Being prepared is common sense

Being prepared is common sense

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)

The water shut off in Portales last week should have awakened a few people. From previous experience, I doubt it did.

For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.

No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?

Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.

Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.

Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.

"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."

Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."

Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?

Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.

It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.

You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.

.

"Compromising Good with Evil"- and failing, utterly

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I would still rather be right- be accepting of reality- than be comfortable. I'd rather be right than be libertarian.

If reality doesn't support liberty, then I want to be aware of it and accept it and figure out what the reality is.

I don't want cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization to get in the way. Fantasies about how things are might be comforting to some people, but I don't want to coddle those fantasies.

But, the deeper I dig, the less sense statism makes to me. The more "arguments" I hear in support of "governments", "laws", "States", and initiating force and theft, the more insane they sound. The inconsistencies are simply too glaring to ignore.

But, trying to explore the possibilities to discover reality is why I read things like this: Compromising Good with Evil

Right off the bat he gets something completely wrong, which throws off the entire rest of his screed- he says libertarians think that "There simply can be no middle ground between the two fundamental philosophical opposites of freedom and slavery. Either we are a free society or a slave society, but we can't be both."

While that is a true statement, he goes on to say "This all libertarians agree upon, or they're not libertarians." So, this is the defining principle of libertarianism?

Ummm... wrong. Libertarians know that initiating force and violating private property are wrong. That's what makes them libertarians. The other things logically stem from that, but are not the foundation.

And, he goes downhill from there, just like every single criticism of Abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism I have ever encountered does- simply because they utterly fail to understand what they are trying to debunk. They argue from ignorance.

His entire article is based upon an appeal to authority- in this case, Aristotle and his "Golden Mean". The "Golden Mean" works for some things, like Goldilocks' "Not too cold or too hot- but just right". It doesn't work at all where Liberty is concerned. That's because Liberty is self-limiting. Your Liberty can't violate anyone else, or it ceases to be Liberty. And "government" always violates Liberty.

He claims, using the idea of the "Golden Mean", that good and evil are not opposites along a single axis, but good is in the middle, with evil at either extreme. With regards to Liberty, "too much" is anarchy, and too little is tyranny. As if anarchy is a bad thing. His superstitious belief in "limited government" is, of course, his "Golden Mean" of juicy goodness. He is wrong. Probably because he doesn't understand what evil is.

Evil is doing intentional harm to those who don't deserve to be harmed right now. Harm isn't on either side of good- it is the opposite of good no matter what justification you use. And, if it doesn't harm people, it isn't evil even if you think it wouldn't be the best path. Statism- the belief that governing people is a legitimate human endeavor- is evil because of the harm it inevitably causes to individual life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. You can't violate people "for their own good" no matter how passionately you make that silly claim.

Originally I intended to show how and why the author was wrong, bit by bit. Piece by piece. Paragraph by paragraph. Because he is wrong. In fact, either he is intentionally lying, or he's an idiot.

But the article is so incredibly long and full of fail that I realized quickly that to dissect it would require one of those multi-part blogs addressing slavery-apologists (statists) I have done in the past. I just don't feel like it. Besides, cutting through the BS of his "Golden Mean" idea of good and evil is probably all that is necessary to bring down his whole house of marked cards.

Feel free to read that article for yourself, and notice all the mistakes he makes- even if you don't get far into it, I'm confident you'll see more wrongness than you can keep up with. His flawed assumptions; his mischaracterizations; his non-sequiturs. The list is almost endless. Statism is a fail. From beginning to end. It is based on a superstition.

.

Would you stop a bank robbery?

Would I intervene to stop a bank robbery?

I'm not so sure.

I suppose if innocent people were in danger, I might. But if it was just to stop a theft... probably not.

Banks have become a tool of the State. From their compliance with all the vile "Patriot act" nonsense to "fractional reserve" banking (which I consider fraud), they are totally controlled by the State and its "laws". They have become nothing more than a branch of "government"- complicit in violating their customers for the benefit of that gang of thugs calling themselves "government".

At least they can't (yet) force you to do business with them against your will.

That doesn't mean I would steal from a bank, but I certainly wouldn't risk my life to stop someone else from doing so.

If it were a free market bank the story would be different. In that case I would look upon a bank robbery as I would any other violation of property, and would do all I could to stop it.

.

4-19: "Patriots Day"

I used to get all worked up over 4-19. "Patriots Day".

It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.

So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.

You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.

.

A wrinkle in "A Wrinkle in Time"

I read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was in ... either late elementary school or early junior high. Strange that I can't pin it down, since it is usually easy for me to remember where I lived when I first read something- and I moved constantly. Maybe my timeline has wrinkles I am not aware of.

But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.

Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.

In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”

Dead on!

Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.

-

Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.

.

Do professional rapists protect you from freelance rapists?

The excuse that "some people do bad things" as justification for your belief in "government" is the same as saying that it would be best to allow professional rapists to prey on people rather than to risk freelance rapists.

And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.

That's insane. Don't be insane.

Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.

.

Pardon my mess while I evolve

I just read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose: A very good book which I highly recommend. (And FINALLY available in a Kindle edition, too!)

This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.

I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.

My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.

Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.

.

Compromises between bad guys

"National borders" represent compromises between thieving thugs. Really, that's all they are.

Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".

"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.

Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?

.

Honorable people don't

Is it honorable to hire yourself out to a gang?
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?

No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.

Military and cops are not "honorable".

.

Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas

Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 13, 2015- However, I'm NOT just talking about "lawmakers" as the headline states- I'm talking about government employees of every sort.)

Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?

It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.

If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.

It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.

If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.

I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.

Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.

It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.

So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.

During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?

As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.
.

"Law abiding taxpayer"

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Law abiding taxpayer" is a really perverted term. When someone claims to be one, what they are really bragging about is the "honor" of being a compliant victim of theft and bullies.

Why brag about something that pathetic?

You might as well brag about being a cowardly back-stabber.

I understand why people pay the extortion called "taxes". Extortion works, otherwise thugs would find something else to try. But, be ashamed you were robbed, not proud of it.

And since "laws" are ALL either unnecessary or harmful, there is no honor in being "law abiding" either.

Don't initiate force. Don't violate the property of others. Those are things you can really be proud of- be a ZAP abiding property respecter, not a proudly compliant victim.

.

Intentions

I don't care about your intentions; I care about what you do.

I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.

That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.

The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.

.

Department of... what?

I was recently looking at a sign in front of a prison. The sign declared that the facility was a part of the "Texas Department of Justice".

That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.

So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.

Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.

I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.

.

A preference for Liberty

People act like a preference for Liberty is the same as a preference for ice tea over Dr Pepper. But it isn't.

You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.

Not so with a preference for Liberty.

Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.

The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.

A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.

.

Daughter's request

My daughter is wanting a day out at the movies. I don't have the extra money for such an expenditure.

It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.

So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.

.

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.

.