I guess I should sent the State Line Tribune another Liberty Lines soon. Shame on me for slacking.
.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
If you're right, what do you care what I think?
Recently I have upset a lot of people ("conservatives") with my opinions on the mass murderer, serial killer Chris Kyle, and "capital punishment".
That is understandable.
I'm still right on both counts.
However, what does it matter? It's "just" my opinion.
Chris Kyle is dead, the movie beatifying his worthless murdering hide is a huge success, and my opinion won't likely talk even one person out of selling their soul to the State, especially if they hunger to murder large numbers of people without "legal" consequence. Those on that path aren't going to be reading my opinion anyway. I wouldn't use The State or its "laws" to stop them even if I could.
And, on the topic of "capital punishment", statists are going to do what they are going to do. I am powerless to stop even one "execution". Sure, if I saw a person in the public square, kneeling to be beheaded, and I were able to take a shot- just like a military sniper- to kill the executioner as he raised the sword, I would do it. Before you compare me to a military sniper, let me remind you this act would be my responsibility; my "fault", individually. Not "just following orders" or "just doing my job". I couldn't justify my actions by the gang I belong to. This would be killing to save a life by stopping a government action, against a person not currently initiating force nor property rights violations, in progress. Not just a potential act, but an imminent one. I would not shoot the same guy if he were simply walking through the square with a sword or firearm, nor if he were going after an obvious armed trespasser (obvious by the gang colors the trespasser wore), there to cause him or others harm. But, unless public executions become a thing in America, I wont be in any position to stop one. I don't trespass uninvited.
So, basically, all the anger over my opinions is silly. People are getting upset over what I think of them, or of people and practices they like. If I'm wrong, what do you care what I think of you? Not enough people read this blog for it to have much impact in how others think of you or those things you support.
If you believe you are right, keep doing or supporting those things and don't worry your conscience. If deep down you suspect I might be right, do some thinking for yourself.
.
That is understandable.
I'm still right on both counts.
However, what does it matter? It's "just" my opinion.
Chris Kyle is dead, the movie beatifying his worthless murdering hide is a huge success, and my opinion won't likely talk even one person out of selling their soul to the State, especially if they hunger to murder large numbers of people without "legal" consequence. Those on that path aren't going to be reading my opinion anyway. I wouldn't use The State or its "laws" to stop them even if I could.
And, on the topic of "capital punishment", statists are going to do what they are going to do. I am powerless to stop even one "execution". Sure, if I saw a person in the public square, kneeling to be beheaded, and I were able to take a shot- just like a military sniper- to kill the executioner as he raised the sword, I would do it. Before you compare me to a military sniper, let me remind you this act would be my responsibility; my "fault", individually. Not "just following orders" or "just doing my job". I couldn't justify my actions by the gang I belong to. This would be killing to save a life by stopping a government action, against a person not currently initiating force nor property rights violations, in progress. Not just a potential act, but an imminent one. I would not shoot the same guy if he were simply walking through the square with a sword or firearm, nor if he were going after an obvious armed trespasser (obvious by the gang colors the trespasser wore), there to cause him or others harm. But, unless public executions become a thing in America, I wont be in any position to stop one. I don't trespass uninvited.
So, basically, all the anger over my opinions is silly. People are getting upset over what I think of them, or of people and practices they like. If I'm wrong, what do you care what I think of you? Not enough people read this blog for it to have much impact in how others think of you or those things you support.
If you believe you are right, keep doing or supporting those things and don't worry your conscience. If deep down you suspect I might be right, do some thinking for yourself.
.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Slavery can be red tape or chains
Slavery can be red tape or chains
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 26, 2014)
Most people think of slavery as an evil from the past, at least in America and other "first world" places. Yet it's still all around us, only in slightly modified form. Libertarians are the modern day abolitionists seeking to change this.
Is slavery OK if you believe the slave would die without being owned and controlled? After all, the slave master feeds, clothes, and houses his human property so they will continue to live and be useful to him. A dead slave is of no use to anyone. And, perhaps, giving a slave his freedom and allowing him to live in Rightful Liberty would result in some tragedies.
That seems a poor justification for slavery.
Liberty is worth the risk every single time.
Does it change anything if the slave doesn't realize he is a slave?
Of course not. I would prefer to point out his condition and encourage him to change it, and offer my help.
Just as I don't want my loved ones to be slaves, even if their master feeds, shelters, and clothes them, I don't want to see things I love- such as parks, zoos, libraries, roads, and education- enslaved by being part of government.
Not only does that mean I don't want them dependent upon money taken from its rightful owner through the act of "taxation", but I don't want them controlled by a bureaucracy which tries to exempt them all from market forces. This only entrenches the status quo and makes real innovation less likely. I want them to be free to be the best they can possibly be, without any red tape whatsoever. Finding a better way to do anything requires the freedom to experiment, risk being wrong, and not be constrained by regulations or any sort of bureaucracy.
It's odd to me how many times I see people comment that if I don't want government providing something I must hate it and not want it to exist at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want the things I love to flourish and spread in every conceivable arrangement.
The year 2014 is wrapping up fast. In many ways it was a good year, but I'd love to see 2015 be even better. My fellow abolitionists and I would love to think 2014 would be the last gasp for slavery of any kind, anywhere in the world. But, as Harriet Tubman is reputed to have said: "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."
Happy New Year, and throw off your chains!
Most people think of slavery as an evil from the past, at least in America and other "first world" places. Yet it's still all around us, only in slightly modified form. Libertarians are the modern day abolitionists seeking to change this.
