leaving everyone else alone.

Don't think it's possible?

I believe that the stigma attached to driving drunk has done more to keep people from driving drunk than the draconian enforcement that is so popular with big-government advocates. With "laws" the guilty always believe "I won't get caught", but you can't as easily escape your own shame. Obviously, this doesn't work with everyone because some people don't listen to their conscience.

There will always be those who slip through the cracks and there will always be tragedies. There is no Utopia. However, there are ways to approach the problem, using reality and human nature as your guide, to reach a better place than anything possible along the current path.

Eventually self-driving cars will make "drunk driving" a moot point. You can't be driving drunk if you aren't driving- some enforcement blunders to the contrary. Until that happens, collision avoidance systems could become standard to reduce the risk for everyone, even beyond the drunk driving issue.

What else might help?

-End zoning "laws" which keep bars out of neighborhoods so drinkers won't "need" to drive.

-Allow home delivery of alcoholic beverages.

-Don't penalize people for realizing they are too drunk to drive and deciding to sleep it off in their car or walk home.

-Don't ration "taxi licenses", and let anyone with a car or rickshaw be hired to haul people around for money.

-Set up a charity that rewards known "drunks" for not driving when they have been drinking (the charity would decide what sort of proof they want).

-Remove the incentives for cops to arrest every drunk instead of simply driving them home (without their car, obviously).

I'm sure others can think of more ideas that reduce the impaired drivers' likelihood of driving, while not violating anyone's rights.

When everything fails and someone is harmed by a drunk driver, restitution (or self defense if harm is imminent) becomes appropriate. Since restitution is a punishment rather than a preventative measure, it is less helpful.

These suggestions won't be popular with those who simply hate alcohol and never want to see, or hear of, anyone drinking, but for those who actually want to make things better, they should make some sense and be a starting point for real solutions.
.

"Deserter!"

So, the "prisoner of war" purchased in exchange for other prisoners of war (sounds like "human trafficking" to me) turns out to be a "deserter".

They used to call them "run-away slaves".

If you can't quit and walk away, you are a slave. And those who would heap scorn on you for trying to escape your slavemaster are supporters of slavery, along with the worst of the same from history.

.

Fame? Success?

I don't want to be famous- I want to be successful. Only... I'm not quite sure how I would define "success" for myself.

When I see my Time's Up flag design used in places completely unrelated to me, often completely unexpectedly from sources who don't have a clue who I am or that I came up with the design, I feel a sense of success.

When I get donations, or get a check in the mail for my newspaper columns, I feel somewhat successful.

When I get supportive emails- and sometimes even when I get hate mail- I feel like I am succeeding. Not that I enjoy the hate mail...

When I run across someone quoting something I have written- whether it is attributed to me or not- I feel a warm glow of success. My words are having an impact!

So, perhaps my standards are rather low.

But, when I try to imagine what "real success" would be, I am not sure. It is hard to imagine more success than I have so far found- maybe actually being able to afford a car again might qualify, but it's not all about the money. (Much to the dismay of some people around me.) I think it has a lot to do with how I feel about myself- whether I think I am doing all I can to promote liberty and making people hunger for it, and making the world a better place. And, I think I am doing that in the best way I know how right now- while always looking for better ways. So, yeah, I do feel somewhat successful.

Thank you for helping!

.

Boundaries enforced by the power-crazed

In an exchange online with a relative of mine, over the "necessity" (or lack thereof) of cops, she made this comment: "Ever been around a toddler without any boundaries? ... Society, to me, is similar to a toddler."

I replied that what she is advocating is putting some toddlers in charge of the other toddlers, and that this won't ever work well.

It reminds me of the Robert LeFevre quote:

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

Just where do supporters of cops think the police recruits come from, if not from among the rest of the individuals in "society"? And just how do they believe cops are "better" than the "society" from which they come?

If cops are "good" enough to do the right thing, then so are the majority of people, and since "we" vastly outnumber the bad guys, "we" don't need cops.

