Hard truths on guns

Here are some of my random thoughts on the recent college massacre, and my reactions to the knee-jerk demands of the anti-liberty bigots:

So, another mass murder in a place where guns are banned, and so the anti-liberty bigots will be blaming the gun and the people who didn't do it.

Dig in your heels and get ready for the attack of the idiots.

Added: OK, so according to some, maybe the college was "gun friendly"- at least to those with the proper state papers. Still, if your policies make it harder for good people to be armed- which is ALWAYS the result of making up rules and requiring "permits"- bad guys will still always have the upper hand. YOU have a responsibility to defend yourself in spite of onerous rules and "laws". Everywhere you go. If someone doesn't trust you with a gun (or requires "permits") they don't trust you. Don't trust them.

-

If you believe anti-gun "laws" will prevent murder, you haven't been paying attention.
If you believe anti-gun "laws" in other countries ended murder, you are in denial.

-

Here is an old post about School Shootings

-

What kind of "gun safety laws" do anti-liberty bigots imagine would work?
Go ahead- tell me.
Then I will explain why your suggestion would make the situation worse.

Anything that keeps guns out of the hands of a determined mass murderer will inevitably make it harder for good people to be armed. That will result in more mass murder- as well as more individual murder.

Whether the college where yesterday's massacre occurred was a "gun free" slaughter zone or not (and the reports conflict on that account), the fact is that apparently no good guys had jumped through all the artificial hoops put in place to make sure "the wrong hands" didn't have a gun. And death was the result. Because "the wrong hands" will ALWAYS be armed.

That's the reality. You can deny it or you can accept it. Reality doesn't care which- but your survival depends on you making the right choice.

-

The anti-gun position is delusional. The "debate" is dishonest. It is based upon false premises.

Even if anti-gun "laws" saved lives, you have zero right to forbid anyone else from owning or carrying a gun. None, whatsoever. No matter who you are.

You can't delegate to anyone else a right which doesn't exist.

If you pretend you have that right anyway, and tell a politician (or cop) to "control" other people's guns on your behalf, then you are a violator of fundamental human rights. You have become a bad guy just like the person who violates fundamental human rights by murdering. You aren't different in kind, but only in degree, from a mass murderer.

I am watching you, with suspicion, in self defense.

-

I understand the desire to make the world safe. It's not crazy to want that.

What is crazy is advocating things that can be shown to make the world less safe. Like anti-gun "laws".

The places in America where guns are most heavily regulated are consistently the places which are most dangerous- and the danger followed imposition of the anti-gun "laws", not the other way around.

If you figure America's murder "by gun" rate- but take those anti-gun cities out of the calculation- America's "gun murder" rate drops to one of the lowest in the world.

Places around the world where guns are banned are much more violent than America; the attackers just use tools other than guns. Is it somehow "better" to be murdered with a machete or a 2X4 or a baseball bat than with a gunshot? Only a crazy person would believe so.

If a person wants to murder, no "law" will stop them. Keeping guns away from them- even if possible- won't stop them. And, if they want to kill a lot of people, they will very likely seek out a place that advertises itself as a "gun free zone". "Gun free zones" are more honestly known as slaughter zones- they invite tragedy.

Believing anti-gun "laws" will solve anything is crazy.

It's OK to be crazy; it isn't OK to impose your crazy on others. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own reality.

The reality is that anti-gun "laws" are a danger to those who obey them.

.

Looking at "taxation is theft" from both sides

(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise)

Statists hate the "libertarian shibboleth" of "Taxation is theft". It makes them lose their minds and fling poo before running away screaming profanity.

As amusing as making them that crazy is, it may not be constructive... so, let's really examine the idea.

"Theft" is the act of taking property that belongs to another without their consent- with or without the threat of violence.
"Theft" is almost universally condemned. No one claims the future use of the stolen property justifies the theft.
"Taxation" is the act of taking property (money) that belongs to someone else without their consent- enforced by the threat of violence.
"Taxation" is almost universally justified by imagining what the stolen money will (might) be used for.
Therefore, "taxation" is theft.

Or... let's turn it around and look at the argument from the statist perspective:

"Theft is the taking of property non-voluntarily.
Taxation is voluntary; people would pay even without penalties.
Therefore, taxation is not theft."

Which one holds up better to scrutiny? How true are the individual premises and conclusions in each?

.

Professionalism in action

If someone violates you in a "professional" way, is that somehow less of a violation?

I occasionally see copsuckers defending police by saying that in every encounter they have ever had with them, the cops acted very "professional".

I just can't see this as a good thing.

I'm sure many hangmen were very professional toward their innocent victims.

