"Support America" to Death

If, in order to "support America", it is necessary to endorse torture (using whatever euphemism you may prefer). If "supporting America" makes it necessary to condone government spying on Americans. If supporters must look away while government violates the Constitution (which, including ALL of the Bill of Rights, just happens to be the law that the current government is absolutely required to obey). If, to "support America", I must allow the enforcement of "laws" which cause damage to society and, in many cases, cause death (such as drug "laws" and gun "laws"), then why would it be desirable to support America?

It wouldn't be desirable at all. No country that must stoop to such tyrannical behavior in order to "preserve national security" or any other government notion deserves to continue to exist. Up until the last couple of decades Americans would have known that instinctively. What happened? Why are so few people pointing it out. Why don't more people stand up and say "Enough!"?

It isn't, and never has been, necessary to support all those atrocities in order to support America. The United States IS NOT America. Don't ever let them fool you into believing it is.

What IS necessary to support AMERICA is the courage to point out that the current US government is an outlaw regime which has taken over the government ....aided by the complicity of phony, flag-waving "patriots" who were fooled into voting away liberty in exchange for "entitlements" and "safety". You know the kind: the ones who would tell Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to go back to.... somewhere else... if they don't like the way King George treats his subjects. Only now these "patriotic Americans" tell the true Americans to "go back to Russia" if we point out that the US has become more socialistic than Stalin ever could have imagined Russia becoming. They wouldn't recognize "America" if they stumbled across it. Otherwise the 2008 election would be a contest between Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party candidate (or me), ....and the Demopublican candidates would all be in jail for treason.


________

Banned!!

The racist blogger banned me from commenting on his blog. That is something I have never done to anyone. He was congratulating himself for being "pro-Black and anti-racist" and I merely pointed out the absurdity of that fantasy. Unfortunately I don't have my original comment which he deleted so quickly, but it went something like this:

It is impossible to be "pro-Black and anti-racist" just as it would be
impossible to be "pro-White and anti-racist". It is people like you,
the racists, who enable such things as the attack by the teen criminals on the woman who tried
to take a seat on the bus recently. Where is your mention of
that?

He claims I violated the posting rules. I read the rules. Nowhere did I read that the truth should not be mentioned. The truth would shatter his little world where he takes comfort in being the big protector of everyone he thinks are inferior to himself. No wonder it scares him.
____________________

Edited: I guess I did violate his policy (3.a. specifically). I said "people like you, the racists" and his rules clearly state that it is forbidden to point out that he is a hate-filled, wild-eyed racist, no matter what his own words testify to. He says his blog opposes racism and a lot of other things, "as defined by me". Isn't that clever? In other words, if he changes the definitions to fit his perverse mind-set, he can claim to be anything or nothing at all.

UPDATE 5-19-2008: I am still getting referrals from the racist's blog. Well, he is still a racist and I am still not.


......................

The Monkey Bars

Soon after I moved to Pennsylvania, I found myself in a strange situation unlike any I had ever been in. I was staying with my new in-laws in an apartment building in the city. If you don't think that is strange and scary, you don't know me. We were in the process of buying a house in another area so everything was in limbo. There wasn't much for me to do since I knew nothing about the area and my wife was always at work.

Several times I found myself at the apartment's playground, sitting at the top of the monkey bars chatting with kids, most of whom were between 10 and 15 years old. I actually enjoyed those times a lot. Whether it was listening to them talk about the things that were important to them, or on rare occasions trying to give them adult advice, I came away with a sense of respect for them. They were much smarter and more aware than most adults give them credit for being, and in some cases, probably too aware. Some, if not most, came from family situations that were not very good. I never tried to advise them unless they really asked. You could tell that they needed to be listened to, and not talked down to.

I don't know if our perch up in the air helped or not, but I feel that my willingness to meet them on their own terms, instead of holding onto some silly adult dignity, may have opened the way for some real communication.

Seven years have passed, that marriage fell apart, I lost the house and all the money I had put into it to my ex-wife, and I have moved from state to state since then, but I still think of those kids and wonder where they are now. And I wonder why people can't sit and talk to one another so that understandings can be forged. Meet people on their own turf even if you think you will look silly. We are all more alike than different, after all.

