Letting "the law" control you

If you go out of your way to make an effort to break a "law" just because it's "illegal", you are just as much a slave to the "law" as those who go out of their way to obey.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Statists are crazy wrong

Statists are often somewhat right about the problem, but crazy wrong about the causes and the solutions.

Crime is a problem. Real crime, not victimless "crime". But it's not as large a problem as statists believe. If they were realistic about the amount of crime there is, it would eliminate a lot of their justifications for government/The State.

They see crime and are quick to blame "illegals", guns, drugs, and whatever else their particular bonnet bee happens to be, but don't notice that the root cause of actual wrongdoing is aggression, and the biggest advocate (or "normalizer") of aggression is the belief that it can sometimes be right. Particularly if done in the name of The State.

And their "solutions" inevitably revolve around giving The State more excuses to commit aggression and theft.

Yes, they are actually that crazy. That's why they are still statists. And why they continue to be so wrong about the causes and solutions for problems.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Punishment addiction

I understand where the base desire for punishment comes from- it comes from the same place the acceptance of theft and aggression comes from.

But it often causes more of what it is claimed to stop. Especially when imposed by The State.

I used to be a fan of punishment. Therefore I can still understand the attraction, even though I have moved on.

But, if you believe you can teach someone to not violate person or property by making them suffer through their own person or property at some future time, it seems to me you don't understand people very well.

People never believe they are going to get caught. They will be the exception. So, they don't fear punishment, because that only happens to people who get caught.

And things such as imprisonment create a culture you have forced them to join- as punishment- where they can learn more justifications to violate person and property, and more skills to carry it out. It's a stupid, self-defeating "solution", even if you can't think of anything better right now. Even if you believe doing anything else means they "got away with it".

I see people who are hung up on punishment as addicts. Nothing you can say will convince them they are shooting themselves in the foot. It's something they must see for themselves, if they are to ever see it.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

"Not to worry. I have a permit."

Ever find yourself in a situation where some bully is demanding to see a "permit" because you are doing something you have a right to do, but which some "authority" has decided to control?

Well, worry no more. You now have a permit:

Print them out and distribute them to all your friends and family
PDF here (Thanks to the Granarchist!)

Yes, Ron Swanson's permit is simpler, but as you know, some people want to do things they have no right to do. This avoids that issue.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
.

"I've seen what a lack of government leads to"

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Government- or more accurately, The State- is always a net negative to society.

There is simply no excuse for it.

But, but...!!! What about all these people out there who claim to have seen the absence of government in various hellholes around the planet (generally while invading with a government military and therefore responsible to a great degree for the hellhole quality of the place), and so insist that government is "necessary" or "essential"?

First off, they are lying.

The places they point to are never examples of "no government", but are usually examples of competing governments. Gang warfare, between competing gangs of bullies seeking to govern the same area. In other words, not a case of "too little government" but a clear case of too much government. Like Somalia, for example.

But, they don't know they are lying. They have come to believe unless a government matches one of the templates in their head-- involving the infrastructure, rituals, dress code, etc.-- it can't be a government. So when the murder, theft, and corruption is more openly committed than by the governments they are accustomed to seeing, by people who don't look or act like they expect government to look and act, they mistakenly view it as a lack of government rather than a case of government competition.

They may point to warlords (government) or rape gangs (government) or thieves and murderers (government) violating the people of the area, and say how much better it is here. The reason it is "better" (less brutal, perhaps) here is that the people here don't generally fight back against the bullies here, seeing them as somehow "legitimate". I know- it's utterly insane! But they usually do. Their first instinct is to comply with the most arbitrary and evil demands, as long as those demands come from a government employee. Otherwise there would be no such thing as "drivers licenses", anti-gun "laws", the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, speeding "laws", property codes, dog licenses, and... well the list could go on for page after page.

Then too, the cases where the government here murders, rapes, robs (beyond "normal taxation"), and behaves like those foreign bad guys, are carefully ignored unless it is impossible to do so. Then it's a "few bad apples", or "he should have just obeyed their orders", or "he brought it on himself". It's never the fault of government, but of the victim. It's a sick world-view.

But, if it is a gang seeking monopoly control of the people in a region, sustaining itself with theft ("taxation" or some other kind), making up arbitrary rules and enforcing those rules under penalty of death, it is a government. What is more honestly referred to by quaint people who aim for accuracy, as a State.

