Making an issue of Jenner

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Someone recently shared a silly "conservative" meme which included a picture of Caitlyn Jenner, saying this is a woman only in "Liberal America".

I have never really commented about the Jenner gender issue because I can't see any relevance to my life whatsoever. I'm not seeking a sexual relationship with Jenner. And if not, how could it affect me?

I feel the same with Chelsea Manning for that matter.

I don't even know her. Or him. Or whatever. We'll never meet.

But, it made me think. What exactly is a woman? Are we talking about chromosomes? In that case, you would be right to say Jenner is not a woman. A DNA sample would clearly indicate "male".

Are you talking about morphological features- body shape? Then maybe Jenner is now a woman by that standard. Considering the wide variability of body shapes, maybe some DNA women aren't "really" women.

Are you talking about how Jenner thinks of herself/himself? Let Jenner think of Jenner however Jenner wants to think of Jenner. It's not your concern, and only a jerk would insist on making an issue of it in person. I constantly encounter people who think of themselves as ethical or smart, when the evidence is quite clear they aren't. Unless there is some specific reason it needs to be refuted, why bother?

Body modification is very popular these days- tattoos, piercings, inserts, etc. Maybe this is a special type of body modification. Less shocking than some, to my way of thinking. How does it harm you?

On the other hand, the body is the lowest layer of what "we" wrap ourselves in. In that case it is similar to clothing or a uniform. We constantly identify people by their clothing or uniform. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with the body being changed like a suit of clothes.

It's not for me, but why would I concern myself with what others do?

So, the reason I haven't made an issue of Jenner's transformation before now is that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Jenner is happier now, good for her.

.

The situation

Someone I met a while ago mentioned something that has really stuck with me. They said most people who hold non-libertarian views aren't very good at explaining what they do believe, or any principles their beliefs might be based upon.

She was right.

My view of the situation is more simplistic:

The libertarian point.                                                     The statist response.

.

"Legalize"? No need. Just stop illegalizing.

All the words used to describe making something which was once made "illegal" legal again miss the mark for me.

"Legalize", "decriminalize"... eh. I don't care for the words because they seem to carry the idea that "law" is a real thing.

I would rather see things completely removed from the province of "law", where they should never have been shoved in the first place.

That "-ize" suffix seems to imply a certain made-upness. If something isn't really random, you can make it seem random by "randomizing" it. So, if something has been deemed "illegal" you can give it the appearance of "legality" by "legalizing" it. But, the "law" was the bizarre act, not removing the "law".

That way of speaking seems to make the artificial condition- the propped up state- become the foundation which anchors the discussion. It makes the natural condition seem like the unnatural one. It is putting the illusion above reality; the lie above the truth.

The "law" is the illusion. The made up condition. If something isn't really wrong you can make it appear so (to some people) by making up a rule. You have "illegalized" it, in spite of reality and ethics. At least the word "criminalize" takes this into account, although most people don't seem to notice its artificiality.

I think I will strive to avoid talk of "legalizing" or "decriminalizing" and try to speak with the assumption of liberty.

.

Oh, the contradictions

I'm libertarian.

According to characterizations I have been subjected to, this means I must be a young, old rich white "bleeding heart liberal", knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "conservative" male who is idealistic, Utopian, Dystopian, pessimistic, too trusting and paranoid, and so poor I am reduced to living in my mom's basement.

Even though my parents have no basement (I do have a cellar at my house, though. Tornadoes and such. But it's not for living in.)

At least, that is how statists see it. Statists are crazy.

.

Dull 'Hawk-isms 2

More things I have recently posted as Facebook statuses:

• If your crops are being devoured by locusts, and withering from lack of rain, and your solution is to change your socks, you may be a voter.

• Stating that your premise is not falsifiable isn't a compliment.

• People get confused about bullies.
  Some believe that bullies are "authority" you believe in if they threaten you into compliance.
  Some people are silly.

• There is no ethical difference between the person who ridicules the statement that taxation is theft and the person who ridicules the statement that slavery is wrong.

• The Patriot's Day in April is in celebration of liberty.
  The "Patriot's" Day in September is in celebration of government.
  Same name, opposite purposes.

• "Why do you pay taxes if you don't believe in authority?"
  Hypothetically speaking... Because I believe in bullies who will kidnap me if I don't comply with their mugging, and will murder me if I resist their efforts to kidnap me. It has nothing to do with "authority"- it's simple bullying. A mugging.
  "Authority" isn't a real thing. It is a mental problem in those who believe in "authority".