Is slavery OK if you believe the slave would die without being owned and controlled? After all, the slave master feeds, clothes, and houses his human property so they will continue to live and be useful to him. A dead slave is of no use to anyone. And, perhaps, giving a slave his freedom and allowing him to live in Rightful Liberty would result in some tragedies.
That seems a poor justification for slavery.
Liberty is worth the risk every single time.
Does it change anything if the slave doesn't realize he is a slave?
Of course not. I would prefer to point out his condition and encourage him to change it, and offer my help.
Just as I don't want my loved ones to be slaves, even if their master feeds, shelters, and clothes them, I don't want to see things I love- such as parks, zoos, libraries, roads, and education- enslaved by being part of government.
Not only does that mean I don't want them dependent upon money taken from its rightful owner through the act of "taxation", but I don't want them controlled by a bureaucracy which tries to exempt them all from market forces. This only entrenches the status quo and makes real innovation less likely. I want them to be free to be the best they can possibly be, without any red tape whatsoever. Finding a better way to do anything requires the freedom to experiment, risk being wrong, and not be constrained by regulations or any sort of bureaucracy.
It's odd to me how many times I see people comment that if I don't want government providing something I must hate it and not want it to exist at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want the things I love to flourish and spread in every conceivable arrangement.
The year 2014 is wrapping up fast. In many ways it was a good year, but I'd love to see 2015 be even better. My fellow abolitionists and I would love to think 2014 would be the last gasp for slavery of any kind, anywhere in the world. But, as Harriet Tubman is reputed to have said: "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."
Happy New Year, and throw off your chains!
.
Living in FoxNewsIstan
OK, honestly, I can't say if they were influenced by any "news" channel.
I overheard some people discussing the mass murderer movie. Salivating to go see it; grieving that it is always "sold out". Propaganda has never been so profitable. The State risks none of the stolen money it controls, lets corporations do it instead, and both reap the rewards.
A nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.
Anyway, they were talking in reverent tones about the movie, unaware of its inaccuracies. And refusing to see the despicable events it portrays as bad in any way. Because, "Muslims!", and "America!"
Then, the talk shifted to an older movie from a few years before "9/11", where the hero spoke of not negotiating with terrorists. They commented that if (Islamic) terrorism had been "nipped in the bud" back then, "we" wouldn't still be dealing with it now.
Ignoring the reality that the terrorists were created, in large part, by the US government or its policies. No, "we" don't negotiate with terrorists- "we" create them, so "we" will have an excuse for never-ending war and tyranny at "home".
But, they were simply parroting the "conservative" mantra, and around here, it is gospel. And, in a very real way, it makes me feel sick.
Recently, I have been upsetting a lot of "conservatives". Not sure why; they should know by now I am not one of "them". I am the opposite of "conservative" and "liberal". Where they adhere to a respect for Rightful Liberty, I am right there beside them. When they veer off course into the swamp of statism, I don't follow them to oblivion. It's just my way. I just wish they would be consistent and choose a side: Liberty or State. But, not my circus; not my monkeys.
.
I overheard some people discussing the mass murderer movie. Salivating to go see it; grieving that it is always "sold out". Propaganda has never been so profitable. The State risks none of the stolen money it controls, lets corporations do it instead, and both reap the rewards.
A nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.
Anyway, they were talking in reverent tones about the movie, unaware of its inaccuracies. And refusing to see the despicable events it portrays as bad in any way. Because, "Muslims!", and "America!"
Then, the talk shifted to an older movie from a few years before "9/11", where the hero spoke of not negotiating with terrorists. They commented that if (Islamic) terrorism had been "nipped in the bud" back then, "we" wouldn't still be dealing with it now.
Ignoring the reality that the terrorists were created, in large part, by the US government or its policies. No, "we" don't negotiate with terrorists- "we" create them, so "we" will have an excuse for never-ending war and tyranny at "home".
But, they were simply parroting the "conservative" mantra, and around here, it is gospel. And, in a very real way, it makes me feel sick.
Recently, I have been upsetting a lot of "conservatives". Not sure why; they should know by now I am not one of "them". I am the opposite of "conservative" and "liberal". Where they adhere to a respect for Rightful Liberty, I am right there beside them. When they veer off course into the swamp of statism, I don't follow them to oblivion. It's just my way. I just wish they would be consistent and choose a side: Liberty or State. But, not my circus; not my monkeys.
.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Disappointment
I am feeling a lot of disappointment.
I am disappointed when someone who knows better does wrong. I put no one on a pedestal, so any individual's actions don't pull the rug out from under me. But I am still disappointed.
That disappointment is magnified exponentially when the response from people who also know better is to start chanting for revenge, punishment, and other evils which form the very foundation of The State and are antithetical to justice. Like a pack of dogs when one falls, they lose their minds and pile on, to tear the fallen dog to shreds, not really caring who else gets hurt in the free for all.
This is the greater tragedy, with the most far-reaching and long lasting repercussions and damage to the most individuals. In the long run, it is much more harmful than the evil actions of one person toward one other person. It shows how bad individuals can behave when herd behavior takes control.
What is the difference between a liberty lover and a statist if they act the same way- even to the point of calling for the exact same response- to a horrible situation?
This kind of "thinking" is why The State still hangs on. It is, as is said, "why we can't have nice things".
It makes me feel alienated. It takes the wind out of my sails. If supposed liberty lovers don't "get it", how can I expect anyone else to?
This disappointment drives home the fact that I can never really "belong". I am me. Alone.
I have said where I stand and what I believe in over 8 years of blog posts- and you can witness through those posts as I have pared away inconsistencies and relinquished the clinging bits of statism I have shed over the years. I have explained how I will behave toward others, however they behave toward me. I am not associated with others beyond where our beliefs, and how we act on those beliefs, are parallel- where we diverge, we diverge.