There is no such thing as too little government. It's like claiming a person can be too healthy. There are bad guys everywhere. What they do always involves the political means, rather than the economic means. Whether they are called "the government" or not is irrelevant. What matters is how they behave. Do they employ aggression and theft? Then they are government of one kind or another, no matter what you call them.

So, do you prefer one form of slavery over another? I don't blame you if you do. But the solution isn't to excuse the slavery because it could be worse. The solution is to hang the slavers up by their entrails and stop being a slave.

.

"Witch!"

The accusation of "Witch!" just doesn't have the effect it once did.

These days a new accusation is needed when evil people seek to destroy (figuratively, if not literally) someone they don't like.

Fortunately (?) for those people, the modern religion of HyperStatism has provided a worthy substitute. Now all you have to do is point an extended finger and scream "Child molester!" and hope it takes hold.

It finally got used against me*. Probably by a cop, but maybe just a copsucker. It doesn't seem to have stuck. This time. If I keep poking the evildoers, they may try again. Time will tell.

Interestingly, I'm not concerned. If I were, I would have deleted the comment. As it is, I'm actually calling your attention to it.

Copsuckers and their gods are really sick people. No act seems to be below them. It tells us all we need to know.

-

*It's possible someone has done this before and I just don't remember.

.

More government not the answer

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 25, 2016)

Want to mess up something? Stir a bit of government into the mix. Want to destroy it beyond all hope of repair? Try to fix the resulting mess with even more government.

We've seen this happen with health care in America. And with education, security, transportation, justice, the economy, addiction, crime, and every other area of life someone decided needed just a little government "help". Usually justified either by "safety" or "fairness".

Unfortunately, most people soon stop being able to even imagine a free market in the areas in which government has been inserted. When the trouble continues, they blame any remaining freedom for the problems, rather than realizing it's the coercion inherent in government which causes the failures.

Due to their misunderstanding of the situation, their inevitable solution is to mix in even more government.

It's like trying to purify drinking water by adding buckets of raw sewage. Or even one teaspoonful at a time. What results won't be something I'd drink.

If something is needed and people want it, they will find a way. To pretend that without government, roads (for example) wouldn't exist, is to claim no one wants good roads enough to pay for them unless forced-- under threat of violence-- to give money toward the cause. You're claiming business owners don't value roads to bring customers to their shops. That people don't want roads leading to places they want to go. That cooperation is impossible. It simply isn't reality.

When someone imposes a government "solution", it drives out innovation and keeps an even better solution from being found. If you are forced to pay for the government option it means you may not be able to afford a solution someone else has discovered. Because you are forced to pay for government schools whether you use them or not, you have less money to invest in education.

One of the crazier justifications for government intervention is that it will save money. Exactly how limiting competition, funding a huge bureaucracy, and layering on pointless red tape is supposed to save money, I don't understand. History supports my skepticism. Sure, the initial false estimates of the costs are always lower, but those are never accurate. Sometimes too low by an order of magnitude. When the bill comes due, there are always expensive surprises and unintended consequences which shouldn't surprise anyone.

With government, I suppose we should be grateful we never get all we pay for. The alternative is unthinkable.

-

Please take note of all the options for supporting this blog and its author. They are there to the right.

.

Better tools

If someone can only think of one way to deal with a particular issue, and you point out why you believe their way is wrong, they can get really angry over it.

I guess I can understand. They had a tool, and you've just taken it from them- or made the argument why they should lay their tool aside.

That might upset me, too.

No one doubts aggression can be "useful". But there is always a better way- one which doesn't involve aggression. It might be harder to find. It might be harder to implement. It may not have the instant results you want. But you still have no right to initiate force.

And, if you don't think you can afford something, stealing it is a "useful"way to get it. But theft is always wrong, even if you call it "taxation", "fines", "asset forfeiture", "property codes", "zoning laws", "fairness", "common good", or various other euphemisms thieves prefer. You still have no right to steal.

If those are the tools you reach for when a problem crops up, you need better tools. And since using government to "solve" your problems is always a use of theft and/or aggression, using government against people is not the best thing to do.

My only exception to that would be when you have the chance to use government against itself. In that case, I think it's hilarious to see government eat itself. Just be very careful- anytime you involve government at all, you increase your risk of being caught up in the carnage. Just make sure it's worth it to you.

.

Libertarians telling others "how to live"

I wonder where the statist notion that libertarians shouldn't speak up on anything comes from.