"The Christmas Do-Over" from Blogonomicon

A nice story about how we should behave every day. Link

Uncle Bob's Treehouse

I recently discovered another very good libertarian blog. It is called "Uncle Bob's Treehouse". I can't remember how I discovered in, but I think it was through War on Guns. I highly recommend you take a look at it.

Boston Tea Party Day

Celebrate the day when Americans first told thieving government what it could go do to itself. Join those early "hooligan libertarians" (and their associates) in spirit. Find some way to demonstrate to government that you "aim to misbehave". America was not freed the first time by politeness toward tyranny. It will not be freed this time by politeness toward tyranny, either. Which "tax" causes you the most hardship? Is there a way you can throw your own Boston tea party with friends?

I would enjoy seeing mobs of protesters in V masks burning piles of Social Security cards, drivers licenses, or any other sort of permits or tax forms on the steps of the appropriate government agencies. All these things are, after all, just ways the government steals your money (and exerts unwarranted, and illegal, control over your life).

Of course, if you insist on being nice (gag) to the tyrants, just donate money to Ron Paul's Boston Tea Party Day money bomb or the Libertarian candidate of your choice.

Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day. Celebrate all your rights everyday, whether they are government-approved or not. Honor the "high shelf" which was intended to place all our rights beyond the reach of government.

Civility

Why is it so hard for people to be nice to one another? As anarchists and/or libertarians civility is the normal state of behavior. Anything else is an aberration. Almost all of the nastiness in the world comes from people trying to impose their will on others, and sometimes, from the natural attempt to resist. The statist types look for reasons to fight amongst themselves or with us. It is their nature and shouldn't surprise us. Yet, even when they become the target, they don't see what is really happening.

What is happening is the spread of the mental illness that makes people believe that they have a say in what others do, whether it affects them directly or not. The idea that "society" owns you or is owed some debt by allowing you to exist. The idea that someone else has a say in whether you choose to carry a gun or not, what you may choose to smoke in your own home on Friday night, where your money comes from, or a myriad of other busy-body issues.

Authoritarians love this situation. The state is helping to destroy civility with "laws" and regulations. Instead of "live and let live" or "agreeing to disagree" things become the business of government. And as a business, they must feed the fires of hostility to keep themselves strong.

I resolve to always make sure any unpleasantness in my life comes only from my resistance to being controlled; not from any attempt on my part to control others. It is all I can promise.

Comment Blogging

Instead of a new blog post today, please go read the comments on Monday's blog, That is worth a day's contemplation, at least.

Is It "Paranoid" To Carry a Gun?

I have been told that to carry a gun shows paranoia. It shows that the gun bearer is looking for trouble or expecting it to erupt around every corner. "How can someone go through life fearing everything like that?"

Using that standard, anyone who takes any precaution in order to be prepared is paranoid. Or does it only apply to those who take the responsibility to defend themselves and the people around them from violence? Those who keep fire extinguishers, those who wear seat belts, those who take vitamins or preventative medications, those who have a savings account or investments are just looking for something to go wrong or else they would just sit back and think everything will be OK. Right?

Perhaps those who "bear arms" are the only ones who are not paranoid. They don't need to be. They are comfortable in the knowledge that if something should happen, however unlikely, they have the tools available to take control of the situation instead of waiting to be rescued by people who have no motivation to do any real rescuing. They can walk around with a confidence that is lacking among the fearful. They can afford to be more friendly and helpful, while those who handicap themselves must either pass some stranger in need or risk injury in order to offer help.

Criminals' Rights

How can I believe that you and I have the right to shoot and kill criminals when my assertion is that rights are absolute and no one can lose their rights for any reason? What I have said before, and still believe, is that rights are absolute, and they do not overlap (by which I mean I have no right to do anything that would violate YOUR rights). Where does that leave my contention?