It makes me just want to post cat pictures.
.
I am disappointed when someone who knows better does wrong. I put no one on a pedestal, so any individual's actions don't pull the rug out from under me. But I am still disappointed.
That disappointment is magnified exponentially when the response from people who also know better is to start chanting for revenge, punishment, and other evils which form the very foundation of The State and are antithetical to justice. Like a pack of dogs when one falls, they lose their minds and pile on, to tear the fallen dog to shreds, not really caring who else gets hurt in the free for all.
This is the greater tragedy, with the most far-reaching and long lasting repercussions and damage to the most individuals. In the long run, it is much more harmful than the evil actions of one person toward one other person. It shows how bad individuals can behave when herd behavior takes control.
What is the difference between a liberty lover and a statist if they act the same way- even to the point of calling for the exact same response- to a horrible situation?
This kind of "thinking" is why The State still hangs on. It is, as is said, "why we can't have nice things".
It makes me feel alienated. It takes the wind out of my sails. If supposed liberty lovers don't "get it", how can I expect anyone else to?
This disappointment drives home the fact that I can never really "belong". I am me. Alone.
I have said where I stand and what I believe in over 8 years of blog posts- and you can witness through those posts as I have pared away inconsistencies and relinquished the clinging bits of statism I have shed over the years. I have explained how I will behave toward others, however they behave toward me. I am not associated with others beyond where our beliefs, and how we act on those beliefs, are parallel- where we diverge, we diverge.
It makes me just want to post cat pictures.
.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Patronizing, anti-gun, gun lovers
From time to time I'll see someone posting online about a cool replica gun they have built. That is fine as far as it goes.
I can appreciate their works of art. I have a nice non-functional replica, myself, although I didn't build it. I also have a lot of toy guns, and cheap sci-fi toys based on Star Trek and Star Wars guns. So, I see nothing wrong with appreciating fake guns, too.
Occasionally, though, I misunderstand and mistake their pictured replica for a real gun, and make a comment based on that misunderstanding. Some will laugh it off and inform me that their gun is a non-functional replica, and we can go from there discussing the nice points of their fake gun.
But, what I don't like is when someone takes that opportunity to get patronizing, telling me that "real guns are too dangerous", and going on a diatribe based upon their beloved anti-gun beliefs. Yeah, that can really irritate me.
Maybe real guns are too dangerous for them. In that case, they are probably too stupid to own fake guns, too. After all, acting stupid with a fake gun can get you just as dead as misusing a real gun.
.
I can appreciate their works of art. I have a nice non-functional replica, myself, although I didn't build it. I also have a lot of toy guns, and cheap sci-fi toys based on Star Trek and Star Wars guns. So, I see nothing wrong with appreciating fake guns, too.
Occasionally, though, I misunderstand and mistake their pictured replica for a real gun, and make a comment based on that misunderstanding. Some will laugh it off and inform me that their gun is a non-functional replica, and we can go from there discussing the nice points of their fake gun.
But, what I don't like is when someone takes that opportunity to get patronizing, telling me that "real guns are too dangerous", and going on a diatribe based upon their beloved anti-gun beliefs. Yeah, that can really irritate me.
Maybe real guns are too dangerous for them. In that case, they are probably too stupid to own fake guns, too. After all, acting stupid with a fake gun can get you just as dead as misusing a real gun.
.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
"Capital punishment" is murder. Here's why
The reason a State death penalty is murder seems to be lost on some people.
Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.
Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.
For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.
Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.
.
Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.
Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.
For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.
Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.
.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Can anything be "made right" with a wrong?
I am not a "believer" in The State. Period.
No matter what someone has done, or to whom, The State is never a good "solution" (if it can be considered a "solution" at all) and I don't support any response which involves the State or any of its tentacles.
I don't believe in imprisonment. No justice can ever come by this path.
I don't believe in revenge or punishment. Once again, these are anti-justice. I also understand that most people are enthusiastic fans of both, so this puts me at odds with seemingly everyone.
I am a big fan of death at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer at the scene of the attack- but anything later is revenge or an attempt to "punish". I can understand the desire for punishment, and have even been guilty of committing it myself in the past, but it is still wrong.
Some things can never be "made right"- but with the knowledge of that fact seems to come a desire to toss everything aside and become a salivating revenge junkie, a crazed punishment pusher, or a situational statist.
And, that's all I have to say on that matter.
.
No matter what someone has done, or to whom, The State is never a good "solution" (if it can be considered a "solution" at all) and I don't support any response which involves the State or any of its tentacles.
I don't believe in imprisonment. No justice can ever come by this path.
I don't believe in revenge or punishment. Once again, these are anti-justice. I also understand that most people are enthusiastic fans of both, so this puts me at odds with seemingly everyone.
I am a big fan of death at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer at the scene of the attack- but anything later is revenge or an attempt to "punish". I can understand the desire for punishment, and have even been guilty of committing it myself in the past, but it is still wrong.
Some things can never be "made right"- but with the knowledge of that fact seems to come a desire to toss everything aside and become a salivating revenge junkie, a crazed punishment pusher, or a situational statist.
And, that's all I have to say on that matter.
.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
C. S. Lewis, liberty, and the evils of statism
Some of you might enjoy this talk by David J. Theroux to the C. S. Lewis Society of California. I listened to the whole thing and I enjoyed it.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Stop aiding your enemies with your inconsistency
I've been observing some meltdowns going on online. Meltdowns driving a wedge into the liberty community. In other words, doing the anti-liberty bigots' work for them. That's sad.