Same goes for Nazi gas chamber attendants.

Being "professional" while committing evil isn't a justification. It doesn't make the act you are committing ethical or moral. It just means you are able to violate others without it "getting to you" and making you behave like a human being.

.

Cherry picking the Bill of Rights

Anti-liberty bigots rarely fight against the 4th and 5th Amendments like they do the 2nd. You almost never hear them claim their city is exempt from those amendments due to "home rule" or some other such nonsense.

Even Constitutionalists who make a big deal of pointing out that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Feds, when excusing local violations of gun rights, never (as far as I've seen) make a similar claim about the 4th and 5th Amendments. The rights are basic; it doesn't matter who is violating them.

Of course, in practice cities and states (including the feds) violate every amendment whenever they feel like it anyway.

That's why I prefer to stand on basic human rights, not on documents and empty promises. Again- the rights are basic; it doesn't matter who is violating them.

If one group of individuals is not within its rights to violate your rights, then no group of individuals is. No individual has that right, so grouping individuals together can't manufacture the right to violate your rights out of nothing. If you don't own a particular piece of property, you can't control what anyone does on it. And, governments NEVER own any property.

Even if you really do own a piece of property, you are not being "nice" to violate people's rights on it.

If I don't trust you to be in my presence armed, then the truth is I simply don't trust you. Not in my business; not in my home. Not near me in public, And it goes without saying if you don't trust me armed, I understand you don't trust me.

This is why I don't want cops armed. I don't trust them even unarmed, so I sure don't ever trust them armed.

.

Liberty only lost when given up

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 28, 2015)

How well do you think it would work if a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. controlled your thermostat?

If they cared to, they could check the current temperature and humidity to decide whether they would turn on your air conditioning or heating. More likely, they’d just guess by region, if they bothered doing anything about your comfort. The Southwest is supposed to be hot, so you'll get some air conditioning whether you want it or not.

You'll have to pay either way.

What about letting someone in the state capital control your comfort? They'd be closer and might understand conditions better. Right?

Or, maybe city hall should be given control. They are closer still, and know what the weather is like here right now. They aren't going to accidentally get confused if it is snowing in the mountains above Red River, believing the weather must automatically be the same at your house.

Besides, you can't really be trusted to control your own thermostat, can you? Comfort isn't the only consideration. What if you use too much electricity or gas? Could you afford the bill? Who will watch out for you?

On the other hand, you live in reality so you understand that even in a house with only two people, the comfort levels differ. Comfortable to one person is cold to another and sweltering to a third. There may even be medical issues. You will need to compromise among the residents of your house.

You can adjust your thermostat to limit the amount of energy you use. Who knows better than you what you can afford and what you can live with?

Maybe the thermostat isn't the problem. Should you allow your toilets to be flushed by remote control on a set schedule from some bureaucrat's office? How do you think that would work?

It's really no different to pretend government employees have any business controlling anything else about your life. Your medications, your food, your money, your lawn, your chickens, whom to bake a cake for, or which flag to fly- these are all your business, and your business alone.

In each of these cases, if someone else has control, you are handing your life to people who are not qualified to control anything. The only reason they are able to take away your liberty is because you, and too many of your neighbors, hand it over to them. Why on earth would you do something so foolish and self-destructive?

.

If you don't trust me with a gun...

If you don't trust me with a gun, you don't trust me.
If you don't trust me, why would I trust you?

A good question, don't you think? I may print up some cards...

Assume the best, expect the worst

While I assume liberty, I also expect statism.

Most people are no more guilty for being statists than Pleistocene humans were guilty for being ignorant about cosmology or genetics. It's just who they are in the environment in which they live.

I even understand why they fight against the scary truth which threatens their comfortable delusions. This doesn't mean they are right, or that their statist opinions are valid. I can not pretend they are right, although I won't try to teach every person I hear repeat the familiar myths.

I'll keep speaking up, and I expect to keep being ignored, called names, ridiculed, and occasionally despised for my efforts. But I won't stop because the truth matters.

.

Being Popular

Back when I wrote for Examiner, a common complaint among the serious writers was the dominance (and page views/pay) of those who wrote celebrity fluff.

But you don't even have to sink that low to rise to the top. Or, at least stay off the bottom.

If I wrote a column or blog in advocacy for some religion (including statism) my writing would be much more popular and might get noticed a lot more. People like to hear that sort of thing. It reinforces their beliefs and doesn't threaten them.

That is just a bit discouraging.

It's not that I want to be Mr. Popular. but enough popularity to bring in a bit more money would be really nice. And I admit not feeling like the freak during social gatherings might be nice, too.