Well, when someone chooses to commit a true "crime", they have initiated force, either physically or economically. I have the right to act in self defense. In order to complete my self defensive act, the person who chose to initiate force may well get injured or killed. I did not set the acts in motion so it is not my fault. I am not killing an intruder; he is killing himself by setting a train of events into motion. Gravity does not kill a "jumper"; his own act of jumping off a balcony brings a logical conclusion that will kill him unless certain precautions are taken, or unless conditions save him. Neither gravity, nor the balcony, nor the ground below should feel any guilt (if they could) for his death. The same holds true for an innocent person who kills an attacker. You did not violate his rights, he violated his own rights at the same time he violated yours. You did not seek him out; he took a risk and lost, and society is richer for the outcome.

I Want One!

I am not usually too impressed or excited about hi-tech gadgets, but... this is the one that I would add to my wish-list if I did such things: the Kindle.

I realize the reality rarely lives up to the hype, but to me this is cooler than an iPhone, iPod, cellphone/digital camera, any games, or anything else electronic I have ever seen. And, no, this is not a hint for someone to buy me one.

Usually I have things like the ParaOrdinance Covert Black Carry on my wish list, where they stay for years and years (and where it remains to this day). This is the first time I can remember that I got the wantsies over a gadget. Maybe someday, after it is obsolete, I will get one, or something similar.

Hilarious Reporters

From years ago:

Since I recognize that airline passengers should be as well armed on the plane as off, I have a serious philosophical dislike of misguided airport "security measures". But sometimes, related matters can be hilarious.

I was once watching a news report on the fallibility of airport security. To demonstrate how bad it was, the reporter put a toy water gun in his luggage and sent it through the X-ray machine. (Obviously this was before "9/11") He then had a field-day that the screener did not recognize the "gun" on the screen. He even pointed it out on the replay. It didn't look like a gun to me, either. Maybe that was because it wasn't a gun, Sherlock! The X-ray of a toy water gun and an actual gun are absolutely nothing alike. Any clown off the street should know that, but apparently Mr. Reporterman didn't. That his editor didn't catch the blunder made it even funnier. Ahhh. Good times....

Ending Mall Shootings Safely

Here is a mind-bender that was running through my head today:


Suppose you are minding your own business at a mall and a shooter appears. What do you do? As a responsible person, you should pull out your concealed gun and quickly put an end to the danger, of course. "Gun free" zone or not. Now, what if it turns out that it was just some kind of "test" to check the security of the mall, and you just shot the actor portraying the criminal, who might very well be a cop? After reading about the government "tests" of TSA airport security (fake bombs), and reading of the fake "gunman" situation that was played out at a school a while back, it makes me think that such a thing could actually happen. So, do you shoot or do you wonder if it is a simulation? You shoot. Some things are just that important, and this is one of them.


Any person who agrees to take part in a fake attack deserves to be killed as if he were a real danger, in my opinion. Because he is a very real danger. I am sure "the law" would not agree, but that is because they would be wrong.

________

Six Minutes of Victim Disarmament

Just in case anyone still, after all these years, thinks it is a good idea to leave guns to the bad people and the badge people only: "By the time officers arrived six minutes later, the shooting was over". That is the only relevant part of the news story about Wednesday afternoon's mall shooting in Omaha. It is the only part that does not ever seem to get inside the brains of the disarmament crowd.

When a crime occurs it is too late to call anyone for help. Cops are NOT legally responsible for protecting you anyway. That fallacy has been disproved in court. YOU are the line between chaos and civilization. It is up to you and you alone. Cops are the vultures who swoop in to feed off of the carnage after it is over, at least in most cases. Most readers of this blog will already understand this at an instinctive level. The rest of society needs to begin to grasp the concept.

I expect another fund-raising email from the "Sarah Brady Mass-Murderer Fan Club" tomorrow. Maybe they will once again want a dollar (or three) for each victim of their policies. Whatever. They will be dancing in the blood one way or another. Just watch.