I have run into this several times. I'll comment on something, and then some statist will pop up with the comment that "Oh, the 'libertarian' decides to tell other people how to live?"

Well, sure. You have no right to initiate force nor to violate private property, and if you do either one you may face consequences. I think it's nice to warn you; would you rather be surprised?

I also think it's nice to make people aware of times they may have been initiating force (or theft) without being aware of what they were doing.

After being told, the choice is yours. Learn from it or ignore it. The only silly choice is to get angry about it, or try to "shame" me into silence.

Maybe they just want me to sit down and shut up because they know they have no rational response and hope they can shut me down so one won't be necessary. Or so the lack of a rational response won't be obvious.

.

First impressions

It is dangerous to judge people by first impressions. The person who looks like a bookworm might actually just have bad eyes and no sense of fashion.

The dirty homeless guy you just walked past might be a nuclear scientist.

The person who looks sane and civilized might actually be a member of the largest and most aggressive criminal gang in America. That's right, he or she might be a government employee!

.

Bad guys like to feel good about their actions

I just don't get the hypocrisy of some people. On an old blog under new management I recently read the following:
"I served 14 years active duty in the Army and did a few tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... I did some cool stuff and have no regrets. I am not aware of any babies I may have killed or people of color I oppressed."

Denialism at its "best".

So violently invading someone else's home is "cool stuff" and he doesn't regret it. Nice.

He may not have personally killed any babies, but by being there and supporting and protecting his fellow invaders he helped kill them- or did nothing to prevent them from being killed by his "brothers".

And, while "color" is irrelevant, by being an invader-- financed by theft, advancing the agenda of the world's largest, most powerful State (and all States are psychopathically evil)-- who was supporting those who are oppressing and murdering babies, mothers, innocent men, and bad guys, he is still just as guilty. He may choose to not be aware of it, though, so that may still be an honest statement- but one opposed to reality.

This is not someone who has been on the side of Liberty. He may have since had a change of heart, but judging by the above quote, I seriously doubt it. He probably still believes himself to have been a good guy, "fighting for freedom".

Now, to be fair, I don't know if this guy identifies himself as an advocate of liberty. He may not. He may be happy to be a promoter of massive statism- just like his actions seem to indicate. If that's the case, it's good we have been warned.

Actually, judging by his follow up post, he is a proud enemy of liberty who sees himself as some sort of Freedom Hero for fighting for the Empire.

He was a willing hitman for the enemy. If you claim to hate the bully, but you worship his hit men, you are part of the problem.

.

You can't have it both ways

People who say they are opposed to high "taxes", anti-gun "laws", Super-sized government, and the State treating people like stupid and helpless babies, and yet who vigorously support the military and cops baffle me.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Well, they can't have it both ways no matter how badly they want to.

They can get very defensive when this is pointed out to them.

Cops and the military prop up all the things they hate, and all the things they hate are what enables (or excuses) the existence of cops and the military. It is a symbiotic thing. A diseased, unhealthy, symbiotic relationship.

Get with it- either admit you love it all, or come down on the side against slavery with me.

.

"Global citizen"? Citizens are slaves

I recently watched a TED talk extolling the virtues of being a "global citizen".

If you believe "citizenship" is a good thing you don't understand citizenship.

A citizen is said to be an individual who "owes allegiance to [a] government and is entitled to its protection".

How does that really differ from a slave? A slave could be said to be someone who "owes allegiance to [a] master and is entitled to his protection".

And both are expected to labor and produce wealth to the one they "owe"- the government owner will call it "taxation" and take less than 100%. But, then the slave master doesn't actually take 100% either, since he still has to feed, clothe, and house the slave.

So, if you advocate "citizenship" you advocate slavery.

I agree that you need to look beyond your local area. I don't believe it's OK to advocate stealing from your neighbors to do "nice things" for people all around the globe.

.

Power in courtroom belongs to you

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 18, 2016)

Picture yourself on a jury, realizing that even though the defendant broke the law, the law is wrong.

Must you obey the judge's commands to consider only whether the law was broken? Or can you do more.

Actually you can, and should, do more. You have hundreds of years of legal history behind you, empowering you to do the right thing.

You should judge whether the violated law should exist, and whether the potential penalties-- even when the judge tells you to not consider them-- are too severe.

In the courtroom, all power and authority is yours.

