I care very little about statists disagreeing with me. I'm going to live liberty the best I can regardless of their wishes or fears. I only make the effort to get them to see liberty for their own sake. They can take it or leave it. Debating them gives me practice putting my thoughts into words.
It bothers me more when people I generally agree with disagree with me. And sometimes I discover they had a good reason for their disagreement.
In both cases I really do try to look at the disagreement and see where I could be wrong. Sometimes, where the other liberty lovers are concerned, I discover I was wrong. Or there was a misunderstanding somewhere and we were both right.
That just never happens where statists are concerned. There may be some misunderstanding, but they are still wrong at the very foundation. They start with flawed assumptions and it only gets worse from there. They can still make me mad, but they are wrong, and I'm not going to reject the truth just so they'll agree with me.
That's the difference in the quality of the disagreements.
.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Protecting from mistakes misguided
Protecting from mistakes misguided
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 12, 2014)
Human beings will always make mistakes.
It would be nice to protect people from mistakes, but that desire is often misguided. You can warn people; some might even listen. Some won't and you'll watch as they suffer consequences. Some mistakes will be fatal. That's reality, and there's no way you can change it, no matter how tightly you try to control the world.
You might make up rules to forbid others from doing things you believe would be mistakes. This is also a mistake. People don't learn by being told what not to do. In fact, your efforts will probably encourage irresponsibility, and make mistakes more tragic. In spite of the wishful thinking at the foundation of all politics, you can't live other people's lives for them- you can only live your own.
No one is immune to mistakes. I know I have squandered opportunities, taken the wrong path, and made the wrong choice many times. It happens less frequently as I learn from past mistakes, and it doesn't mean mistakes from long ago don't still have ongoing consequences.
People learn because mistakes have consequences. You may think that sounds cruel, but isn't it worse to ensure a person never has the opportunity to learn? Go ahead, try to save those you see making a fatal mistake, but remember: they'll probably learn nothing from the experience and you won't always be around.
I can't tell you how many times I told my daughter the stove top was hot, but I do know it only took one time touching it for her to learn and remember.
Even worse than making your own mistakes is forcing those who know better to go along for the ride. It's really bad when you drag people with you. Those who know better should be able to stand aside and let you go over the cliff if you can't be talked out of it. Forcing them to join you is not civilized.
Then again, what one person considers to be a mistake, someone else might consider the goal, and forbidding them to pursue it could be wrong. This is why no one should have the power to run the lives of others. After all, you never really know how the future will unfold, and preventing someone from doing something which might turn out to have been the right thing should overwhelm you with just as much guilt as sitting by and watching someone get hurt by their mistakes.
Give your best advice, if it is welcomed, then it's up to the other person to accept it or reject it, and it's then your responsibility to get out of their way.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 12, 2014)
Human beings will always make mistakes.
It would be nice to protect people from mistakes, but that desire is often misguided. You can warn people; some might even listen. Some won't and you'll watch as they suffer consequences. Some mistakes will be fatal. That's reality, and there's no way you can change it, no matter how tightly you try to control the world.
You might make up rules to forbid others from doing things you believe would be mistakes. This is also a mistake. People don't learn by being told what not to do. In fact, your efforts will probably encourage irresponsibility, and make mistakes more tragic. In spite of the wishful thinking at the foundation of all politics, you can't live other people's lives for them- you can only live your own.
No one is immune to mistakes. I know I have squandered opportunities, taken the wrong path, and made the wrong choice many times. It happens less frequently as I learn from past mistakes, and it doesn't mean mistakes from long ago don't still have ongoing consequences.
People learn because mistakes have consequences. You may think that sounds cruel, but isn't it worse to ensure a person never has the opportunity to learn? Go ahead, try to save those you see making a fatal mistake, but remember: they'll probably learn nothing from the experience and you won't always be around.
I can't tell you how many times I told my daughter the stove top was hot, but I do know it only took one time touching it for her to learn and remember.
Even worse than making your own mistakes is forcing those who know better to go along for the ride. It's really bad when you drag people with you. Those who know better should be able to stand aside and let you go over the cliff if you can't be talked out of it. Forcing them to join you is not civilized.
Then again, what one person considers to be a mistake, someone else might consider the goal, and forbidding them to pursue it could be wrong. This is why no one should have the power to run the lives of others. After all, you never really know how the future will unfold, and preventing someone from doing something which might turn out to have been the right thing should overwhelm you with just as much guilt as sitting by and watching someone get hurt by their mistakes.
Give your best advice, if it is welcomed, then it's up to the other person to accept it or reject it, and it's then your responsibility to get out of their way.
.
Muslim terrorists are a symptom, not the problem
(Published 1-9-2015 on Patreon)
It's the act that matters, not the excuse someone uses for committing the act.
I don't care if your excuse is Islam, Christianity, nationalism, drugs, enforcing the law, or insanity- if you harm the innocent or violate their property (in other words: commit evil) you are a bad guy and I hope your next victim blows your brains out in self defense. I'd wish this to happen every single time.
I hate Islam as much as anyone, but the Charlie Hebdo murders have brought the non-thinking anti-Islam wackos out in force. People willing to excuse and justify all sorts of evil, as long as it is committed in the name of something they like, are losing their minds because some other wackos committed evil in the name of something "alien".