Open BOTH Eyes

My eyesight stinks. I have worn glasses since I was in first grade. My optometrist told me once my eyesight is somewhere around 20/1600. As bad as it is, it is much worse when I try to use only one eye. When both are being used, they correct for one another somewhat and make the picture much clearer. Maybe it is a biological analog to speckle interferometry.

With regards to the way humans see the "political" world, the world of human interaction, only libertarianism sees the whole picture clearly. Authoritarianism only sees the half they wish to see, either "left" or "right"; erroneously called "conservative" or "liberal". By using only one "eye" they get a blurry, distorted view. It leads them down the wrong path towards doom. They can't even recognize the real world because they have never seen it. That is why they can't understand libertarians and anarchists.

Should I write a Book?

I have been thinking about the possibility of writing a book. Should I? Is there a market for such? Is there a need for more "preaching to the choir" or is there a way to move beyond that to "preaching to the heathens" (the authoritarians and government sympathizers).

My idea at this point is to take the content of this blog and work it into a coherent, organized, book. Not an autobiographical book in any sense, other than documenting my philosophy. I would obviously need to write extra stuff to tie it all together as well. I have actually begun the project, just to see what the finished product looks like. I just wonder if it is worth the effort.

I have already asked a couple of people privately. If you think it would be a good thing, or not, let me know. And if any of you know any publishers who might be interested, or know any book store owners who would like to carry such a book, please send them my way.

"If You Have Nothing to Hide....."

Reading this story (by way of War on Guns) I saw this ignorant comment from someone who hid under the name "support police": "If you have nothing to hide then why are you concerned? Our underpaid police are out there risking thier (sic) lives so people can have a happy and safe country - Go back to Russia "

Even if you are guilty of no real crime, is there nothing in your life that could be used against you in any way? Do you want everyone to know all your PINs, your bank account numbers, your home address, work address, your children's names, all your medical history, anything? Do you want these state-sponsored perverts watching you use the toilet or having sex? What about the private thoughts inside your head? They may not be as private as you think they are. Could none of those be misinterpreted?

I am guilty of no real crime. Why do I care if the authoriturds spy on me? Because I do not trust those who gather the information. They are dishonest and corrupt to the core. They spy on us and yet will beat, arrest, taser, and threaten to kill anyone who returns the favor.

Look back at the ignoramus's last barb. Isn't it funny that someone who advocates and worships Soviet-style surveillance would want those who don't to "go back to Russia"? That person's pen name should have been "support tyranny". It would have been a LOT more honest!

The High Shelf

If you have ever had an unruly child come to visit, you know it is important to place the breakable nice things out of reach. Usually a high shelf becomes the temporary home for these objects. If you have an unruly child living with you, you either leave the breakables on that shelf permanently or hide them in the top of your closet.


The shelf didn't create the nice things that are upon it; it simply protects, or was intended to protect, them.

Government is a very bad destructive child. Human rights are very precious and are not to be played with. The Bill of Rights was intended as a high shelf on which to put those things that government was not to be trusted with. Being like a naughty child, some things needed to be out of its reach. The shelf was not enough.

Unfortunately, we the parents have watched as the bad child has stolen a step stool and broken everything on the shelf. If the broken "pretties" are noticed, most of the parents gently threaten a "time out"without ever following through. It hasn't worked. Now the child thinks it runs the house. Government is a particularly bad child, with super-strength ADHD, to boot. Government needs to at least have its pudgy, grubby little hand slapped til it is red.

Don't Look Back; Move Forward

My new article in The Libertarian Enterprise:

I don't really look as though I belong in the 21st century. I don't act like I belong here, either. My personal views are based on mutual respect and taking responsibility for oneself. Because of my appearance and opinions, people mistakenly believe I live in the past. I have been accused of wanting to return to "the good old days" when a person could walk down the street carrying a gun and not be noticed, except by people who wanted to "talk guns" with him. To a time when self-reliance and individuality were valued, not feared. To an era when a person's personal life was fodder for whispered gossip and raised eyebrows; not an excuse to toss the flash-bangs through his window, kick in the door, taser the survivors, and make a brutal "arrest" on the floor—beside the bloody bodies of the puppies. Read the rest