However, the sad truth is that cops and freelance bad guys share the same kind of personality, as multiple studies have discovered. They are much worse- less ethical and more prone to aggression- than most people. The power and illusion of "authority" that goes with the "job" attracts psychopaths who see the "job" as an opportunity to molest you without much risk of facing real consequences.

So, yeah, lets give them power and bow to their imagined "authority" to set and enforce our "boundaries"- and see how it works out.

.

Emotions drive away reason

Is there any issue that makes you get really emotional?

I'm sure there is- and that should be a warning to you. Emotional issues are difficult to think rationally about. Maybe even impossible.

Almost everyone has been hurt, emotionally, in some way.

I have had dear friends murdered by people using a gun as their tool of death. Should my emotions at losing my friends override my rational brain and cause me to advocate against gun ownership? That does seem to be the standard reaction.

I hate litter so much I can almost lose reason when I see it. Do I support "laws" against litter? No. If your litter ends up on my property, I may consider you a trespasser of sorts, but that is for me to deal with. Advocating for more "laws" will only litter my world worse.

Other people's emotional triggers can be things like rape, drunk driving, or protecting the helpless or damaged.

This seems to be one of the "buts" that trip up many people. Coercive government and its "laws" are wrong, "but I'll support the government's enforcement against [emotional issue] because I hate it!"

That plays right into the bad guys' hands.

.

Take the first step

People are always saying they want to fix this or that, but they are rarely willing to take the first step. If you really love and understand liberty, and you want there to be more of it, and a safer environment in which to live it, then there is a first step: Abolish police- replace them with nothing. Or at least stop thinking of cops as "good" and "necessary", and begin seeing them as the standing army you were warned about, and as the gravest threat to your individual liberty.

Sure, you can exercise your liberty now, with the police/bad guys all around you. There will always be bad guys trying to violate you in one way or another- if you are scared to live in liberty now, you'll probably always find an excuse.

But... cops are "special" in that they are mistaken for "the good guys" by so many of your friends, family, and neighbors. If you fight back when they come to molest you- or worse- most of the people around you will blindly think of you as the problem. Do what you can to solve that mental glitch, and the war will be half won.

Cops are where the boot-heel meets the face. There is no excuse for them. Abolish police and replace them with nothing.

.

What kind are you?

What "kind" of libertarian am I? The "me" kind, I guess.

Thick, thin, brutalist, bleeding heart... I don't try to figure out which I am because I don't care. I don't even bother keeping up with the debates about it. It seems a very silly distraction, and a dangerous way to divide people.

Follow the ZAP, and don't violate private property. Do that and you are a libertarian. Don't do that and you're not.

Beyond that: be nice, but that doesn't make you libertarian or not- it just keeps you from being an insufferable @ss#ole.

.

So, you're already against the next war?

Congratulations.

I'm already ignoring the next president.   

.

Violating individual rights inexcusable

Violating individual rights inexcusable

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 25, 2014.)

I've seen some amusing illustrations going around the internet showing 1920s era prohibition enforcers, or their freelance supporters, smashing barrels of stolen "contraband" alcohol. The photos compare and contrast the earlier alcohol Prohibition with the current drug prohibition. The caption reads "Imagine how silly you'll look in ten years".

Silly, yes, but that's not the worst of it. It's much more serious than that.

In fact, just like the slave traders and those who enforced fugitive slave laws of the 19th century, the current prohibitionists will also eventually look downright evil to practically everyone. It may not be ten years, but it will happen.

Brave drug warriors in the same category as vile human traffickers? How is that possible? Because the "laws" they enforce are no more legitimate than the "laws" that made escaping slavery illegal. You can't excuse a violation of individual rights no matter how many "laws" you pass or how long you get away with enforcing those "laws".

In the name of health and safety, the earlier prohibitionists added poison to alcohol and killed thousands of people; around 50,000 died as a direct result of the government's unpublicized poisoning program. Many more were blinded or paralyzed. Actually, prohibitionists are still poisoning alcohol for the same perverted reason- that's what "denatured" means. Their crusade also created a culture of organized crime, and brought about police corruption that is still pervasive, and getting worse, in America today.