• Personally, I am glad actions have consequences. If they didn't, no one would ever learn to behave.
  And, since actions have consequences whether I like it or not, I might as well like it.

• Those who say that the phrase "taxation equals slavery" belittles the plight of those who have suffered chattel slavery are missing the point.
  Yes, chattel slavery is worse.
  However, that doesn't diminish the evil of "taxation".
  Murder is worse than attempted murder, but that does nothing to excuse attempted murder.
  Plus, once you excuse one form of slavery (or other violation of person or property) on the basis of it not being "as bad as" another form, you have left the high ground and are wallowing in the sewer. You are leaving wiggle room for those who want to do evil things to others without feeling bad about it.

• Sometimes I wish I could photograph my face when I read certain status updates.
  Those which are in ALL CAPS and have "creative grammar" and "spelling" to the point I can't even figure out what they are ranting about.
  Sometimes I suspect they might be saying something I'd agree with- but so poorly I can't be sure. These make me sad.
  The apparent statist rants which fit the above make me happy, since it confirms my bias against statists by confirming my suspicions that statists are statists precisely because they are stupid.

.

They don't work for me.

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Government works for us."

You, maybe. Not me.

If they did, I would fire them all immediately. They don't work for me.

I would never hire someone to do a "job" I don't want done. They don't work for me.

I no more believe "government" works for me than I believe the Sicilian mafia or any random carjacker works for me. Even if they use things they stole from me to continue their career, they don't work for me.

The mafia might use money stolen from me to burn my competition to the ground, and that might benefit me. But they don't work for me.

The carjacker may shoot some guy I hate, but he doesn't work for me.

So, don't include me in your "us" when you claim the "government" works for us. They don't work for me.

And, if you ever try to implicate me by saying "We are the government", I will be sorely tempted to violate the ZAP and punch you in the nose. That's about the nastiest insult I can imagine.

.

The "immigration" disconnect

(Previously posted to Patreon)

If you pour water down an animal's burrow, do you get angry when the animal flees- and runs across your foot?

If so, I would say you are not too bright.

In the same way, if you make someone's home territory unlivable do you react with anger when refugees come pouring out and end up in your vicinity?

This is the situation I see with "immigration".

Through the Middle East wars for oil (excuse me- against Islamists), and the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, US policy (and invasion) has made people's homes unlivable, and they sensibly flee, looking for somewhere else to live. If this angers you, then be angry at those driving the people out of their homes, not the people trying to survive in the face of bad situations.

No, you aren't causing the problem. Those who claim to be acting on your behalf are. Using money stolen from you. Sometimes with your approval. Repudiate them and their acts- loudly and repeatedly. Don't let anyone believe you support the situations that cause the problem in any way. Don't encourage the bullies to make America so bad that the migrants will decide to leave- because that is the end result of closing the "borders", endless war, and prohibition. The result will not be solved until you end the cause.

.

Death in "no guns" zones

When I see a "no guns" sign, I interpret it to mean "We hope you die!"

Or, at the least, "Your life means nothing to us".

More death, in yet another "gun free zone", makes me want to print up new cards to hand out any time I enter one of these Free For the Killing zones. Instead of a card saying I won't spend money with them, maybe one with a different message would be appropriate:

By forbidding guns to your customers you prohibit their best chance of surviving any attack with the least chance of being harmed. By this act YOU are accepting liability for my safety in your business, and will be held personally accountable if any harm comes.

I am happy to report that our little local grocery store got rid of its "no guns" sign several months ago- so I have started going there much more often.

.

Government less honest thieves

Government less honest thieves

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)

What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?

For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference.

Perhaps there is a difference, after all.

Those in the first group, who are willing to steal shoes and phones, and kill those who resist, are generally willing to take all the risks themselves. They rarely pretend to be committing their acts for anyone's benefit but their own. They don't pretend you owe them gratitude after they rob you. They never point to an imaginary social contract as justification for their acts. They don't generally claim your "contribution" needs to be repeated on a yearly basis. They often expect to face resistance, and don't generally find much sympathy when they get shot for their efforts. Of the two, they are the more honest thieves.

The other group, those who tax, claim to be acting out of generosity, or to be protecting you from someone worse. Their most bizarre claim of all: they claim "authority" to take your property to hire a gang to protect your property.

Yet, thieves they are; backing their theft with the threat of deadly force. If you refuse to comply, the taxers will continue to escalate the force they use until, at some point, unless you give in before then, they will send an armed gang to take you into custody to be caged, and kill you if you resist. Yet they claim "taxation is voluntary".