Most judges no longer want you to know this fact. They will hide it and make you believe they are the authority. At most they are a referee, making sure the dance follows the established steps. When judges hide this law from you it is your responsibility to know it yourself. The only purpose of the courtroom is to find justice. You can't do that if someone is being prosecuted for violating a law which should not exist, or is facing a penalty out of proportion to what they did.

A jury doing the right thing and setting free the accused in spite of the State's wishes is called "jury nullification". Unjust laws in the past have evaporated because of juries refusing to punish people for breaking them.

If one person violates another-- through theft, physical attack, or trespass-- you can uphold the law he broke without guilt. These crimes are known as "mala in se" crimes; wrong because they violate life, liberty, or property.

However if you find yourself deciding the fate of a runaway slave or bootlegger, remember that the pretense of wrong in these cases lies upon someone dreaming up a law which prohibits the act. This law is counterfeit-- it imagines a "mala prohibitum" crime. "Wrong" only because it is prohibited, without an ethical foundation of respect for human rights and liberty. In other words, not wrong at all.

Of course, runaway slaves aren't quite as common as they once were-- unless you count truancy "laws". But there are a great many counterfeit "laws" being enforced. Such as all gun regulations, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, "vice laws", licensing requirements for business and piloting a vehicle, tax laws-- most of the laws enforced today.

Stand up for what's right. Refuse to punish people for imaginary "crimes" which have no individual victim. Nullify bad "laws". For more information visit fija.org

.

"Fun" with statists

Ah, statists. You never know where things will go if you discuss things with them long enough. It's one good reason to not drive them away too quickly when they say bizarre and insane things. Give them more rope and see what happens.

Like these two recent examples.

First, there was the statist who said that "freedom" might be OK for others, but she needs government because she wants safety and to be free of making any decisions for herself. That's right- she openly admitted that statism is a longing for perpetual childhood. And not the kind of childhood where the child is constantly pushing the envelope, but a childhood where the child is in a sort of vegetative state and can never mature.

She did begin to waver somewhat when the discussion went further and she began to see the foolishness of her beliefs, and the contradictions, but I didn't push it too far. I hope.

Then there was the guy who is OK with government threatening people with violence to enforce "taxation" because he doesn't believe anything is objectively right or wrong.

He quibbled over definitions of "ethical" and "moral" for a while, but I finally just said that whatever words you use to describe them, "Y" is something that is accepted as "right" or "wrong" depending on the particular culture; subjective. Example: Slavery was once accepted as right by most cultures. "X" is something that is "right" or "wrong" regardless of what a particular culture accepts; objective. Example: Slavery is never right, even when it is considered right by a culture.

He kept insisting that I don't understand what "objective" and "subjective" mean. And that everything, with regard to right and wrong, is subjective.

Just to be clear, since he kept saying over and over that everything was subjective and there is no objective right or wrong, I asked him "Is it wrong to rape and murder children, or is that just a subjective idea?"

His response: "Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong. Literally, nothing. Everything is a preference."

I told him there was then nothing to discuss, and he turned into the chess-playing pigeon, knocking over the pieces, crapping on the board, and strutting around as though he won. All because he believes it means I don't understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective".

Ah, statists. We need to keep a few of them around to show how absurd their beliefs are.

.

Respect

Respect is earned, not given away for free. Automatic respect cheapens it to the point of meaninglessness.

You don't get my respect because of a position or title.

If I respect you, it's because I believe you have earned it. I respect those who I believe deserve it; no one else. My respect has value.

If I act as though I respect you, I either actually do respect you, or I see that I am outgunned at the moment and believe I'd be better off faking respect, or I am mocking you. Like when I capitalize the word "State".

You can probably guess which it is if you know me.

.

Restroom rules are a distraction

"Laws" dictating which restroom anyone is allowed to use, or must be allowed to use, are both unnecessary and harmful.

 If you own a restroom, feel free to make up whatever rules concerning their use you want. If I don't like your rules, I won't use your restroom and may not do business with you.

 If you fund your restroom through theft ("taxation"), you don't own it and you don't get to make up rules concerning it. Thieves don't own the property they possess.

 If you are uncomfortable in a restroom with another person- any other person at all- get out of there. To worry about whether they "should" be in there is ridiculous.

 If attacked by anyone, anywhere, fight back with everything you've got. Again, whether the person "should" be in that restroom is a distraction- they are attacking and need to be stopped.

.