The funny thing is, it's always over compromise with evil- with inconsistency. Some people get their knickers in a bunch when others do it, while doing the exact same thing themselves and not recognizing it.
You look silly throwing a fit over some Second Amendment Rights compromiser who helps write anti-gun "laws" if you also support anti-liberty military mass murderers.
Yeah, it's the same sort of thing. It's support of State over Rightful Liberty in both cases.
Consistency is important. You can be consistently wrong- it is unlikely but possible. But, it is impossible to be inconsistent, yet right. You may be right about some things (by supporting Rightful Liberty) and wrong about others (by rejecting Rightful Liberty for some people in some instances and/or by supporting a particular enemy of liberty you want to support for whatever reason), but the areas where you are wrong damage your credibility where you are right.
I try to remain consistent. If I notice inconsistency in myself (or have it pointed out to me) I know it means I am wrong somewhere. I have worked hard to eliminate those inconsistencies, always toward a deeper respect for Liberty, even when it makes people hate me. I'd rather be right than popular- well, I suppose it would be nice to be both, but that's just not going to happen. Besides, if you are right, it means the people who like you are the good people, and not just those who "like" you for your popularity.
These petty (or not so petty) in-fights could be avoided if people would take consistency seriously and just stop trying to appease the anti-liberty bigots who will never be their friends anyway: those who give lip service to liberty as long as it suits their purposes- advancing their own liberty- and quickly forget it as soon as the State and its "laws" can be used against someone they hate.
When in doubt- and even when sure- always default toward Rightful Liberty. If you choose something over Liberty, own it.
Added: Someone, on the Facebook "share" of this post, commented "Good advice for you, Kent!", to which I replied "Please be specific about any inconsistencies I exhibit so that I can fix them." I'm still waiting for a response. Maybe I misunderstood what she was attempting to communicate.
.
The funny thing is, it's always over compromise with evil- with inconsistency. Some people get their knickers in a bunch when others do it, while doing the exact same thing themselves and not recognizing it.
You look silly throwing a fit over some Second Amendment Rights compromiser who helps write anti-gun "laws" if you also support anti-liberty military mass murderers.
Yeah, it's the same sort of thing. It's support of State over Rightful Liberty in both cases.
Consistency is important. You can be consistently wrong- it is unlikely but possible. But, it is impossible to be inconsistent, yet right. You may be right about some things (by supporting Rightful Liberty) and wrong about others (by rejecting Rightful Liberty for some people in some instances and/or by supporting a particular enemy of liberty you want to support for whatever reason), but the areas where you are wrong damage your credibility where you are right.
I try to remain consistent. If I notice inconsistency in myself (or have it pointed out to me) I know it means I am wrong somewhere. I have worked hard to eliminate those inconsistencies, always toward a deeper respect for Liberty, even when it makes people hate me. I'd rather be right than popular- well, I suppose it would be nice to be both, but that's just not going to happen. Besides, if you are right, it means the people who like you are the good people, and not just those who "like" you for your popularity.
These petty (or not so petty) in-fights could be avoided if people would take consistency seriously and just stop trying to appease the anti-liberty bigots who will never be their friends anyway: those who give lip service to liberty as long as it suits their purposes- advancing their own liberty- and quickly forget it as soon as the State and its "laws" can be used against someone they hate.
When in doubt- and even when sure- always default toward Rightful Liberty. If you choose something over Liberty, own it.
Added: Someone, on the Facebook "share" of this post, commented "Good advice for you, Kent!", to which I replied "Please be specific about any inconsistencies I exhibit so that I can fix them." I'm still waiting for a response. Maybe I misunderstood what she was attempting to communicate.
.
The War on Driving
Isn't it convenient that the primary mode of transportation has been declared by the State to be so uniquely dangerous that they must exercise extraordinary control over it with all sorts of "laws", and swarms of enforcers to impose those "laws" on travelers, even as those enforcers constitute a real "public" hazard by doing so.
They say in order to be safe enough to drive you must have all sorts of permits and licenses for you and your vehicle. They have asserted for themselves the "authority" to regulate what is in your blood or what you are doing. They claim to be authorized to take away your right to drive on a whim if you don't do what they demand.
Yes, there is a War on Driving, declared by the State and supported in some form by every sort of person- with truly few exceptions.
.
They say in order to be safe enough to drive you must have all sorts of permits and licenses for you and your vehicle. They have asserted for themselves the "authority" to regulate what is in your blood or what you are doing. They claim to be authorized to take away your right to drive on a whim if you don't do what they demand.
Yes, there is a War on Driving, declared by the State and supported in some form by every sort of person- with truly few exceptions.
.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
This is your brain on propaganda
Today was "online insane", all over that ridiculous sniper propaganda movie. It is turning brains to toxic sludge faster than any zombie virus ever dreamed of.
And, I don't get it.
I realize there is a very large contingent who desperately want to give cops and "troops" a pass they are not willing to give other State tools. Why? I don't know.
Fine.
I see it as blatant inconsistency, but you do whatever makes you happy and accept the consequences. I think truth is better, and that inconsistency shows you are wrong about something, but if you are comfortable with it...
Go ahead and go further. Insist that "taxation" can't be theft because government employees are committing it as part of their job.
This is basically what I am running up against.
It is no different when you claim that a soldier in war- on the invading side- is not a murderer because it's his job, and killing "the enemy" is what he is supposed to do. Mafia hitmen also have a job to do which includes killing people their boss tells them to kill, but I guess it is only "not murder" if you work for the biggest mafia..