I am by no means opposed to everything "tax" money is spent on. I am opposed to not giving people a real choice. "Move to Somalia if you don't like it" doesn't count as choice.

You can't be generous with other people's money, but only with your own. If you pretend to protect someone by doing anything they feel the need to be protected from, your claims are empty.

If you want something you can't afford, invite others to join you in pooling resources to finance it. If you can't get enough people to help you, consider it a clear message that what you want isn't important to enough others, and move on with your life. Or start trying to convince more people why they should want what you want, and to be willing to chip in to get it.

Anything less is hilariously hypocritical.

.

Pointless points

Some people, whenever they say something about someone else, always seem to feel the need to include irrelevant points about that person. "This guy came in the store- he was 'Black'..." or "This guy I know- he's gay..."

And almost never does the story have anything to do with the details they parenthetically add.

I don't see the point.

If someone is telling about me, such as saying I was eating a burrito, making a point to mention I was wearing a hat- when the hat doesn't enter the story in any way- would be silly. Well, making the effort to include irrelevant details about people based on their "race" or "orientation" is just as dumb.

.

Nature, or choice?

"Black" people don't wake up one morning and choose to be "Black", and decide that being "Black" means they need to rob and attack others.

"White" people don't wake up one morning and choose to be "White", and decide that being "White" means they need to hate everyone who isn't "White".

But cops do wake up one morning and decide to join a gang which only continues to exist to attack people, enforce theft against people, force people to obey counterfeit rules which are often harmful and almost always in violation of their Rightful Liberty.

That's why the "argument" is a non-sequitur. And why there is no such thing as a "good cop".

It's not labeling- it's an acceptance of reality and ethics.

.

Innocent until proven guilty

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a good way to run a court or arbitration service, but a lousy way to live. I know that sounds harsh.

People are either guilty or they aren't. Your decision (or court verdict or even evidence) doesn't change their guilt or innocence. You might be wrong either way.

But, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless I know from first hand experience that they either did what they are accused or, or are likely to have done it based on a history I have personal knowledge of.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is being nice, but it can also be foolish and suicidal. Instead, I'll give even the "proved" guilty the benefit of the doubt, while never going to condition white, no matter who it is. If, from personal experience, I know they are guilty and dangerous, though, all bets are off.

.

My ignorance

There are plenty of things I don't know enough about. There isn't enough time to learn everything about everything which might affect me. Sometimes ignorance leads to suspicion or fear. I understand that.

What I don't understand is when people let their ignorance-based fear control them, and then use that fear as an excuse to control others.

Just for example- I don't understand fracking well enough to know whether it is harmful to groundwater or to know whether it causes earthquakes. The "stuff" I have heard against fracking sounds "reasonable", and makes me highly suspicious of the technique. But I don't know enough to really say with any confidence one way or the other. And you probably don't either even if you believe you do.

My safetyness makes me want to err on the side of caution. But not enough to get politicians and "laws" involved, since that is something I know beyond any doubt to be harmful.

.

Kidnap survivors and heroes

A person who has been kidnapped ("arrested") for breaking a counterfeit rule isn't necessarily a hero. Even though they didn't initiate force or violate property while committing their "crime".

A hero is someone who goes through that without giving in to the temptation to do the wrong thing, and comes out stronger and even more principled than before.

At least, that is the person I see as heroic.

.

Seeing the real aggressor

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Society, a country, or a world can't violate or initiate force against you. It's always done an individual at a time.

Even if everyone votes to violate you, it is up to someone to agree to carry out that vote. That one individual will be the one violating you, not all the voters. Although they certainly aren't making matters better.

If I tell Bob to go hit you in the nose, Bob (if he carries it out) is the one guilty of hitting you in the nose. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. I'm not saying it was right of me to tell him to violate you- it wasn't- but the ultimate blame rests on the person stupid or evil enough to do the wrong thing just because some moron told him to. Or millions of morons.

In the same way, it doesn't matter if voters approve some violation by a landslide margin. The real guilt lies with the person stupid or evil enough to enforce the vote.

I don't think it's even possible to be violated by hundreds of people at once. There is always a place where the mob meets the individual, and it is those few people at the edge doing all the violating, no matter how many are behind them.

If you feel violated by someone far away, whom you have never seen or met, you are looking for an excuse to feel victimized.