If your belief system requires you to use the State and its "laws" to impose your ideals on people who don't share them, your belief system is worthless crap. If your belief system encourages you to use threats of violence to convert others, then - again- worthless crap. It doesn't matter what is behind your belief system. If it can't compete on a voluntary basis, but relies on coercion, it needs to die out.
To say that Christian theocrats are somehow morally or ideologically "better" than their Islam theocrat brethren is ignoring what has historically happened anytime either group gets too much political power.
The big problem, of course, is establishing a State which can be controlled by anyone with an agenda. Without a State to use to impose their beliefs, they would not be able to hide the evil nature of their acts behind "laws" or "democracy" or whatever they use. They would still have "God/Allah says..." but any attack would be laid bare and could be defended against without becoming a "criminal".
You may claim "a State is only a tool; like a gun", but that's missing the fact that guns can be used defensively, and other people aren't forced to provide you with a gun or pay for your ammo, nor take the blame if you use your gun offensively- well, except for by anti-gun, anti-liberty bigots, but those people are crazy and stupid. States are always offensive- from how they are established, to how they are financed and how they are maintained.
To leave a government lying around is like leaving a loaded and ready full-auto pistol in the daycare center's toy box, just waiting for someone to pick it up and use it irresponsibly. There is no way to use a State responsibly without it ceasing to be a State.
Theocrats of any stripe are like oversized preschoolers. Ready to pick up the State and aim it randomly at anyone else. Until you can condemn them all for the fundamental evil they advocate, rather than focusing on the differences in degree- which are fluid- you'll be aiding and abetting them all. After all, if it's OK in some cases, it could be argued to be OK in all cases.
The problem is aggression, not the justifications for using it.
.
It's the act that matters, not the excuse someone uses for committing the act.
I don't care if your excuse is Islam, Christianity, nationalism, drugs, enforcing the law, or insanity- if you harm the innocent or violate their property (in other words: commit evil) you are a bad guy and I hope your next victim blows your brains out in self defense. I'd wish this to happen every single time.
I hate Islam as much as anyone, but the Charlie Hebdo murders have brought the non-thinking anti-Islam wackos out in force. People willing to excuse and justify all sorts of evil, as long as it is committed in the name of something they like, are losing their minds because some other wackos committed evil in the name of something "alien".
If your belief system requires you to use the State and its "laws" to impose your ideals on people who don't share them, your belief system is worthless crap. If your belief system encourages you to use threats of violence to convert others, then - again- worthless crap. It doesn't matter what is behind your belief system. If it can't compete on a voluntary basis, but relies on coercion, it needs to die out.
To say that Christian theocrats are somehow morally or ideologically "better" than their Islam theocrat brethren is ignoring what has historically happened anytime either group gets too much political power.
The big problem, of course, is establishing a State which can be controlled by anyone with an agenda. Without a State to use to impose their beliefs, they would not be able to hide the evil nature of their acts behind "laws" or "democracy" or whatever they use. They would still have "God/Allah says..." but any attack would be laid bare and could be defended against without becoming a "criminal".
You may claim "a State is only a tool; like a gun", but that's missing the fact that guns can be used defensively, and other people aren't forced to provide you with a gun or pay for your ammo, nor take the blame if you use your gun offensively- well, except for by anti-gun, anti-liberty bigots, but those people are crazy and stupid. States are always offensive- from how they are established, to how they are financed and how they are maintained.
To leave a government lying around is like leaving a loaded and ready full-auto pistol in the daycare center's toy box, just waiting for someone to pick it up and use it irresponsibly. There is no way to use a State responsibly without it ceasing to be a State.
Theocrats of any stripe are like oversized preschoolers. Ready to pick up the State and aim it randomly at anyone else. Until you can condemn them all for the fundamental evil they advocate, rather than focusing on the differences in degree- which are fluid- you'll be aiding and abetting them all. After all, if it's OK in some cases, it could be argued to be OK in all cases.
The problem is aggression, not the justifications for using it.
.
Monday, January 12, 2015
In "Alignment"?
Apparently, according to this test, my "alignment" is "Neutral Good".
I guess that works for me.
The test linked above says I am 41.7% Good and 10.3% Lawful. "10.3% Lawful"? What's up with that? I suppose if you consider the ZAP a "law", and rejecting theft as "lawful", it could fit. Although I still tend to consider all "laws" as either unnecessary or harmful. Although there were several questions I couldn't easily answer, as there was no answer I really liked (as with all these things). So, perhaps I lean a little toward the "Chaotic" side, too.
Here's the short version of the characteristics of Neutral Good:
Another page explains the character traits a bit more in-depth. Again, I think they confuse respecting "laws" with doing the right thing when the "law" accidentally aligns with right. And confuse finding "authority" irrelevant with willing to work with "authority".
As a bonus, here is the page on "Chaotic Good", which I'm a little surprised I didn't score, but which I do seem to share a lot of characteristics with.
Someone showed me another alignment test, and in taking it I scored "Chaotic Neutral"- I am less confident of that result because the test had even more questions without a good answer for me. For example: I won't spy for a hostile foreign power because governments are all evil, not because of any loyalty to "my" government.