Never mind that defending your neighbors from aggressive invaders is the right thing to do in every case, no matter where you live.
Never mind that owning and carrying weapons ("keep and bear arms") is a universal human right, and targeting individuals doing so in their own land is wrong- especially when you are the trespasser.
But, go right ahead and call me names.
If you excuse the state in one thing, you are excusing it in everything.
Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger
.
And, I don't get it.
I realize there is a very large contingent who desperately want to give cops and "troops" a pass they are not willing to give other State tools. Why? I don't know.
Fine.
I see it as blatant inconsistency, but you do whatever makes you happy and accept the consequences. I think truth is better, and that inconsistency shows you are wrong about something, but if you are comfortable with it...
Go ahead and go further. Insist that "taxation" can't be theft because government employees are committing it as part of their job.
This is basically what I am running up against.
It is no different when you claim that a soldier in war- on the invading side- is not a murderer because it's his job, and killing "the enemy" is what he is supposed to do. Mafia hitmen also have a job to do which includes killing people their boss tells them to kill, but I guess it is only "not murder" if you work for the biggest mafia..
Never mind that defending your neighbors from aggressive invaders is the right thing to do in every case, no matter where you live.
Never mind that owning and carrying weapons ("keep and bear arms") is a universal human right, and targeting individuals doing so in their own land is wrong- especially when you are the trespasser.
But, go right ahead and call me names.
If you excuse the state in one thing, you are excusing it in everything.
Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger
.
Enjoy celebrating your own way
Enjoy celebrating your own way
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 19, 2014)
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 19, 2014)
Maybe I’m sappy, but I love Christmas and the festive atmosphere surrounding it.
If you do too, and like for things to come together the way you hope they will, be grateful for voluntary individual actions. Part of the magic of Christmas is its voluntary nature and its decentralization.
The things which go into a big celebration can be overwhelming. Yet, somehow, it all comes together- or at least most of it does- because everyone is responsible for their part of the big picture. Everyone has their traditions and preferences, and there is no one person responsible for making sure each individual gets to do what they enjoy- each of us does our own thing with those who choose to join us. Those who would rather not celebrate, or like to celebrate in their own way, are not forced to join in. The unexpected crops up but on the whole it works, even if one person drops the ball.
Do you believe it would go as well if government took over the observance of Christmas? Ignore for a moment the First Amendment- just as government usually does anyway. Imagine the Federal Department of Christmas, and how it would run things if other government programs are any example of what to expect.
First of all, if government controlled it, Christmas would be mandatory. You'd pay for the celebration, public and private, at inflated prices, whether you wanted to participate or not. Gifts would be assigned according to what some bureaucrat has calculated everyone should want, and depending on whose favors and campaign contributions are due to be repaid. No real choice would be given in the matter, beyond a patronizing "choose between option 'A' and option 'B'". Other winter solstice holidays would be tolerated, but observing one of those wouldn't excuse you from supporting Christmas, with your allegiance and your tax dollars. You could be paying twice to have the celebration you wanted.
Imagine the red tape at having something as large and complicated as Christmas centrally planned. You'd have bureaucrats responsible for millions of families each, making sure all the proper forms had been filled out. Multiple times. Santa Claus would be a bureaucrat with all the good humor of any other overwhelmed government employee. Do you really think that would be better?
But, maybe you think a politicized Christmas would be great. Maybe you believe everyone should celebrate Christmas your way, and don't mind having it imposed just as I describe. Now, substitute some other culture's holiday for Christmas and see how you like that.
Be happy you can celebrate Christmas- or not- as you choose, keeping familial peace with voluntary compromise and cooperation.
If you do too, and like for things to come together the way you hope they will, be grateful for voluntary individual actions. Part of the magic of Christmas is its voluntary nature and its decentralization.
The things which go into a big celebration can be overwhelming. Yet, somehow, it all comes together- or at least most of it does- because everyone is responsible for their part of the big picture. Everyone has their traditions and preferences, and there is no one person responsible for making sure each individual gets to do what they enjoy- each of us does our own thing with those who choose to join us. Those who would rather not celebrate, or like to celebrate in their own way, are not forced to join in. The unexpected crops up but on the whole it works, even if one person drops the ball.
Do you believe it would go as well if government took over the observance of Christmas? Ignore for a moment the First Amendment- just as government usually does anyway. Imagine the Federal Department of Christmas, and how it would run things if other government programs are any example of what to expect.
First of all, if government controlled it, Christmas would be mandatory. You'd pay for the celebration, public and private, at inflated prices, whether you wanted to participate or not. Gifts would be assigned according to what some bureaucrat has calculated everyone should want, and depending on whose favors and campaign contributions are due to be repaid. No real choice would be given in the matter, beyond a patronizing "choose between option 'A' and option 'B'". Other winter solstice holidays would be tolerated, but observing one of those wouldn't excuse you from supporting Christmas, with your allegiance and your tax dollars. You could be paying twice to have the celebration you wanted.
Imagine the red tape at having something as large and complicated as Christmas centrally planned. You'd have bureaucrats responsible for millions of families each, making sure all the proper forms had been filled out. Multiple times. Santa Claus would be a bureaucrat with all the good humor of any other overwhelmed government employee. Do you really think that would be better?
But, maybe you think a politicized Christmas would be great. Maybe you believe everyone should celebrate Christmas your way, and don't mind having it imposed just as I describe. Now, substitute some other culture's holiday for Christmas and see how you like that.
Be happy you can celebrate Christmas- or not- as you choose, keeping familial peace with voluntary compromise and cooperation.
.
.
Chris Kyle- coward?
