If I were mayor

After last week's Liberty Lines came out in the paper, one person suggested I should run for mayor.

No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.

But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...

Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:

People of Farwell- from now on, there are only two rules in town: Do not violate anyone by attacking them, and Do not violate anyone's private property. That's it. I will not stand behind the police if they enforce any other "law", nor if by doing so they violate those two rules. 

"Do not violate anyone by attacking them" can best be summed up by the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." If you "initiate force"- that means "start it"- your victim can legitimately defend himself against you, no matter who you are, and no matter what your job may be. Thugs be warned!

Another way to explain the re-adoption of these forgotten rules is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." 

All other "laws" violate the rights of the individual. Do not violate anyone or their private property and we'll be fine.

.

Shaneen Allen- the wrap-up.

The good news is that Shaneen Allen got pardoned.

The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.

Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).

No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.

So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.

Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".

That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.

.

My next door neighbor is awesome.

This was in this week's State Line Tribune, in response to my most recent Liberty Lines. It was unsolicited, in fact, I haven't even spoken to her since my column came out.

.

Voluntaryist volunteers

I was recently told by a government extremist that they doubt I ever volunteer. They were speaking specifically about teaching (other people's) kids, but as I won't participate in classroom settings anymore, that limits my opportunities around here. They claimed that was no excuse.

Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.

I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.

Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.

For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.

But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.

I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)

But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.

I consider that another plus to me.

How many of you do volunteer work?

.

Death by broccoli- Death by liberty

Broccoli is healthy for you to eat, eating only broccoli isn't healthy. Some statists believe liberty is like that. Some is good, but "too much" is unhealthy.

They are wrong.

Is "too much" bad?

No.

First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.

Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.

In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.

.

Only government wins in election

Only government wins in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)

I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?

You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.

Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.

Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?

Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?

I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.

In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.

I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.

.

Killing people

In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.

It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.

It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).

.

Sometimes, they really aren't a Scotsman

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.

It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.

If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.

If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.

I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.

That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"

I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.

And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.

You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.

.

"Constitutional" doesn't mean "legitimate"

Admitting that a government, a branch of government, or a "law" is "constitutional" in no way suggests that it has any legitimacy.

It only means the Constitution permits it.

That's a huge difference.

.

Wedding cakes and other horrifying cultural disasters

Here's a suggestion which should- I repeat, should- make everyone happy and end the Great Gay Wedding Cake Battles.

On the part of the customer: Order the cake.

On the part of the baker: Bake and decorate the cake, leaving off any bride or groom figurines. Offer figurines for sale at the counter, separately and individually.

On the part of the customer: Buy the cake. Buy figurines of whatever gender or number and stick them in the icing of the cake in whatever arrangement makes you happy.

The end.

Yeah, I know. Everyone wants their choices validated by making them public and obnoxious. This peaceful solution doesn't satisfy that need.

.

"Guilty of desertion"

Sure, you can be guilty of desertion.

If you sign a valid contract which lays out your responsibilities and what you will get in exchange, if you run away before the expiration of that contract you deserted it. You might owe some restitution, and you wouldn't be eligible for any continuing benefits from that contract. And people would know and understand that you don't honor your agreements.

Of course, no contract which enslaves you is valid. No contract which calls for you to be caged if you decide to break it can be valid. No contract which requires you to live off theft, kill, and possibly be killed is valid. No contract which has individual penalties for only one side in case of a broken contract is valid.

No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it.

Which comes to that military delusion of "desertion".

The silliest objection to this "crime" is that they expose their military "brothers" to harm. Those "brothers" should follow the good example and also desert if they feel endangered. Staying in the military is in no way "honorable". Working for The State in any capacity is dishonorable. Always.

I appreciate those who break their contract with the mafia or any other organization which victimizes me by stealing my property and liberty. An organization which by its very existence makes me and those I love less safe. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they are a really nasty character otherwise.

.

Liberty Lines 4-2-2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)

I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.