I may despise Michael Bloomberg and his anti-liberty bigotry, but in spite of the "laws" he is buying across the country, I don't feel he has ever personally violated me. I wouldn't lift a finger to save his parasitic life, but I probably wouldn't ever put forth the effort to punch him in the nose, either. If his "laws" ever violate me, it is purely through the action of some cop or bureaucrat who is in my face, not some vile vermin thousands of miles away.

.

Seeing clearly

I recently got new glasses. First time in over 14 years! Well, technically, I got new lenses in some frames I already had on hand- bought a year ago in anticipation. (If anyone wants to donate to my vision fund, I'd certainly welcome it.) I can see again- with both eyes. This is a good thing.

My vision has always been bad. I got my first glasses about the time I turned 7. I can still remember how strange it felt to realize I hadn't been seeing well before. Until I had something to compare how I was seeing to how I should be seeing, I didn't know I wasn't seeing the world as it was. I didn't know things were out of focus.

Well, the same goes for statists.

Until they are shown what the world really looks like, they can't know they are seeing an out of focus, distorted version of reality. I make it my goal to let a few of them look through my spectacles as often as I can. If they squeeze their eyes shut and don't want to see reality, that's on them. I've done my part.

.

Time to make stand against tyranny

Time to make stand against tyranny

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 7, 2015)

When did chickens become big news in Clovis? When local bullies decided to use them as justification for pushing people around.

It may seem trivial to worry about whether or not the city allows chickens, but it’s a symptom of a pervasive problem: violation of self determination and property rights. The attitude which causes government employees to try to ban chickens is the same attitude behind police brutality, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, anti-gun laws, and other human rights violations. The underlying disorder is the belief in government supremacy.

There is one simple solution.

Once you allow anyone to develop the belief that they are entitled to run your life, there is nowhere they will stop- unless you stop them. At some point you have to put your foot down, make a line in the sand, and say "No". This should be natural for anyone who believes in individual rights.

Enforcing nonsensical rules against keeping chickens is one way to steal property. Sure, the city may not actually take the home- at least not yet- but they are trying to steal the value of the home from the home owner. If you have a camera, but are not allowed to take pictures, you might as well not own one. If you aren't allowed to drive your car, what good is it to you? If you aren't allowed to use your house as you want, you don't really have a home at all.

It doesn't endanger you to stand up for property rights in this case. If you don't stand up for what's right when it is safe and easy, how do you expect to have the courage to stand up for the right thing when it is hard? When there is personal risk? Courage is like a muscle- you need to exercise it. This is a good opportunity for developing some courage. Stand up to those who are trying to destroy the value of a person's private property. Don't back down. Demand Rightful Liberty be respected. Then, if they ignore you, civil disobedience is in order. Maybe what Clovis needs is hundreds of new chicken owners defying the "law".

With the practice people get from this act of righteous rebellion, they can expand to all the other ways the "authorities" try to violate life, liberty, and property. We could make enforcement too costly. Perhaps, we could make them regret ever taking the job.

It is in apparently trivial matters such as this where the future will be determined. Do you want your children or grandchildren to live in liberty, or under tyranny? Choose your side, and make a stand now.

.

Excuses for Borderism

Maybe America and "our culture" can't survive the lack of a government enforced border.
Maybe gun owners will see their liberty stripped away due to new "laws" supported by new migrants.
Maybe welfare will be overwhelmed and run out of funds. LOL.

That still doesn't make borderism OK.

If your culture can't compete, it's probably not worth propping up. America's culture (whatever that is, since it has never included me) is always in flux. It always has been and always will be. It's going to change, I might as well try to influence it to change the way I'd like. I intend to do all in my power to push it toward Rightful Liberty. I can't do that by violating my principles and advocating anti-liberty positions, no matter how "necessary" I may consider them. So I won't.

Gun owners have almost no liberty left, anyway. No matter who you blame for the situation. Your freedom to exercise your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, everywhere you go, openly or concealed, without asking anyone's permission is basically gone. You still have the right to do so, however, and no rules, policies, or "laws" can ever change that. You are just going to need to decide whether you are going to obey counterfeit "laws" or not. No matter who lives in America, the choice will always be yours to make.

I don't believe "welfare" can ever run out of money, since the money is counterfeited by government. They'll always print more to keep it going. This contributes to the ultimate failure of the US Police State, so I say bring it on! Yes, some people will get hurt. It's not like they haven't had plenty of warning. If they refused to listen, that's not your responsibility. Whatever causes people to become disillusioned (which I suppose means "stripped of the illusion") with The State is a good thing. I want all States to fail- as soon as possible.