(Previously published on Patreon)
Was confessed (and proud) mass murderer Chris Kyle a "coward", as bloated collectivist moron Michael Moore asserts?
I don't know. I never met him, thank goodness.
It is quite possible to be both brave and a murderer. I think lots of murderers act brave while murdering. It doesn't make them heroes. I always hope someone will kill them in self defense or while protecting their intended victims.
Being evil doesn't preclude being brave, though.
Being a hitman for the State probably takes a lot of courage- or mind altering chemicals or brainwashing through propaganda. Especially when you must trespass, and be surrounded by people willing and able to defend themselves, in order to carry out your murders. It's still wrong.
I don't approve of the murder of Chris Kyle, either. The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer. From all accounts, Kyle was not initiating force when he was killed. So, his death was murder- exactly like the revenge murders carried out by State employees in prisons across the country, and exactly like the murders Kyle bragged of committing. Still, actions have consequences and as they say "Live by the sword, die by the sword". Maybe there is something to karma.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the fawning worship of this despicable murderer by those inclined to worship the government military in all things.
Chris Kyle was a hitman for the mafia known as the US government, through its military. He was paid in stolen money to murder people defending themselves from aggressive invaders- in their own homes and villages. If you defend his actions it tells me what you really believe in.
Liberty or State? You can't support both.
Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger
.
Was confessed (and proud) mass murderer Chris Kyle a "coward", as bloated collectivist moron Michael Moore asserts?
I don't know. I never met him, thank goodness.
It is quite possible to be both brave and a murderer. I think lots of murderers act brave while murdering. It doesn't make them heroes. I always hope someone will kill them in self defense or while protecting their intended victims.
Being evil doesn't preclude being brave, though.
Being a hitman for the State probably takes a lot of courage- or mind altering chemicals or brainwashing through propaganda. Especially when you must trespass, and be surrounded by people willing and able to defend themselves, in order to carry out your murders. It's still wrong.
I don't approve of the murder of Chris Kyle, either. The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer. From all accounts, Kyle was not initiating force when he was killed. So, his death was murder- exactly like the revenge murders carried out by State employees in prisons across the country, and exactly like the murders Kyle bragged of committing. Still, actions have consequences and as they say "Live by the sword, die by the sword". Maybe there is something to karma.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the fawning worship of this despicable murderer by those inclined to worship the government military in all things.
Chris Kyle was a hitman for the mafia known as the US government, through its military. He was paid in stolen money to murder people defending themselves from aggressive invaders- in their own homes and villages. If you defend his actions it tells me what you really believe in.
Liberty or State? You can't support both.
-
Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger
.
Don't punch offensive jerks
I always tell my daughter you shouldn't hit someone for "just" offending you. Yet, that does seem to be the automatic human response, doesn't it.
I think it is one of the cornerstones of statism. Someone does something to offend you, so you use government to cause them pain.
Real aggression or property violations need no government permission (or agents acting on your behalf) to be responded to, but fake "harm", such as being offended, is easier to strike back against if you can blame it on something else- like a cop just enforcing a "law".
You have no right to not be offended nor to respond to offense with force, and you have no way to delegate rights you don't have to people with false authority.
.
I think it is one of the cornerstones of statism. Someone does something to offend you, so you use government to cause them pain.
Real aggression or property violations need no government permission (or agents acting on your behalf) to be responded to, but fake "harm", such as being offended, is easier to strike back against if you can blame it on something else- like a cop just enforcing a "law".
You have no right to not be offended nor to respond to offense with force, and you have no way to delegate rights you don't have to people with false authority.
.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Love liberty, or lick the hand of the State. Your choice.
How can liberty loving bloggers* point out the evil of the State in blog post after blog post... but interspersed in those, spout worship for parts of the State they like?
I see it over and over with certain bloggers.
It's like they recognize the State is completely evil, but they give the military a pass because they were once part of it, or have a loved one who was (or is).
Guess what. I have loved ones who have been in the military and have a loved one in the military even now, and I still recognize it for what it is: the blunt instrument of Empire-building evil. It's like the mugger's gun aimed at your face- and the "troops" are the bullets.
The inconsistency is staggering when someone keeps posting pro-military crap while claiming to value Rightful Liberty.
I'm not saying you can't learn from things the military teaches or has done. You can learn something valuable from anyone, but that doesn't mean you should worship them. It also doesn't mean you should shield them from honest criticism.
It also doesn't mean Chris Kyle was anything but a State's mafia hitman. A murderer.
Added: *I am very disappointed that one in particular didn't approve my comment to this effect on his blog post about idiot collectivist Michael Moore's comments about mass-murderer collectivist Chris Kyle. No, I won't say who he is, but you probably know of him.
.
I see it over and over with certain bloggers.
It's like they recognize the State is completely evil, but they give the military a pass because they were once part of it, or have a loved one who was (or is).
Guess what. I have loved ones who have been in the military and have a loved one in the military even now, and I still recognize it for what it is: the blunt instrument of Empire-building evil. It's like the mugger's gun aimed at your face- and the "troops" are the bullets.
The inconsistency is staggering when someone keeps posting pro-military crap while claiming to value Rightful Liberty.
I'm not saying you can't learn from things the military teaches or has done. You can learn something valuable from anyone, but that doesn't mean you should worship them. It also doesn't mean you should shield them from honest criticism.
It also doesn't mean Chris Kyle was anything but a State's mafia hitman. A murderer.
-
Added: *I am very disappointed that one in particular didn't approve my comment to this effect on his blog post about idiot collectivist Michael Moore's comments about mass-murderer collectivist Chris Kyle. No, I won't say who he is, but you probably know of him.