But I chose this path. I have only myself to blame. I can't pretend to agree with nonsense (the best I can do is keep my mouth shut), and that comes at a price. I have since realized I should have probably kept my anonymity while blogging- it would have left me more options.

On the other hand, why should I expect anyone else to stand up for liberty if I won't do it myself?

They say "freedom isn't free". They are right, but not about what the price truly is. The price is not being as popular as you might otherwise have been. It is not having the money you might otherwise have had. It probably means fewer friends.

It's still worth it.

.

Opinions

If you can back your opinion up with facts and examples, it ceases to be "just an opinion".

If you can't back up your opinion with facts and examples, it remains "just an opinion".

Not all opinions are equally valid. Some are not valid at all.

Most opinions are neither right nor wrong. Red cars aren't better than blue cars. Chocolate isn't better than vanilla. Star Wars isn't the best movie, nor is Firefly the best TV series. My personal opinions on those matters are my opinions, and don't have any foundation in reality. No matter how strongly I believe them, and no matter how real those opinions are to me.

But the initiation of force is not your right. It's not "just an opinion". Your contrary opinions don't change the fact.

"Laws" violate people. States are harmful. Prohibition is devastating to civilization. Anti-gun policies KILL. Those are facts which can be- and have been- backed up by volumes of examples and history. You may have a differing opinion- and that's your right- but your opinion would be wrong. It is counter to reality.

If you're OK with that, then don't worry about it. Go your own way, think what you think, do what you do.

.

Thinking- too much trouble?

It bothers me that people don't want to think.

Even if they come to conclusions opposite to mine, as long as they can explain why they reached that conclusion I can respect that they gave it thought.

But so many don't want to think, don't want to show their mental work, and then want to claim their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's "opinions" (which are often not actually opinions).

Why do people not like to think?

.

Troublemaker neighbors

A new family has moved into the neighborhood. I see trouble on the horizon.

This family has an indeterminate number of kids- somewhere between 3 and 5. Mostly pre-teen, it appears. And the kids have no respect for property. At least, no respect for anyone else's property. I have seen them rummaging through 2 neighbors' outdoor things. Including being under one neighbor's car port- riding the exercise bike.

The kids roam wherever they feel like, doing whatever they decide to do, without any thought of property lines.

This new family also doesn't understand how the dumpster works- tossing bags of trash near the dumpster (which wasn't even near full) rather than in it. Then the bags got ripped open by dogs and the contents scattered all over another neighbor's back yard. I picked it all up for her.

My next door neighbor is much more confrontational than I. She has already said she will tell them that behavior is not going to be tolerated in this neighborhood. And I believe her.

Apparently they are buying the house. Not good news. Thankfully, most of my neighbors are very good at minding their own business, but are not going to sit by and watch our own properties violated, nor watch as these kids violate the property of others. It may get interesting.

.

Good, bad depend on cooperation

Good, bad depend on cooperation

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)

Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.

By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception. The exceptions get noticed precisely because they are exceptions. People tend to not notice what is most common.

Even truly bad guys are only evil part-time. No one could get away with violating everyone they encounter. Regardless of how safe they might believe their special case makes them, someone would put an end to them sooner or later. Probably sooner than later. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. This truth is no threat to decent people, and keeps most bad guys somewhat constrained.

Then you have the cooperative nature of humans.

Most people want to get along. Those who believe people won't try to get along are ignoring the majority of life and focusing on the exceptions.

Cooperation is practically universal, but it is a double-edged sword. When you think of cooperation, you probably think of cooperation's light side. You imagine people joining together to repair a neighbor's damaged house, or pitching in to get a desperately ill kid the medical care she needs. This is healthy cooperation, and it is wonderful.

However, cooperation also has a dark side. Much evil depends on the cooperative nature of people, perverted. Gangs wouldn't cause trouble, and wars of aggression couldn't happen, without the cooperation of large numbers of people joining together to violate others on a massive scale. It's not only the bad guys who cooperate in unhealthy ways, but normal people, too. No dictatorship could stand without the victims cooperating with the majority of the tyrant's commands. Humans are highly cooperative, even when it isn't in their own interest.

Cooperation isn't the problem; using it badly is. Don't cooperate to violate person or property, but only to build up others and protect people and property. Don't cover for those who cooperate with the wrong things.

I try to cooperate for good, while being prepared to encounter those who won't. I have picked up hitchhikers and helped stranded strangers. I have given money to people I knew were in need- and some whose needs I suspected money couldn't fill. I don't regret even the times it didn't go exactly to plan. For the most part, people are amazing. Now, if they would only see where they are being inconsistent and self destructive, and understand when to cooperate, and when they shouldn't, they would be even better.

.

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.

.