Either way, I am some combination of good, neutral, and chaotic- the upper righthand corner of the picture, which I see as the most fitting place for me.
Anyway, file it under "know yourself", and take the test if you'd like to compare notes.
.
I guess that works for me.
Click to enlargenize
The test linked above says I am 41.7% Good and 10.3% Lawful. "10.3% Lawful"? What's up with that? I suppose if you consider the ZAP a "law", and rejecting theft as "lawful", it could fit. Although I still tend to consider all "laws" as either unnecessary or harmful. Although there were several questions I couldn't easily answer, as there was no answer I really liked (as with all these things). So, perhaps I lean a little toward the "Chaotic" side, too.
Here's the short version of the characteristics of Neutral Good:
You do the best good that a person could be expected to do. You are devoted to helping others. You are willing to work with authority figures, but you do not feel any particular allegiance to them.
You are the stereotypical “Benefactor.” You believe in doing good without any particular bias for or against order.
Examples of characters and people who fit into the same alignment as you include Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Gandalf, Indiana Jones, O-Bi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, and the Dalai Lama.
Another page explains the character traits a bit more in-depth. Again, I think they confuse respecting "laws" with doing the right thing when the "law" accidentally aligns with right. And confuse finding "authority" irrelevant with willing to work with "authority".
As a bonus, here is the page on "Chaotic Good", which I'm a little surprised I didn't score, but which I do seem to share a lot of characteristics with.
Someone showed me another alignment test, and in taking it I scored "Chaotic Neutral"- I am less confident of that result because the test had even more questions without a good answer for me. For example: I won't spy for a hostile foreign power because governments are all evil, not because of any loyalty to "my" government.
Either way, I am some combination of good, neutral, and chaotic- the upper righthand corner of the picture, which I see as the most fitting place for me.
Anyway, file it under "know yourself", and take the test if you'd like to compare notes.
.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The world collapsing around you? Take the challenge- Find the fun.
You and I live in "interesting times". That's not going to change unless it is to get more "interesting". I'd better accept it.
So, I am determined to have fun with tyranny, however I can manage. I'll play and mess with them and make fun of them in subtle ways they may miss. But I'll know, and it will make me smile.
Maybe some few raging statists are smarter than I give them credit for, but most are downright idiots. Use that fact.
I can have fun even knowing it's a serious situation. Just like any survival situation, if you forget to find the fun in it you'll suffer needlessly, and you may hurt your chances of surviving. Hard situations can bring out the best in you if you let them. And show you what you're made of. There's beauty in surviving a blizzard in the forest, or a desert crossing in the summer. There must also be beauty in surviving a police state and finding little ways to take back some liberty (which amounts to spitting in their drink without them knowing you did so).
I think I had recently forgotten to have fun with the circumstances. Statists and their enforcers are just so ridiculous I've got to laugh. Sure, they are dangerous. So are lots of other things. You need to stay alert. Be aware and keep your eyes open. Yes, this is deadly serious. But have fun. Laugh. Live in spite of them. To spite them.
It's your life. Don't let the pro-government extremist idiots ruin it for you.
.
So, I am determined to have fun with tyranny, however I can manage. I'll play and mess with them and make fun of them in subtle ways they may miss. But I'll know, and it will make me smile.
Maybe some few raging statists are smarter than I give them credit for, but most are downright idiots. Use that fact.
I can have fun even knowing it's a serious situation. Just like any survival situation, if you forget to find the fun in it you'll suffer needlessly, and you may hurt your chances of surviving. Hard situations can bring out the best in you if you let them. And show you what you're made of. There's beauty in surviving a blizzard in the forest, or a desert crossing in the summer. There must also be beauty in surviving a police state and finding little ways to take back some liberty (which amounts to spitting in their drink without them knowing you did so).
I think I had recently forgotten to have fun with the circumstances. Statists and their enforcers are just so ridiculous I've got to laugh. Sure, they are dangerous. So are lots of other things. You need to stay alert. Be aware and keep your eyes open. Yes, this is deadly serious. But have fun. Laugh. Live in spite of them. To spite them.
It's your life. Don't let the pro-government extremist idiots ruin it for you.
.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Science: Dark matter
This idea struck me, and I don't know if it has any merit, or if it does, whether someone else has already considered it, but....
Maybe dark matter is just "normal" matter existing in the curled up extra dimensions predicted by string theory, superstring theory, and M-theory. Seems like a good place to hide most of the Universe if you ask me.
UPDATE: I did a quick Google search before I posted this and came up with no matches, but later a more in-depth search shows that others have had this idea before me. Good. Now I hope someone figures out a good way to test it.
.
Maybe dark matter is just "normal" matter existing in the curled up extra dimensions predicted by string theory, superstring theory, and M-theory. Seems like a good place to hide most of the Universe if you ask me.
UPDATE: I did a quick Google search before I posted this and came up with no matches, but later a more in-depth search shows that others have had this idea before me. Good. Now I hope someone figures out a good way to test it.
.
Government explained to an alien (and to statists)
Thanks to one of my readers for sending this video to me. It's based on a talk by Larken Rose, so obviously it's spot on. I've seen it before, but for some reason never posted it. I think everyone should watch it.