In the name of health and safety the current prohibitionists kill uncountable numbers, enslave many times more than that, and trample the rights and liberty of each and every one of us. Their crusade has fostered gang violence and a culture of police brutality. There is almost no part of the Constitution which hasn't been violated in the name of fighting the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs. This war is actually a war on Americans and their Rightful Liberty.

It's disturbing how many believe it's worth it.

When slavery was legal the excuse against abolition was often phrased as "But without slaves how will the cotton be picked?" Today it is "Without drug laws, who will protect society from drug users?" Well, if it is really necessary (which the experience of Portugal shows as a lie), then you'll just have to find a way which doesn't use made up rules which violate the human right of self determination. Prohibition, just like slavery, is an idea whose time has passed.

Why is opposing prohibition so important to me? Because it is the main justification for the police state which endangers liberty today. On a daily basis prohibition may even be worse than the war on terror.
.

Statism is all about inconsistency

All forms of statism are based on granting exceptions to some people at some times. They are not consistent.

Murder is wrong...unless you are a cop and can claim you just wanted to make it home at the end of your shift. So, statists grant the murderous cop an exemption while he's "on duty". His victim "deserved" it, you know.

Theft is wrong...unless you call it "taxation" and let some people take what isn't theirs while in the performance of their "job". How else can government afford to keep running (and ruining) our lives?

Kicking in someone's door while they sleep is wrong... unless you are an enforcer looking for scary little plants or chemicals. Or guns. Then, as long as you are doing the home invasion "on the job", you get an exemption for doing wrong- oh, you can't call it "wrong" either. And if the residents of the house manage to blow your worthless brains right back out the door, they get kidnapped and called murderers. So, even the defenders in this case get an exemption, but it's a bad one. They are told they are exempted from Natural Law and that they have no right to defend themselves from aggressors.

Statism is based on illegitimate exemptions, granted- or forced upon- some people in some circumstances. Consistency is statism's silver bullet- something it just can't abide.

.

A Government Day message

The foam on the sewage

Sure, I hate all cops, but some I hate more than others.

I hate traffic cops the most because almost every encounter I have ever had with cops involved them. Most cops won't "engage" you unless you call them- or someone else calls them on you. They are fairly easy to avoid in most cases.

Not so with those who prey on travelers.

There are innumerable ways you can attract their unwanted attention. Drive too fast, too slow, or "too cautiously". Don't stop "enough" at stop signs. Have something about your car that gets them excited about robbing you- and then maybe even finding an excuse to murder you while they think up other ways to violate you.

So, while I applaud the deaths of those badgethugs who kick in doors in the middle of the night while looking for "drugs", I am just as happy about the deaths of those who get justice while robbing and molesting travelers. Bad guys need to pay a price for their acts.

.

Extreme? Hardly

It amuses me when liberal/progressives get up in arms over Tea Party folks (whom they often call "Teabaggers"*). They act like those guys are so extreme.

But the truth is they are just barely- almost imperceptibly- "different" than the rest of the mainstream DemoCRAPublicans.

Just imagine if those upset "progressives" discovered the rest of us who are actually "radical" and thought we were a threat. They'd get the vapors, for sure!

-

*I don't get this either- why do the liberals use a term associated with homosexual behavior as an insult? Isn't that like claiming there's something wrong with it? It's like me insulting someone by calling them a "Shooter", a "pothead", or, yes, "gay".

.

Helping others

I want to help people. That led to my presidential campaign. It is also part of the reason I eventually rejected politics. It is why I write now. And it is why I live by the ZAP- the best way to help often begins by not making things worse.

I want to be the best I can be. I'll always keep looking for more ways I can help.

.

Bend over and be serviced good and hard

A recent story I read was praising a mother and her daughter for both pursuing "careers" with government; one in the military and the other as a cop. It claimed they had a "legacy of service".

Ha!

A government "job" is not "service"; it is a drain on society. Parasitism.

Want to serve people? Get a real job where people have a choice to use your service, or not, and every cent you are paid is given voluntarily instead of being collected at gunpoint.