The excuses still don't hold up. Supporting borders is supporting States. Do what you want, but I'll continue to believe in private property rights, not collective property which trumps private property rights.

.

Dull 'Hawk-isms

These were all posted as my Facebook statuses recently. I decided to share them here.

• Ron Paul got liberty-leaning statist voters excited by pointing out that 4 + 6 = 10. Bernie Sanders gets economically ignorant voters excited by saying 7 divided by Tuesday wants to be whatever they imagine.

• If there's a Carrington Event level solar storm and we lose all electronics for a few decades, know that even if we never connect again, I am probably very happy with the turn of events. Yes, it's a character flaw.

• (If you support any candidate for president, you are not supporting liberty.)

• I fear Darth Voter much more than Darth Vader.

• "Wanting something to be regulated doesn't mean you want it banned!"  Well, perhaps. But what it means is you want to give someone the power to ban it if they want to. Why would you do that? You can see this effect in many areas.

• What is wrong inside the heads of people who want to ban or regulate stuff?? I seriously don't get it at all.

• You have the right to live according to your faith. You do not have a right to a "government job". 

•  I hate random "what if" scenarios. Especially if they are calculated to scare you into some self-defeating course. 

.

Vaping bans- oh, the stupidity

Laws are based on lies. Those lies are told to convince you to go along with being ordered around.

Recently during a car ride with my parents, the subject of vaping came up.

My dad objects to vaping because "kids put marijuana in e-cigarettes".
My mom objects because she has "heard that it's just as dangerous as smoking".

When confronted by such obvious brainwashing I need to ask questions to show the silliness of the claims, or to find out why the claim justifies "laws". But, instead I usually get irritated.

I don't know if kids put pot in e-cigs. And it doesn't matter if they do. People can put pot in brownies, pipes, paper, car cigarette lighters, glass, and many other things. Should we ban everything?

Even the feds are finally admitting to more medically beneficial effects of Cannabis- while insisting it must remain banned because it "has no legitimate medical use". A lie. But even it it was dangerous, and kids insisted on inhaling it, it doesn't make prohibition right. Eating cat litter is probably much more dangerous than vaping Cannabis, but it isn't a political cause. Yet.

But what if vaping is DANGEROUS?!?

Recent studies suggest that nicotine is probably no more dangerous than caffeine (also a poison). But what if they are wrong? If you want to inhale nicotine- or ingest caffeine- no one has a right to say you can't. For sure, vaping nicotine is going to be less harmful than inhaling nicotine in smoke. But what if I'm wrong about that? It still doesn't matter.

I am a non-smoker. I am not an anti-smoker. I grow tobacco. I have several old pipes that I love to hold and look at. I have an old pipe that looks like something Sherlock Holmes (the popular conception of him, anyway) would have smoked. I like how the old pipes smell- it's a good smell. I like the smell of pipe smoke if someone is smoking one in my presence. Sometimes I enjoy a faint whiff of cigar smoke. Even cigarette smoke brings back fond memories of smoky bars and karaoke. I have no desire to inhale tobacco smoke- unless it is in a bar during karaoke. In which case I'd probably put up with piranhas nipping at my ankles. If I am somewhere, and smoke is bothering me, I move away. It is so simple I can't understand why others don't discover that trick. Yes, there are times or places where you can't move away. In that case you may need to plan ahead. If you don't like being in a car with smoke, don't allow smoking in your car, or don't hitch a ride with a smoker.

I am a non-vaper. I am not an anti-vaper. If I had a vaping pipe that looked like my Sherlock Holmes pipe, I'd probably occasionally use it. I'm not too worried about getting addicted- I seem to be resistant to addiction. I'll not say how I know that. A person vaping in my present wouldn't bother me any more than a person reading a book in my presence. The puffs of vapor don't scare or offend me in any way. Sometimes it even smells good- and is probably healthier than smelling most air freshener sprays. Even if the vapor contains trace amounts of nicotine.

The knee-jerk "laws" and rules against vaping- or against certain people vaping- are idiotic. They are violations of liberty. While a business owner has the right to ban vaping on-premises, doing so shows the owner to be ignorant. Possibly even stupid. Certainly they are someone hopping on a bandwagon of hysteria rather than thinking for himself. They are banning something because it kinda, sorta looks like something else. If you can't see that an e-cig looks nothing like a tobacco cigarette.

I just don't understand the minds of people who want to ban things.

.