.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
False choices
"Muslim or Christian" is just as false a choice as "Democrat or Republican". And equally as evil when you use your religion as an excuse to try to force your belief system on those who are not a part of your belief system.
Again, just like the evil of Democrapublicans.
That being said:
Again, just like the evil of Democrapublicans.
That being said:
Properly identifying dangers
There are many libertarians out there absolutely bending over backwards to seem all touchy-feely and warm & fuzzy. Do what you want, but ignoring reality so you can coddle bad guys and not alienate their fans isn't being honest.
Case in point:
I get the Liberty.me newsletter, and a recent issue was decrying the killing of those NYPD officers. Fair enough, but then they went off the edge.
What the article said was:
That's true, to a point. The mistake they make is in not properly identifying cops as just as dangerous as other known dangers- like wild tigers and poisonous snakes. You can learn to identify deadly snakes by their patterns, colors, and shape. Same with people who make the conscious choice to wear certain patterns, colors, and shapes. When someone chooses to advertise their identity as a predator you'd be foolish to discount the warning. They are warning you. Believe them.
I replied to their email:
Case in point:
I get the Liberty.me newsletter, and a recent issue was decrying the killing of those NYPD officers. Fair enough, but then they went off the edge.
What the article said was:
"...Humans have an evolutionary tendency to lump things with a common trait together and then assume that all those things sharing that trait are identical in nature. If a tiger killed my neighbor, then all tigers are deadly. If a snake bit my neighbor and he died, then all snakes are dangerous. Those that recognized distinctive traits and properly categorized the natural world as dangerous or not dangerous and killed the dangerous ones tended to live longer and pass on their genes. Those that thought we should just give all tigers a chance, well, it didn’t work out so well for them...
But this vestige of our evolutionary past, like the appendix, serves no purpose today except in extreme situations (e.g. it’s still safe to assume all tigers in the wild are dangerous)..."
That's true, to a point. The mistake they make is in not properly identifying cops as just as dangerous as other known dangers- like wild tigers and poisonous snakes. You can learn to identify deadly snakes by their patterns, colors, and shape. Same with people who make the conscious choice to wear certain patterns, colors, and shapes. When someone chooses to advertise their identity as a predator you'd be foolish to discount the warning. They are warning you. Believe them.
I replied to their email:
The problem with giving cops a chance is, just like the tigers, by definition they are dangerous. They choose to live by theft and aggression- and advertise their choice every morning by the gang colors they openly put on to wear, and by continuing to enforce counterfeit rules against everyone not in their gang. If someone shows you that they are dangerous by the gang colors they wear and the choices they continue to make, you'd better believe them. It isn't "lumping", it is recognizing them for what they are and how they choose to live.
Now, I don't advocate going up to cops (or MS-13 gang members) who are not currently engaging in aggression or theft and shooting them in the head- but I will never grieve when the poor and harmful choices they have made (and continue to make) have consequences. Good riddance to them.
Not recognizing a real danger, just so you can appear "reasonable" to those who will never be on your side regardless, is suicidal.
.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Not mine; not yours; not ours
"Our government".
"Our troops".
"My president".
"My congressman".
"Our laws".
"Our police".
"Our schools".
If you say any of the above, you are a big part of the problem.
I'm not telling you to stop saying those things, but I would remind you that words have meanings, and sometimes the way you use words can warp the way you think about things to the point that reality becomes a problem for you. Stop and think before you parrot the popular phraseology.
.
"Our troops".
"My president".
"My congressman".
"Our laws".
"Our police".
"Our schools".
If you say any of the above, you are a big part of the problem.
I'm not telling you to stop saying those things, but I would remind you that words have meanings, and sometimes the way you use words can warp the way you think about things to the point that reality becomes a problem for you. Stop and think before you parrot the popular phraseology.
.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
Beliefs are far more than opinions
Beliefs are far more than opinions
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 5, 2014)
I often hear people characterize political differences as mere differences of opinion. If only they were that trivial.
A disagreement over the best music would normally be a frivolous difference of opinion, but what would happen if it were politicized? You might criminalize my favorite songs if 51% of the voters agree with you or if a bureaucrat makes up a rule, then demand I only listen to your favorite music whether I like it or not, on 8-track tape, and throw me in a cell if I don't comply. No longer is it a difference of opinion; it has become a threat.
Neither is the dispute between Rightful Liberty and everything else- Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative- just a matter of opinion.
The opinion that a State and its laws are necessary and can make you safer, or make bad people good, eventually leads to slavery, death, and destruction. The opinion that government can be constitutionally limited to keep it under control has the weight of human history against it. Cemeteries and secret mass graves overflow with counterarguments to those who believe living under a State is better for people than living without one: over 200 million non-military dead, most killed by "their own" governments, during the 20th Century alone. Anarchy can't possibly be worse.
But you may not agree.
If you disagree with my opinion that Rightful Liberty is something I should respect in everyone else, I will let you go your own way unless you attack me over our difference of opinion. That's because your Rightful Liberty- your "unobstructed action according to [your] will within limits drawn around [you] by the equal rights of others"- is more important to me than having you live as I wish you would.