.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Excusing murder because (freelance) bad guys do it, too
When the question of a State-imposed death penalty comes up, I generally point out that no government anywhere, at any time, has ever been honest or honorable enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
Statists yelp at this simple truth.
They come up with any objection they can think of to excuse murder-by-state employee.
To say that my assertion that no government can be trusted with the power of life and death isn't taking into account the fact that freelance murderers also prove they can't be trusted with that power is overlooking that no one "trusts" them with that power. They take it.
Yet, people argue that because bad guys kill, "we" should empower a State to do so, also? That's crazy. Two wrongs don't make a right. And it overlooks the fact that governments are made of people. Flawed, violent, greedy, aggressive, dishonest- and all too often, murderous people. In fact, the "job" selects for the worst of the worst- the ones smart enough to do their murdering from behind a veil of legitimacy while those exactly like them are called "criminals".
A government which can impose death has no limits. And, they all- by definition- claim to have this "authority". That's why "limited government" is such a dangerous lie and a Utopian dream.
.
Statists yelp at this simple truth.
They come up with any objection they can think of to excuse murder-by-state employee.
To say that my assertion that no government can be trusted with the power of life and death isn't taking into account the fact that freelance murderers also prove they can't be trusted with that power is overlooking that no one "trusts" them with that power. They take it.
Yet, people argue that because bad guys kill, "we" should empower a State to do so, also? That's crazy. Two wrongs don't make a right. And it overlooks the fact that governments are made of people. Flawed, violent, greedy, aggressive, dishonest- and all too often, murderous people. In fact, the "job" selects for the worst of the worst- the ones smart enough to do their murdering from behind a veil of legitimacy while those exactly like them are called "criminals".
A government which can impose death has no limits. And, they all- by definition- claim to have this "authority". That's why "limited government" is such a dangerous lie and a Utopian dream.
.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Some things are NOT "OK"
(Previously published on Patreon)
As much as I'd like to get along with everyone around me, some things are not OK. Some things can never be OK, and I can't pretend they are OK. Not even if it hurts someone's feelings.
Statism is exactly as "not OK" as chattel slavery. Minarchism is the moral and ethical equivalent of excusing "just a little slavery". Either, "only" enslaving a small percentage of the population, or enslaving everyone "just a little". Actually, it isn't only the moral and ethical equivalent- it is exactly that: slavery.
The State = Slavery. Every single time, without exception.
.
As much as I'd like to get along with everyone around me, some things are not OK. Some things can never be OK, and I can't pretend they are OK. Not even if it hurts someone's feelings.
Statism is exactly as "not OK" as chattel slavery. Minarchism is the moral and ethical equivalent of excusing "just a little slavery". Either, "only" enslaving a small percentage of the population, or enslaving everyone "just a little". Actually, it isn't only the moral and ethical equivalent- it is exactly that: slavery.
The State = Slavery. Every single time, without exception.
How much slavery are you defending? How much slavery are you OK with? I'm not OK with any at all.
That doesn't mean I will go around carrying my soapbox and shouting to the slavers about how evil they are... but maybe I should. Maybe for the sake of comfort I am neglecting to do the right thing. It's a possibility I am willing to consider.
Those defending things that are never OK shouldn't be coddled. They should be shown reality, and if they reject that, they should be ridiculed, laughed at, shunned, shamed, and treated like what they are.
I know that's not "nice". But at some point, being "nice" to people advocating bad things is implicit support of the bad things they advocate. You can compartmentalize, if possible, because everyone has different facets to their life- some good, some bad. But, when your fishing buddy is chanting for slavery, call him out on it. Don't stay quiet just to save his feelings.
.
EDC: My "every day carry" post
Just in case you wonder what I carry with me everyday, here's the majority of it laid out to view.
Click to deminiaturize
The above picture is my belt, and those things which hang off it. I've worn the same belt since May 2, 1993, and the holes are starting to wallow out a little. Maybe another decade or so and I'll need a new one. Behind the pouch, not showing from this angle, is a knife sheath which carries my Kershaw knife (I got it when I was 12 or so, and have carried it most of the time since then). The next cylindrical pouch holds my spyglass. The next one holds a hobo tool and a hard sharpening stone. Built into the back of that pouch is a pocket to hold a business card case, where I keep some band-aids along with the business cards. Daughters often feel the need for band-aids. Next, after the gap, is my cell phone holster and the sheath for my folding knife.
Below that row you'll see the things that go in the large pouch: a Firesteel.com fire rod and striker, a pencil nub, tweezers, a bore gauge (I actually have found many uses for it over the years), a micro screw driver for spectacle repair, folding scissors, my spare (or rarely needed) keys, a small file, and a couple of allen wrenches.
Not shown: a couple of things I assume everyone carries, as well as about 15 to 25 feet of paracord (depending on how much I have recently used).
Then we come to the things carried in my vest.
Click to embiggen
I wear a old west style canvas vest with four pockets.
Top left is a cheap laser pointer. I have found many uses for this over the years. Recently I had bought some cheap dollar store batteries and had two of them explode in my pocket- about a month apart. Interesting sensation... Then you'll see my Zippo, which has a Z-Plus insert, since regular fluid evaporates for me, and a mass of safety pins, some filthy ear plugs, and a tape measure.
Middle top I have a small metal backed mirror, and a couple of metal boxes with small things in them (over-the-counter meds, a P-38 can opener, needle & thread, buttons, a piece of hacksaw blade, back for an earring, etc.) and a cloth in a small bag for cleaning my glasses.
Just below those you can see my old collapsible cup.
