Kentucky clerk’s morals fall flat

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 11, 2015)

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

First of all it needs to be understood that everyone has a right to live by their faith, but no one has a right to a government job — a right that can’t exist.

If a job would require you to do things you believe are wrong, don't take the job. If you hold a job and the requirements change so you would be asked to do things you believe are wrong, it is your responsibility to find a different job. No need to raise a fuss to get attention, just resign and move on. It's that simple.

This clerk's morals seem fluid. She has apparently never had a problem with processing divorces. Or with living on money forcibly extorted from the local residents. She seemingly never questioned whether it's ethical to hold a position which licenses basic human rights; activities not subject to government permission.

What if she refused to issue marriage licenses for anyone who had been previously divorced? If she were living consistently by her faith, she would not only be refusing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

What if she were Muslim and her faith forbade her issuing drivers licenses to women? Would her supporters still be standing with her decision?

This is why her claim of standing up for her morals falls utterly flat with me. Her morals seem to be a convenience, giving her an excuse for refusing to do something she doesn't want to do. It's like if I were a janitor, but claimed my morals forbade me cleaning the new toilets.

She wasn't letting anyone else in her office issue marriage licenses, either, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter.

I don't believe in government, and certainly don't believe government has any "authority" to issue licenses for anything, including marriage. Knowing this, should I take a government job which includes issuing licenses and then refuse to do so? Should I still expect to be paid?

But jail? She should not have been jailed for refusing to do her job. It was a ridiculous penalty, calculated to cause maximum drama. If a person won't do their job, they should be fired, not caged.

None of this would be an issue if government were forced out of the marriage business- where it never had any business getting involved in the first place.

-

(Note: I said anyone who doesn't do their job needs to be fired. My editor said no one is "authorized" to fire Ms. Davis. So I changed the wording for the newspaper column. I put the original wording back for the blog. I still believe anyone who doesn't do what they were hired to do needs to be fired. It's not my fault the State sets itself up to fail.)

.

Theories, or justification?

So many "political theories" seem to only exist to justify the "statist quo".

I try to make sure my own political theory doesn't fall into the opposite trap of only existing to justify the opposite of the status quo.

So I test it. I examine it. I pick it apart in my mind. And, when it fails the test, I change it.

So far the result is that I get rid of more and more justifications for statism of any kind.

It's liberating. Give it a try.

.

Give them the chance

People already know they should be libertarian.

They know right from wrong. They know using violence against the nonviolent or those who aren't violating property is wrong. They know violating property is wrong.

Their only problem is they have been tricked into imagining irrational exceptions to these truths. This indoctrination has taken a lifetime to achieve. It takes one honest moment to shed.

They are probably already libertarian in their heart of hearts. The external statist shell is a mask.

By sharing libertarianism with them you are not trying to "trick them into it", you are giving them permission to be honest with themselves. To be what they already know they should be.

They may still try to fight you, but I hope you offer the chance to everyone you know anyway.

.

Lies statists tell:

Not a comprehensive list. of course...

They died for your freedom.
Not all cops are bad.
You must respect the office of president, even if you don't respect the man.
Without government there would be chaos.
Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.
"This system" may not be perfect, but it's the best there is/the best there can be.
I'm not a statist; only those other guys who are nothing like me are statists.
It's for the children.
It's for the good of society.
It's for your own good.
It's a necessary evil.
Your vote counts/matters.


I'll bet you can think of more lies statists tell.

.

"Good", actions, and cops

(Previously posted to Facebook)

"Good" isn't always subjective- there are certain absolutes.

It is never good to violate other people's liberty or property- except in self defense against aggression, or in defense of private property. Period. You may believe it to be "necessary", but it's not good.

If you picked the fight, it is not self defense.

If there is no individual victim, it isn't in defense of the innocent.

If your job requires you to violate other people's liberty or property, you can't be a good person while performing that job.

Police are required to violate people's life, liberty, and property by enforcing "laws" as a condition of keeping the job, and to continue receiving the paycheck (which is financed by violating property through "taxation").

Therefore, no matter how "nice" a cop may act, he can't be good and remain a cop.

There is no such thing as a "good cop".

.

Giving the bullies a pat on the back

I see news about government employees and happenings as a glowing report on the exploits of beloved bullies and thugs.

To illustrate:

"In local news, Buster broke into a couple of houses over the weekend, and made a sweet haul he plans to share with the community. He intends to give back a portion of each score. Be sure and show him support whenever you run into him around town. 

"Billy Bob had a real fine rape this week. He enjoyed himself immensely and said he plans to look into the possibility of making it a regular thing. Watch out girls! (wink, wink) 

"The local mob discussed allowing residents to vote on whether they will fork over 10% of their property this next year, or 8% this year, with the amount increasing by 10% yearly thereafter. The loot will be used to expand the concentration camp on the edge of town- without which, chaos would ensue. Be sure and vote- it's your right and duty! 

"In international news, crime bosses from both sides of the Atlantic met to work out details of how they will use you as slaves and divide the spoils among themselves. They have promised each other to not take action against each other, personally, and to not rob each others slaves without working out some sort of deal first."

That is how most "news" sounds to me. It's utterly sickening that people believe it is somehow less repugnant when the bullies call themselves "government".