Seeking a sponsor for a project

I haven't been writing Liberty Lines columns for the local weekly paper (The State Line Tribune) for several months now. Someone asked about that a couple of days ago and it got me to thinking.

That's the only writing I don't get paid anything for, so it's the first to get pushed aside.

But... considering I have gotten quite a bit of face-to-face feedback on that column over the years, and all positive, I was thinking about seeking a sponsor here at the blog. To motivate me to spend the time and effort on writing more of them.

It is harder to get my columns published in that paper. The publisher rails against certain things government does (or doesn't do), but he has an unshakable faith that government is the answer- just not government "as is". He pretty much worships politicians, cops, the military, etc. as concepts, even while criticizing the individuals in those positions if they aren't doing what he wants. But he really doesn't like for me to criticize them at all- especially not local individuals in those positions. He always calls Muslims "Moslems" and wants the government to save the middle class and "do more" for everyone. So, you can imagine it is hard to sneak a column in that doesn't shock and offend him in some way. He has refused to publish a few of my submissions for this reason- that I questioned the legitimacy of government or some government position or action. But, I am willing to put forth the effort again.

So, if you would like to sponsor Liberty Lines columns- I am allowed to submit one per month- subscribe by any of the methods listed in the right-hand column here, for $20 per month, and tell me it is for Liberty Lines.

I won't mention your sponsorship in the newspaper, but if you'd like I could put a "Sponsored by" here at the blog when I post them.

It is just a thought. If it is worth it, someone will sponsor it. If not, then no harm done.

.

Politics, government, and the monopoly on evil

I just ran across the most horrible quote I think I've ever read: "We don't care about politics...We care about making government work better, because it's the only one we've got." (From here)

There is so much ignorant evil in that statement I don't know where to begin.

If you want to make government work "better", you do care about politics. It's apparently all you care about. You certainly don't care about the victims your government is creating with your help.

You are siding with bullies whose entire career revolves around pushing people around. "Work better" sounds like advocating efficiency in government. That is hideous. Efficient governments commit democide, genocide, slavery, theft, and every evil under the sun- and get away with it for far too long.

Would you want to make a rapist or a serial killer "work better"? That would be no worse than striving to help government "work better".

And "the only one we've got"? Like bullying is a precious and rare resource? Please!

The problem with government is that it isn't really the "only one we've got", but it demands monopoly status anyway. It wants you to believe it is the only one you've got, and that any others are illegitimate.

Pretending the State is the only government you've got results in driving out government that actually works: self government of the individual. How many humans are on Earth? That is the legitimate number of governments. Trying to pretend that The State is the only government you've got is a gigantic part of the problem.

-

This would be an excellent time to subscribe or donate; income in this household is way down and expenses the past couple of months are way up. Of course, you take care of you and yours first. Only donate or subscribe if you can afford it, and IF you believe you get value from my scribblings and occasional videos. Follow the arrow to the options.

.

Inherently peaceful?

One of the popular statist whines against liberty/anarchy (yes, they are the same thing) goes like this: "you apparently have the idea that humans are inherently peaceful..."

No idea why they project such a belief on those of us who are outside their cult.

And, no, I don't believe humans are inherently peaceful. I think some people are peaceful, some are aggressive, and some are easily influenced by the situation and other people around them. I also understand that people are driven by self-interest. Everyone is.

I understand that the worst people are drawn to positions of power, where they can afford to be non-peaceful with a smaller chance of facing consequences. In other words, they choose to go into the gang of government. They believe it is in their best interests to act this way. Sometimes that gang goes by other names, like the mafia, MS-13, Crips, or whatever, but all gangs of bad guys are governments, by their nature. Including the US government and every other national government on the planet. Every one without a single exception. Gang of bad guys = government = States = gang of bad guys.

For aggressive bad guys, it is in their best interests to join a gang- particularly one which has been legitimized by their victims.

If humans were inherently peaceful, it would be safe to allow governments to exist. As it is, I would rather face hordes of non-peaceful people who haven't convinced my friends, family, and neighbors that they are supposedly legitimate and safe from self-defensive actions when they attack and steal.

It is because I am not under the delusion that humans are inherently peaceful that I oppose governments.

-

This would be an excellent time to subscribe or donate; income in this household is way down and expenses the past couple of months are way up. Of course, you take care of you and yours first. Only donate or subscribe if you can afford it, and IF you believe you get value from my scribblings and occasional videos. Follow the arrow to the options.

.