It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.

That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".

I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.

As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.

Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.

Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.

A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.

I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-

Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link

.

Is it really necessary?

If you work for government and justify your "job" by claiming if government didn't do it, no one would, then your "job" shouldn't be done.

It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe your work to be. If it is actually needed, someone will do it- without relying on theft and coercion to fund it. Probably much better than the pathetic government attempt at filling that "need".

If no one steps up, then the "job" needs to go away.

.

Required vaccination brings red flag

Required vaccination brings red flag

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 27, 2015)

I know of a lot of people who are very vocal against vaccinations. They have their reasons, although I am less than convinced. I rarely believe in “one size fits all” solutions. This can make me unpopular with both sides.

I would say I am generally in favor of vaccinations — the ones that work, anyway. And, the ones where the targeted disease is actually worse than the potential harm caused by the vaccine.

Not all vaccines are equally effective, not all diseases to be vaccinated against are equally dangerous, and vaccines can and do cause harm.

"Until vaccines are as safe as say, marijuana, calling them 'safe' as a blanket statement is just plain false." -- libertarian activist, Christopher Cantwell

A couple of years ago I had a tetanus booster shot. To me the risks associated with tetanus- even considering the tiny likelihood of contracting it- are great enough that the risk of taking the vaccine wasn't even an issue. Others might disagree.

As long as you go into it understanding the risks and benefits, I won't criticize your choice.

To me, the red flag is mandatory vaccinations; something I am very much opposed to and will never support. I might try to talk you into a particular vaccination, but if you refuse I won't try to force you. If you're sick I'll probably avoid contact- just as I generally do with sick people.

If I am vaccinated against whatever you contracted, either my vaccination will protect me, or a vaccination probably wouldn't have done you any good, either. If there is any added risk to me, I am willing to accept it while standing up for your liberty. The risk is small compared to the risk of starting down the slippery slope of believing anyone has the authority to force someone to take a drug they don't want for their own good. I've seen where that inevitably leads, and it isn't healthy for anyone.

Once you start forcing people to be stabbed and have foreign substances placed inside their body "for the good of society", it is a small step to say they must give up other parts of their life, liberty, and property for society's benefit. Maybe their car is too big, their house too garish, their bank account too large, or their yard too messy. The notion that other people do not belong to you has become a very radical position, but it is still the only right one.

If you have strong feelings one way or the other about vaccinations, try to convince people and then leave them alone to live with the consequences of their choice.

.

Statists on parade

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". If something is necessary it can't be evil, and if it is evil, it can't be necessary.

Try to find some other justification for the State and its enforcers and military, and "taxation", and "laws".

The above was posted on the spur of the moment as my Facebook status a couple of days ago. It attracted the attention of a government extremist. The thread is long, but you might enjoy seeing just how a statist attempts to justify their beliefs.

If you don't "do" Facebook, I understand, but you are missing some amusement. Someday, I may try to post the whole thing here, but probably not. It is long and still growing.

Here is the link; Link

.

Smart (people's) choices

Smart people are not necessarily better people, but smart people are more able to consciously choose to be better people. Or worse people.

It's a double-edged sword.

But dumb people don't seem to be able to even choose. They are what they are, and not capable of thinking further than that. There are good stupid people and bad stupid people (just as there are both kinds of smart people), but they can't consider why they do what they do- unless they say something about religion or god to justify themselves. Thought makes them uncomfortable. Change would be scary. Realizing they have been wrong and need to change would unthinkable (in more ways than one) if it were even possible.

I realize everyone has a sort of ethical inertia. But, it is easier to at least discuss Liberty with smart people. And more likely (in my experience) to be successful in at least getting them to consider what you say.

Be smart and make the right choices- the choice to refuse to violate others, and to withdraw your support from those who choose to continue violating others "on your behalf".

.

Reading "sign"

When I see rabbit tracks or pellets I know a rabbit has passed this way.