It is so tragic that people mistake this kind of thing with "service" and doing good, when it is the polar opposite. I guess government school is succeeding in dumbing people down where they believe this nonsense and stumble over each other in the rush to honor their violators.

.

Walmart beggars... and me

Is my asking for donations just like someone sitting at an intersection with a "will write for money" sign?

Because, to me, it often feels that way. (Not that I could stop writing anyway.)

Every entrance and exit at the local Walmart is usually occupied by someone holding a sign asking for money. I also know someone who works there who says those same people come in and buy alcoholic beverages as soon as they collect enough- although one guy did buy a sleeping bag once because he said his was stolen.

And one of her co-workers' adult offspring also sit there with their signs. Even though they actually have a home in town, their signs often give the impression they are traveling and ran out of money.

One guy even sits there with a gas can.

You'll see the same person trying different signs on different days; I guess that's "A/B Testing".

As long as they aren't holding a gun (or threatening to do so) against people's heads, I am not too bothered by the begging. Although it would be nice if they were honest about their situations and what they are spending the money on. I actually used to give money to some people like this, even suspecting they would just buy booze- but knowing too many of the behind the scenes stories has made me lose sympathy for the Walmart beggars.

I don't want to be seen as being too much like them, either.

So I try to provide something in exchange for the donations, and I try to not ask unless things get really sticky. This is my job, such as it is. And, if I ever ask and you want to tell me exactly what you think of my request, I don't delete any comments, so everyone could see what you have to say on the matter. I hope it seems like a "fair" deal.

.

Liberty maximizes prosperity

Liberty maximizes prosperity

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 18, 2014)

Many times over the years I have been asked some variation of the question "I don't understand; what is it you want?"

Well, what is it most humans want?

I think most of us want health, safety, and prosperity- let's call this combination "happiness"- for ourselves and our loved ones. I want the same things! Since there's no disagreement there, what we have is a common goal.

Like most goals, it can probably never be achieved perfectly in every way, but should serve as a North Star to let you know whether you are moving in the right direction or not. The question comes down to "How best to get there?"; which system works best for moving relentlessly toward your goal.

Your choice is between self determination and being controlled by someone else. Can I trust myself and my decisions to get what I want or should I trust someone else's judgment and decisions? It's a matter of "Do It Yourself" or rely on others to do it for you.

Not everyone is an expert chef, yet just about everyone manages their meals just fine, and if you prefer to leave your food preparation to someone else- a professional, perhaps- it is no one's business but your own. However, just because you prefer to hand off your food preparation responsibilities to others doesn't give you any right to demand everyone else follow your example.

The same goes for every other aspect of life.

Liberty- the absolute right to do anything which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else- is the best system ever discovered for allowing each and every individual to maximize his own health, safety, and prosperity. It even leaves enough left over so you can help others who might be having trouble of their own.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has helped out when I had an abundance and the opportunity presented itself.

But government, that anti-social institution, always gets in the way. It's a vehicle used by those with the most influence to force you to do everything the way they prefer you do it, regardless of your wishes or the more accurate information you may be operating under. It takes away choice and volition and replaces it with fiat.

There are a few people who benefit from this arrangement: those who work for the government and those who are utterly dependent upon it due to refusing to take responsibility for themselves. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a good idea to let the most dysfunctional people in a society have a say in how I live my life.
.

An honest monument to government

So, Oklahoma's "Statehouse" is getting a new Satanic monument.

Seems redundant to me.

A "statehouse" is already a Satanic monument. So is a capitol building, a courthouse, a DMV office, or any other government building. Even a library or a zoo run by government is. And I love libraries and zoos.

But theft isn't ever the right thing to do. Not even if you really, really want something.

Now, I don't really know enough about Satanism to say whether it advocates theft or aggression- I am just playing off the common perceptions here to make a point. And I might be wrong about details of the religion. Government is something we all know advocates theft and aggression, so it may be the only actual evil here, in which case the Satanists should reconsider whether they really want to be associated with such a place.

.