.

It may make you angry, but...

Here's a clue: When someone points out the silliness of your position or otherwise disagrees with your absurd claim, it isn't necessarily a sign they are angry. You may be projecting.

Statists generally seem very angry. They collapse into heaps of profanity and aggression at the slightest prodding.

But, when they see you point out the absurdity of their beliefs, they accuse you of being angry. Often in the midst of their mental breakdown.

Statism is a strange, sick religion.

.

Non-Libertarians cause of trouble

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 4, 2015)


What’s one of the fastest ways to get in serious trouble? By acting in ways libertarians warn against. Can this be right?

Aren’t libertarians supposed to be troublemakers who oppose cooperation and generosity? Aren’t they known as rugged individualists who advocate “every man for himself?”

Think again.

The heart of libertarianism is the principle that no one has the right to use violence- even gently or "for your own good"- against anyone who is neither already using violence, nor violating private property. The principle which goes hand-in-hand with this one reminds you to not violate the property of another. That's really all there is to it. Everything else is just working out details and getting rid of exceptions.

I frequently see people getting in trouble precisely because they aren't living up to libertarian principles. They initiate force- this means they use physical force first. They violate property through theft, trespassing, or by preventing the owner from using the full value of his property. They try to cheat and defraud people. Then, when the consequences come home to roost they often seem to be shocked by the turn of events.

What exactly are these behaviors which are most likely to get people into trouble? Fighting, attacking, raping, robbing, defrauding, trespassing, and murdering. All acts your libertarians friends are constantly reminding others to not commit.

Some people also get in trouble because they neglect to defend themselves from those who commit these anti-libertarian acts. Defensive violence is never wrong- even if it isn't always smart, such as when you are outnumbered or outgunned. You aren't obligated to defend yourself or others, but you'll have more respect for yourself if you do. It's usually the right thing to do.

Of course, today the other fast way to get in trouble might seem contradictory: being libertarian. Living your Rightful Liberty by doing things no one has a right to forbid or control. Things which lawmakers who lack libertarian principles have decided to declare illegal, or subject to rationing, even though those things don't violate person or property. You can't always avoid these bullies and the exceptions they pretend to carve for themselves. Beware of them.

Non-libertarians make excuses for those exceptions as long as they are committed by government employees under the excuse of "law", but it doesn't make the acts of violation right.

Do the right thing. Stay out of trouble for doing the wrong thing. Act libertarian even if you don't believe in the principles.

.

The most ethical way to live

(Previously posted to Patreon)

How would the world be if everyone lived by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP)? It would be Utopia. No one would ever even debate whether an act is aggression or not since even self defense would be unnecessary. This is not a world any of us will ever experience.

What if, instead of thinking about that Utopian scenario, we just think what would happen if most people followed the ZAP most of the time? Because this is the real world you and I already exist in. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but with the potential to be much better.

People already understand they have no right to initiate force. Most people follow this pretty well. They buy instead of steal, and request rather than punch. People already know the ZAP is the right way to live, even if they don't know how to put it into words.

If it were not the case, even statism would quickly collapse. It is the reluctance to initiate force which keeps bullies safe. If no one were concerned about whether an act justified a violent response, no IRS agent would survive his first audit. No cop would survive his first day molesting "speeders". Yes, even tyrants and bullies rely on people following the ZAP while pretending they are exempt due to their "job".

The only way to make things better would be to stop pretending there are people and "jobs" which qualify for that imaginary exemption. Stop calling acts of theft or aggression by the statist euphemisms that seem to excuse them.

But, switching gears a bit... What if no one ever followed the ZAP? Civilization would be impossible. Society would collapse. No peaceful encounter would be possible.

Looking at these 3 possibilities clearly illustrates that to live by the Zero Aggression Principle is the most ethical way to live- bar none.

.

First they ignore you...

One of the quotes I see used the most often to give hope to people like you and me, is this one from Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

What isn't mentioned in that quote is you have to be grounded in reality first. Skip that important part and "they" will probably never move beyond laughing at you. Or, if you do "win", it will be a fleeting victory.

If you are grounded in reality, you have won before they have even moved beyond ignoring you, they just don't know it yet.

.

Statists' false choices

Statists love the false choice:

Either accept theft and aggression, or live without roads.
Either accept theft and aggression, or see the end of education.
Either accept theft and aggression, or you'll be a helpless victim of theft and aggression. (?!?)
Either accept theft and aggression, or do without wild spaces.
Either accept theft and aggression, or say goodbye to justice.

Sorry. That isn't how reality works.

.

How to be popular

Being rabidly statist is a good way to become well-respected and popular. To be looked upon with regard in your community. This is just the result of being a believer in the main religion of your locality. Of being an ardent follower.

Or even a "leader".

Being a non-believer results in marginalization. Non-believers aren't taken seriously. They are pushed aside and not given any consideration. Relegated to the position of "no one".

Statism is still the primary religion, globally. Other religions take a back seat to statism. Other religions seem to be mostly useful as excuses to prop up statism and give it a veil of legitimacy.

But, the believers are still wrong. Their religion is empty and evil. If you can lower yourself that much for popularity, I suppose you deserve it.

.

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.

.