Unfortunately, those holding "mainstream" political opinions openly believe it is OK to cage or kill people who have differing opinions, especially if they dare to live according to their opinion in defiance of laws, even if they violate no one's Rightful Liberty while doing so. Their opinion results in everyone being controlled with arbitrary and harmful laws enforced by agents of the state, who are paid through that taking of private property euphemistically called "taxation", and any noncompliance will inevitably be met with violent enforcement of those laws. Deadly force over a difference of opinion? Some opinion!
So, which government law or program do you want badly enough to believe it's worth taking your neighbors property, liberty, or life, over? Don't say "they should just obey the law", because things like slavery were once legal, and many of today's laws will be viewed with the same contempt by future generations.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 5, 2014)
I often hear people characterize political differences as mere differences of opinion. If only they were that trivial.
A disagreement over the best music would normally be a frivolous difference of opinion, but what would happen if it were politicized? You might criminalize my favorite songs if 51% of the voters agree with you or if a bureaucrat makes up a rule, then demand I only listen to your favorite music whether I like it or not, on 8-track tape, and throw me in a cell if I don't comply. No longer is it a difference of opinion; it has become a threat.
Neither is the dispute between Rightful Liberty and everything else- Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative- just a matter of opinion.
The opinion that a State and its laws are necessary and can make you safer, or make bad people good, eventually leads to slavery, death, and destruction. The opinion that government can be constitutionally limited to keep it under control has the weight of human history against it. Cemeteries and secret mass graves overflow with counterarguments to those who believe living under a State is better for people than living without one: over 200 million non-military dead, most killed by "their own" governments, during the 20th Century alone. Anarchy can't possibly be worse.
But you may not agree.
If you disagree with my opinion that Rightful Liberty is something I should respect in everyone else, I will let you go your own way unless you attack me over our difference of opinion. That's because your Rightful Liberty- your "unobstructed action according to [your] will within limits drawn around [you] by the equal rights of others"- is more important to me than having you live as I wish you would.
Unfortunately, those holding "mainstream" political opinions openly believe it is OK to cage or kill people who have differing opinions, especially if they dare to live according to their opinion in defiance of laws, even if they violate no one's Rightful Liberty while doing so. Their opinion results in everyone being controlled with arbitrary and harmful laws enforced by agents of the state, who are paid through that taking of private property euphemistically called "taxation", and any noncompliance will inevitably be met with violent enforcement of those laws. Deadly force over a difference of opinion? Some opinion!
So, which government law or program do you want badly enough to believe it's worth taking your neighbors property, liberty, or life, over? Don't say "they should just obey the law", because things like slavery were once legal, and many of today's laws will be viewed with the same contempt by future generations.
.
How to minimize the problems with the military
(Previously posted to Patreon)
.
Like America's founders, I am highly suspicious of a standing military. They are not a good idea, and are too dangerous to permit.
The people ought to form militias, but no government can ever be trusted with a military. They just can't.
However, ignoring how the military is financed (through theft called "taxation")- if it were used strictly for defense and never for offense, empire building, nor to "police the world" I wouldn't have so much problem with it. It really wouldn't be a force for evil anymore, other than the theft committed to fund it.
But no state can ever resist the temptation to keep and deploy (and abuse) a military. A State will always use its military for evil, and a military is never useful for anything other than supporting and growing a State (and therefore endangering the innocent people everywhere it goes). And, they are not "our troops"; they belong only to the State and are a danger to Rightful Liberty.
Monday, January 05, 2015
"Not fair..."
After a few years of being around other kids, I notice my daughter has developed a fascination with "fair". Usually, as in "that's not fair".
This amuses me a little bit, but each time she says that I remind her that "fair" isn't a real thing. Life happens as it will, "fair" doesn't figure into it at all.
That doesn't mean I don't try to be "fair" when dealing with her.
Is that contradictory? Maybe.
I would love for the Universe to be fair. When the laws of physics or human nature conspire against me I would love to be able to remind the Universe to be fair and have things improve immediately. But, that's not up to the Universe- it is MY job to be fair when dealing with others. What they do is up to them.
The Universe doesn't care- that's my job (and I hope you accept that job, too).
I don't want my daughter going through life under the impression that life will be fair, and getting hurt when it isn't. I'd rather she understand it is up to her to choose to be fair when dealing with others, to accept that others may not be so reasonable, and to protect herself from the nature of reality when she can.
.
This amuses me a little bit, but each time she says that I remind her that "fair" isn't a real thing. Life happens as it will, "fair" doesn't figure into it at all.
That doesn't mean I don't try to be "fair" when dealing with her.
Is that contradictory? Maybe.
I would love for the Universe to be fair. When the laws of physics or human nature conspire against me I would love to be able to remind the Universe to be fair and have things improve immediately. But, that's not up to the Universe- it is MY job to be fair when dealing with others. What they do is up to them.
The Universe doesn't care- that's my job (and I hope you accept that job, too).
I don't want my daughter going through life under the impression that life will be fair, and getting hurt when it isn't. I'd rather she understand it is up to her to choose to be fair when dealing with others, to accept that others may not be so reasonable, and to protect herself from the nature of reality when she can.
.
Sunday, January 04, 2015
Let your fear go
Cowardice. Ugh. Just look where it gets people.