When I see deer tracks or deer poop, I know a deer has been here. By the type of poop left behind I know what the deer has been eating.

In the same way, when I see "laws" and "government" I know stupid and/or unethical people have been here. It's their "sign", as surely as tracks or poop, or their litter on the ground.

.

"Safe spaces"

In thinking about my post about judgmental people, I also consider the notion of "safe spaces".

I will say I find the concept ridiculous, crippling, and childish.

No one offers anarchists a "safe space" away from depictions of The State, or even away from actually being physically and financially violated by statists and their harmful and unnecessary "laws".

Even in groups which ought to know better- and I particularly think of the Browncoat Facebook group- you'll find people saying "there has to be laws/government otherwise companies would poison me with mercury in my orange juice". Yes, someone really said that! That's a statist fallacy which "triggers" me. Where can I go to feel safe from such violent advocacy? Nowhere.

And I accept that.

It isn't "society's" responsibility to coddle my delicate feelings, making me soft and helpless.

If you can't deal with the real world, and accept that there will always be bad things out there to "trigger" you, you are not suited for survival. Not even if "compassionate" people want to wrap you in bubblewrap and place you in Nerf world. If you don't learn how to deal with reality, and with bad people and uncomfortable situations, your life will always suck.

People sometimes rape. Not because of a "culture" (unless you count the degraded culture of gangs), but because of an individual making the decision to violate the Zero Aggression Principle.

Cops are evil. The fact that you knew a "nice" one, or were saved by one once upon a time changes nothing.

Politicians are harmful to the world, and are- without exception- thieves and aggressors. Even if some are less bad than others.

Those things are reality. They may hurt your feelings and make you feel "unsafe", but that doesn't make reality go away.

So, don't look for a "safe space" and whine when reality seeps in. Take control of your surroundings and your own reaction to them. Accept uncomfortable reality. Get thicker skin. Take actions to protect yourself from actual dangers, rather than seek someone else's protection from imaginary ones. Grow up.

.

Judgmental people: I am one

I recently lost a dear friend on Facebook, who was also a friend before Facebook. And it really upset me.

Earlier this week on Facebook, when I posted that I often forget how indoctrinated most people are, this person commented that they forget how judgmental most people are. I didn't even realize at the time they were referring to me, until I noticed they were no longer a Facebook friend.

But I answered the comment, anyway. At first I said some people are, but not everyone.

Then, I reconsidered.

I think everyone is judgmental- but people express it in different ways.

It is one thing to judge something as right or wrong- I suppose everyone does that. It's another thing entirely to impose your will on people doing something you see as wrong.

There are a lot of things I believe are wrong, but which I will defend people's right to do.

If you aren't stealing or attacking, I might still not agree with what you're doing, but I wouldn't use force to stop you. I might try to talk you out of it. I might shun you. I might make fun of you or say what an evil monster you are. I will only use force if I see you engaging in theft or aggression.

I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing for some people to grasp.

I suspect this person abandoned me because of my stance against cops and the "conservative" politicians they like, although they never actually explained. (I had to go through a mutual friend to even find out anything at all, and to get an answer which involved me and my "high horse").

I can't lie to protect feelings or friendships... but it still hurts.

.

"Gun control" compromise, part 2

The next time you hear someone calling for a ban on normal capacity magazines- usually, but not always, suggesting to limit them to 10 rounds maximum- ask if, in exchange for that violation of your liberty, they'd be willing to compromise.

In fact, you could use this anytime you hear any anti-gun "law" being proposed.

In exchange for a magazine limit would they then be willing to get rid of all "laws" against carrying guns with the limited magazines, or revolvers with a capacity equal to or less than this arbitrary number of rounds? Not just "Constitutional carry", but diplomatic carry. As gun owners you and I are in a foreign, hostile land, after all.

If they balk you can then scream in their face they they are unwilling to compromise, so obviously they are in favor of mass-murder of toddlers and the elderly. Hey, it's what they consistently do to gun owners.

.