Starting back at the left again are my frequently used keys.
The rest of the stuff is carried in pockets I attached to the inside of my vest. There's another P-38 (not sure why), and below that are some emergency tooth brushes I carry for my daughter (although I have used them a few times), and my ear buds. I carry a USB cable, as well as a wall adapter and a car adapter for my phone, my Kindle, and for the "found phone" I just use to store music.
Next are a Sharpie, a diamond sharpening rod, an antique sharpening rod made of who-knows-what, another pencil nub, and a magnifying glass made of a lens I scavenged.
That's not all I carry on a daily basis, but the rest is sort of obvious.
I'm not sure how much it all weighs, but I have carried stuff like this for so long I am used to it. I hate not having something simple, and people know to come to me first if they need something. I am always adjusting and changing what I carry. If I am digging in a pocket and find something I haven't used, I take it out. Or, if there is something I find myself needing, and not having, it may get added. Yeah, it may make me look a little fatter than I am, but that's OK.
I am my own possibles bag. I don't need all this, but it does sometimes smooth over little issues to keep them from becoming problems.
UPDATE- 2-22-2019:
Here's the latest picture of the belt and its contents:
You may notice some repairs and replacements. The spyglass pouch has been repaired. The pouch with the hobo tool was replaced (as was the hobo tool). A different phone case is in use, since the newer phone is larger. That case-- with the Firefly "Independents" patch-- was made in the mid 1980s for a completely different purpose, but works well for my phone, a backup battery, a USB cable, and some adapters in case someone else needs a charge. Also, I broke down and started using a new belt.
Check out the other EDC posts.
.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Bouncing photons and claiming them as your property
You don't own the photons which have bounced off you you. Not even if someone else captures them digitally. Sorry if that upsets you.
Yes, I understand if you are upset that someone took an "upskirt" photo of you. He (or she) acted like a jerk. But you weren't touched in any way, nor were you coerced into changing anything you were doing. You have not been stolen from nor aggressed against. Call the photographer names if you want, but if you use (or threaten) force against him (or her) you are the one initiating force.
This all started over a photo someone posted in a non-libertarian Facebook group. The photo showed a woman hanging from an overhead rail on "public transportation". She was looking right at the photographer, but her panties were showing. Panties are clothes, not "nudity", by the way. She was obviously having fun, and it looked to me as though she was enjoying the attention she was getting.
People in the group started getting all twitchy, asking the person who posted the photo whether he had gotten her consent to post the photo, comparing it to a secretly captured "upskirt" photo, and having conniptions that not everyone was as offended as they thought they should be. It got stupid fast. Then it went totally insane with name-calling from all sides, and multiple threats to "report" the picture. Soon, the administrators (who I have seen act cowardly in several other instances) took down the photo and threatened to ban anyone who even mentioned the incident again.
(I agree they have the right to run "their page" however they want, within Facebook's terms of service, including doing this- that's not the issue here.)
I am all for consent. I think every human interaction should be consensual or not at all. I also think it would be nice if he asked to take the photo, and if she consented, then asked whether it was OK to post it online.
But, if you are in public you have no right to not be seen or photographed. You don't control how someone intercepts the photons bouncing off of you.
Which could be good, because if you did own those photons, then you would be responsible if they caused "harm" to someone. And, although The State does actually pretend that's a "thing" ("indecent exposure", displaying the digitus impudicus toward cops and other verminous State employees, etc.) and will find ways to punish you for "your" photons, but that's just because the State needs as many made-up reasons to punish as many people as possible.
Witnessing that offensensitivity meltdown also showed me that no matter how petty and bickering liberty-lovers can get, the non-libertarians out there can be so much worse. Without even noticing what morons they are being.
.
Yes, I understand if you are upset that someone took an "upskirt" photo of you. He (or she) acted like a jerk. But you weren't touched in any way, nor were you coerced into changing anything you were doing. You have not been stolen from nor aggressed against. Call the photographer names if you want, but if you use (or threaten) force against him (or her) you are the one initiating force.
This all started over a photo someone posted in a non-libertarian Facebook group. The photo showed a woman hanging from an overhead rail on "public transportation". She was looking right at the photographer, but her panties were showing. Panties are clothes, not "nudity", by the way. She was obviously having fun, and it looked to me as though she was enjoying the attention she was getting.
People in the group started getting all twitchy, asking the person who posted the photo whether he had gotten her consent to post the photo, comparing it to a secretly captured "upskirt" photo, and having conniptions that not everyone was as offended as they thought they should be. It got stupid fast. Then it went totally insane with name-calling from all sides, and multiple threats to "report" the picture. Soon, the administrators (who I have seen act cowardly in several other instances) took down the photo and threatened to ban anyone who even mentioned the incident again.
(I agree they have the right to run "their page" however they want, within Facebook's terms of service, including doing this- that's not the issue here.)
I am all for consent. I think every human interaction should be consensual or not at all. I also think it would be nice if he asked to take the photo, and if she consented, then asked whether it was OK to post it online.
But, if you are in public you have no right to not be seen or photographed. You don't control how someone intercepts the photons bouncing off of you.
Which could be good, because if you did own those photons, then you would be responsible if they caused "harm" to someone. And, although The State does actually pretend that's a "thing" ("indecent exposure", displaying the digitus impudicus toward cops and other verminous State employees, etc.) and will find ways to punish you for "your" photons, but that's just because the State needs as many made-up reasons to punish as many people as possible.
Witnessing that offensensitivity meltdown also showed me that no matter how petty and bickering liberty-lovers can get, the non-libertarians out there can be so much worse. Without even noticing what morons they are being.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)