Fear of war lords, of hordes of worthless people looting, or of other bad guys makes people embrace the State- and it's disgusting enforcers- out of fear of what might happen in their absence. It's really sad.
I see it over and over.
Just because people are scared of what they imagine could happen, they support a current evil that really does kill innocent people now. I'm not sure how they imagine things could be worse without the State, but they certainly do imagine it. I've always had an active imagination, but that's stretching it beyond thin.
But, maybe they are right. Maybe liberty would be a short-lived disaster. I highly doubt it, but I'm willing to take my chances. How about you?
I'll watch your back, and I would appreciate it if you watch mine- but no obligation if you'd rather not. Liberty is worth the trouble.
.
Fear of war lords, of hordes of worthless people looting, or of other bad guys makes people embrace the State- and it's disgusting enforcers- out of fear of what might happen in their absence. It's really sad.
I see it over and over.
Just because people are scared of what they imagine could happen, they support a current evil that really does kill innocent people now. I'm not sure how they imagine things could be worse without the State, but they certainly do imagine it. I've always had an active imagination, but that's stretching it beyond thin.
But, maybe they are right. Maybe liberty would be a short-lived disaster. I highly doubt it, but I'm willing to take my chances. How about you?
I'll watch your back, and I would appreciate it if you watch mine- but no obligation if you'd rather not. Liberty is worth the trouble.
.
Saturday, January 03, 2015
Internet? What's that?
I have been online very little in the past week or so.
First I had the flu at the same time my son came to visit. Yay. He's here for a couple more days. So, I've been spending time visiting with him. We are pretty much snowed in now- which I don't mind.
Then, last night as this area was getting 9" of snow, the furnace decided to stop working. Now, for me, that's not really a hardship. I have a fireplace, and I like to sleep in cold air. But some other people under this roof get very worked up over such things.
So, at 3AM I was running around outside, going to the cellar to get an electric heater to supplement the fireplace. This was after trying to fix the furnace without success. I thought the thermocouple was out, but I changed that today and had the same problem- mostly. Talking to the former owner of the house has me suspecting the gas valve is crapping out- which he says cost $120 the last time he replaced it a few years ago- but I did eventually get the heater to come on for a while and get the house temperature back up to where the soft, modern humans in the house were happy. Looks like I may have to try to buy a new gas valve very soon. Sure could use that money for other things, but I guess the furnace is importantish.
Anyway, before long I'll probably be back online a normal amount.
.
First I had the flu at the same time my son came to visit. Yay. He's here for a couple more days. So, I've been spending time visiting with him. We are pretty much snowed in now- which I don't mind.
Then, last night as this area was getting 9" of snow, the furnace decided to stop working. Now, for me, that's not really a hardship. I have a fireplace, and I like to sleep in cold air. But some other people under this roof get very worked up over such things.
So, at 3AM I was running around outside, going to the cellar to get an electric heater to supplement the fireplace. This was after trying to fix the furnace without success. I thought the thermocouple was out, but I changed that today and had the same problem- mostly. Talking to the former owner of the house has me suspecting the gas valve is crapping out- which he says cost $120 the last time he replaced it a few years ago- but I did eventually get the heater to come on for a while and get the house temperature back up to where the soft, modern humans in the house were happy. Looks like I may have to try to buy a new gas valve very soon. Sure could use that money for other things, but I guess the furnace is importantish.
Anyway, before long I'll probably be back online a normal amount.
.
Enjoy beauty whenever you can
Stolen money can either go toward something hideous or something beautiful.
If you are mugged in a back alley- or "taxed"- your stolen money might finance a visit to a crack house or the construction of an ugly prison. Or, maybe the mugger will use the loot to buy paint and make a beautiful mural on the side of a courthouse- or maybe a government fireworks display. Even paint bought with stolen money applied to the side of a building paid for with more stolen money can be beautiful.
Would you feel guilty for admiring something beautiful financed with stolen money?
You probably shouldn't. You might as well enjoy beauty wherever you find it. It doesn't mean you should excuse theft. Theft is theft. It is always wrong, no matter what it is used for. Don't sidestep the truth. But don't shut out beauty, either.
I guess I'd still rather see stolen money go to make something beautiful than to something horrible like a prison or to hire a cop. Of course, I'd much rather have everyone reject theft altogether. Maybe someday...
.
If you are mugged in a back alley- or "taxed"- your stolen money might finance a visit to a crack house or the construction of an ugly prison. Or, maybe the mugger will use the loot to buy paint and make a beautiful mural on the side of a courthouse- or maybe a government fireworks display. Even paint bought with stolen money applied to the side of a building paid for with more stolen money can be beautiful.
Would you feel guilty for admiring something beautiful financed with stolen money?
You probably shouldn't. You might as well enjoy beauty wherever you find it. It doesn't mean you should excuse theft. Theft is theft. It is always wrong, no matter what it is used for. Don't sidestep the truth. But don't shut out beauty, either.
I guess I'd still rather see stolen money go to make something beautiful than to something horrible like a prison or to hire a cop. Of course, I'd much rather have everyone reject theft altogether. Maybe someday...
.
Thursday, January 01, 2015
Happy New Year, and free information
Happy New Year!
For the past year I have been trying one of my year-long experiments. This year's was not as successful as the standing desk, which I'm still using.
No, this year's experiment was washing my hair with baking soda and apple cider vinegar instead of shampoo.
I have made my own deodorant and toothpaste from baking soda (and other ingredients)- and they worked OK, but there were always issues*.
And, when I say "not as successful", I don't mean there was any real problem. I honestly can't tell a difference in my hair after using no shampoo, but only baking soda and apple cider vinegar for a year.
So, while I'm glad there was no problem, considering the extra work, I think I'll just switch back to shampoo and conditioner. "No difference" translates into "no reason" in this case. Shampoo and conditioner are just faster and easier. Yeah, they may be slightly more expensive, but since using the "natural alternative" takes longer to wash out, I wonder if the extra water usage eliminated any economic benefit.
Plus, if you can't easily make baking soda at home in the event of TSHTF, it's not really a survival technique anyway. Yucca leaves and roots might fit that bill better (or other things, depending on your location). I would say it's best left to those times you ran out of shampoo, don't want to use your soap/body wash for some reason, and have the ingredients at home.
Just another bit of data to keep in the back of your mind, but don't spend much time worrying about it one way or the other.
The toothpaste also worked. It was also affected too much by temperature- often either flowing out of the tube as a liquid, or too hard to squeeze out.
.
For the past year I have been trying one of my year-long experiments. This year's was not as successful as the standing desk, which I'm still using.
No, this year's experiment was washing my hair with baking soda and apple cider vinegar instead of shampoo.
I have made my own deodorant and toothpaste from baking soda (and other ingredients)- and they worked OK, but there were always issues*.
And, when I say "not as successful", I don't mean there was any real problem. I honestly can't tell a difference in my hair after using no shampoo, but only baking soda and apple cider vinegar for a year.
So, while I'm glad there was no problem, considering the extra work, I think I'll just switch back to shampoo and conditioner. "No difference" translates into "no reason" in this case. Shampoo and conditioner are just faster and easier. Yeah, they may be slightly more expensive, but since using the "natural alternative" takes longer to wash out, I wonder if the extra water usage eliminated any economic benefit.
Plus, if you can't easily make baking soda at home in the event of TSHTF, it's not really a survival technique anyway. Yucca leaves and roots might fit that bill better (or other things, depending on your location). I would say it's best left to those times you ran out of shampoo, don't want to use your soap/body wash for some reason, and have the ingredients at home.
Just another bit of data to keep in the back of your mind, but don't spend much time worrying about it one way or the other.
-
*The deodorant was crumbly. It was too hard when cold and too soupy when hot. That's the coconut oil. It did work pretty well, though.The toothpaste also worked. It was also affected too much by temperature- often either flowing out of the tube as a liquid, or too hard to squeeze out.
.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
It all goes back to property rights
It all goes back to property rights
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 28, 2014.)
Those who oppose "illegal immigration" should push for a constitutional amendment to finally make immigration control and closed borders constitutional (therefore, legal). In clear language, with no ambiguity. This would be necessary to make some immigrants "illegal" and end the hypocrisy. Those opposed to "illegal immigration" should obey the highest law before demanding others obey subordinate laws which were never authorized by the Constitution.
Obviously, clear language guarantees nothing. The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear, yet has been violated and ignored by "laws" at every level of government for the past 80-plus years.
Even with a constitutional amendment it would still be wrong to pretend any government has the authority to violate private property rights and dictate whom you are allowed to rent to, hire, or invite for a visit, and to tell people where they are allowed to be. At least then those who claim to want government to obey the Constitution wouldn't be talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I do sympathize. To a point.
If you are worried immigrants will vote for more socialism- just like the majority of American voters already do- why not win them over rather than alienating them? The actions taken by those who explain they are only opposed to "illegal immigration" are self-defeating at best. If you believe your way is so unappealing it isn't possible to make newcomers want it, then immigrants are not your biggest problem.
It bothers me when anyone, regardless of where they were born, votes for more socialistic handouts and programs; for more government or more "laws". No matter what justification they use. It makes no difference to me where an attacker or a thief was born, nor what government papers he holds. I want to see aggressors and thieves struck down through self defense every time they strike.
Yet, if private property rights are respected, the whole issue of "immigration" evaporates.
If all property were individually owned, and there weren't an entire system established to wrest control of property from the rightful owners, the owners could decide how to control it. Government owns nothing it didn't either steal from the original owners or buy with stolen (or counterfeited) money. Since no thief owns the stolen property he possesses, why do people pretend there are federal, state, or local "public" lands to be controlled by government?
With real property rights people would either be where they have a right to be, or they'd be trespassing and subject to forcible removal. If property rights stopped immigration, so be it. If not, that's also just fine. This is as it should be.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 28, 2014.)
Those who oppose "illegal immigration" should push for a constitutional amendment to finally make immigration control and closed borders constitutional (therefore, legal). In clear language, with no ambiguity. This would be necessary to make some immigrants "illegal" and end the hypocrisy. Those opposed to "illegal immigration" should obey the highest law before demanding others obey subordinate laws which were never authorized by the Constitution.
Obviously, clear language guarantees nothing. The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear, yet has been violated and ignored by "laws" at every level of government for the past 80-plus years.
Even with a constitutional amendment it would still be wrong to pretend any government has the authority to violate private property rights and dictate whom you are allowed to rent to, hire, or invite for a visit, and to tell people where they are allowed to be. At least then those who claim to want government to obey the Constitution wouldn't be talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I do sympathize. To a point.
If you are worried immigrants will vote for more socialism- just like the majority of American voters already do- why not win them over rather than alienating them? The actions taken by those who explain they are only opposed to "illegal immigration" are self-defeating at best. If you believe your way is so unappealing it isn't possible to make newcomers want it, then immigrants are not your biggest problem.
It bothers me when anyone, regardless of where they were born, votes for more socialistic handouts and programs; for more government or more "laws". No matter what justification they use. It makes no difference to me where an attacker or a thief was born, nor what government papers he holds. I want to see aggressors and thieves struck down through self defense every time they strike.
Yet, if private property rights are respected, the whole issue of "immigration" evaporates.
If all property were individually owned, and there weren't an entire system established to wrest control of property from the rightful owners, the owners could decide how to control it. Government owns nothing it didn't either steal from the original owners or buy with stolen (or counterfeited) money. Since no thief owns the stolen property he possesses, why do people pretend there are federal, state, or local "public" lands to be controlled by government?
With real property rights people would either be where they have a right to be, or they'd be trespassing and subject to forcible removal. If property rights stopped immigration, so be it. If not, that's also just fine. This is as it should be.
.
Thug vs Thug
Ever since the Micheal Brown/Darren Wilson incident I have seen the same thinking error happen over and over again.
Even among those inclined toward liberty.
People who should know better seem to be throwing their unconditional support behind Wilson, just because they don't wish to be seen supporting Brown.
People are so desperate to not be seen supporting someone they see as the bad guy that they make idiots of themselves supporting another bad guy. They want to believe Brown was a bad guy- and it's quite possible he was- so they jump to support Wilson even though he is also a bad guy.
Don't make the mistake of believing that openly breaking counterfeit rules makes a person "bad" either, because nothing could be further from the truth. Good people break bad "laws".
It got so bad I saw people hesitating to condemn the cop who murdered Eric Garner- seemingly based on how they view the Brown/Wilson encounter.
It is common for bad guys to kill each other. It's the life they choose. Don't get wrapped up in supporting one side simply because you hate the other a little more; feel free to condemn both as what they are. And when one side is clearly the bad guy, violating someone who wasn't currently initiating force or theft (which is something ALL on-duty cops are guilty of), then don't hesitate to call the thug a thug.
.
Even among those inclined toward liberty.
People who should know better seem to be throwing their unconditional support behind Wilson, just because they don't wish to be seen supporting Brown.
People are so desperate to not be seen supporting someone they see as the bad guy that they make idiots of themselves supporting another bad guy. They want to believe Brown was a bad guy- and it's quite possible he was- so they jump to support Wilson even though he is also a bad guy.
Don't make the mistake of believing that openly breaking counterfeit rules makes a person "bad" either, because nothing could be further from the truth. Good people break bad "laws".
It got so bad I saw people hesitating to condemn the cop who murdered Eric Garner- seemingly based on how they view the Brown/Wilson encounter.
It is common for bad guys to kill each other. It's the life they choose. Don't get wrapped up in supporting one side simply because you hate the other a little more; feel free to condemn both as what they are. And when one side is clearly the bad guy, violating someone who wasn't currently initiating force or theft (which is something ALL on-duty cops are guilty of), then don't hesitate to call the thug a thug.
.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Firefighter or cop?
(Previously posted to Patreon)
If firefighting were done like policing, firefighters would go cruising around looking for fire. Or smoke. Instead of actually spending most of their active time rescuing people and property, they would spend most of their time writing tickets for candles, cigarettes, possession of lighters, or anything hotter than allowed. They would have quotas, and if they couldn't fight fires, they would make their own work.
Smokers could be shot dead, with minimal warning, since the firefighter was "only doing his job". And, where there's smoke, there's fire.
Any fires reported would draw firefighters from all over, who would stand around and watch it burn, since they "just want to go home at the end of the shift", and firefighter safety would trump all else.
If firefighting were done like policing, firefighters would go cruising around looking for fire. Or smoke. Instead of actually spending most of their active time rescuing people and property, they would spend most of their time writing tickets for candles, cigarettes, possession of lighters, or anything hotter than allowed. They would have quotas, and if they couldn't fight fires, they would make their own work.
Smokers could be shot dead, with minimal warning, since the firefighter was "only doing his job". And, where there's smoke, there's fire.
Any fires reported would draw firefighters from all over, who would stand around and watch it burn, since they "just want to go home at the end of the shift", and firefighter safety would trump all else.
A firefighter discovered to be an arsonist would be given a few days paid vacation before being found to have acted within departmental policy. He would be reinstated and anyone who spoke out for the victims of the fires he set would be hated and threatened. He would get rich from donations collected during his vacation, and his victims would be said to have deserved what they got.
And we would be constantly told how heroic they are, and how without them, the entire planet would burn to a crisp.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)