Ft. Hood: convergence of tragedies
Now that a week has passed since the massacre at Ft. Hood I'll weigh in with my observations. It isn't shocking that I reach very different conclusions than do the blood-dancers of the Mass-Murderer Fan Club.
I'll leave out the obvious points about the drawback of having a government-owned military rather than a militia of free individuals. And the other obvious observations about what happens when you use that government-owned military to go around the world coercing and occupying regions where they don't want your brand of statism to replace their equally twisted brand of statism. No, I'll leave those things for other people who have more tact than I to point out and discuss.
I'll just point out some of what I noticed about the tragic events of that fateful day.
Notice that the government can't protect people even on military bases or in (other) prisons; two of its most tightly controlled areas. How could anyone possibly believe government could protect them anywhere else? Unless they are in denial, people can't believe it.
ANY religion, when taken too seriously, can cause death and destruction. Not in every instance obviously, but often enough it should be a warning sign to you of potential problems. If your religion encourages you to initiate force against "them", whoever " they" may be, it is wrong and disgusting. If you misinterpret your religion as telling you to do so, you are the one who has real problems.
"Gun free zones" are only "gun free" as long as bad guys don't want to kill people there. Once someone decides to start killing, those zones will have the worst possible number of guns- however many that bad guy has. Most bad guys, like this most recent one, are cowards and will find a place where they can pick off unarmed victims. Others, knowing they probably won't get out of it alive, choose to attack where they can get the highest body count before being stopped. Either way, they choose the same kind of place: anywhere good people are unlikely to be armed. Stay away from places like this if you can. Find a way to arm yourself anyway, with something, if you can't avoid them.
And, last, but possibly most critical: Bad people with guns can only be counted on to be stopped by other people with guns. Don't count on your awesome ninja skills to save you.
************************
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
'Money' requires no government
Twice in the past two days I have run across people who claim we "need" government to create "money" for our use. This is not correct.
"Money" is anything that is used as a placeholder for things you want. A few people actually want the money itself, which is fine, but most of us want what we can trade the money to get.
"Money" can be gold, silver, chocolate, seashells, or anything you can convince others to take in trade. It doesn't need to be rare or "valuable", though it helps if it can't be found covering the ground or growing on trees all around the person you are trying to convince to take it in trade. If it is that common, then it will probably take a lot more of it to balance the trade, and that makes it more difficult to carry and deliver. It is also nice if your money doesn't rot quickly. Being "rich" in crated bananas would be a very transitory wealth.
Government "money" satisfies some of the criteria to be good money, but it fails miserably on others. Those failures are more than sufficient to invalidate government money and to show the superiority of free-market money.
Money should never be forced on someone. No one should dictate what you "should" use as your money, nor should they limit you to one type of money. Let the market choose the money that people trust and want. Even if that means some would choose to accept printed paper IOUs backed but nothing but a promise from a group of thieves that the money is "good", that is their choice. In this case, "seller beware!"
This is why it is a bad idea to have one person or one organization in control of all the money for a particular region. It is too easy for them to manipulate the money supply to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. When you allow them to have the power of government monopolistic coercion backing them up you are begging for disaster. Even if the people in charge of the money were "good people", infinitely more honest than the average person on Earth, the temptation is too great. That kind of power always attracts power-hungry bad people. Of all the people or groups to give the power to create "money", government is the absolute worst.
Personally, I prefer trading for silver or gold for most exchanges. Sometimes, if I am in need of something that another person has an excess of, we can work out a satisfactory deal based on that alternative currency. That is as it should be and how money should be allowed to work.
"Money" is anything that is used as a placeholder for things you want. A few people actually want the money itself, which is fine, but most of us want what we can trade the money to get.
"Money" can be gold, silver, chocolate, seashells, or anything you can convince others to take in trade. It doesn't need to be rare or "valuable", though it helps if it can't be found covering the ground or growing on trees all around the person you are trying to convince to take it in trade. If it is that common, then it will probably take a lot more of it to balance the trade, and that makes it more difficult to carry and deliver. It is also nice if your money doesn't rot quickly. Being "rich" in crated bananas would be a very transitory wealth.
Government "money" satisfies some of the criteria to be good money, but it fails miserably on others. Those failures are more than sufficient to invalidate government money and to show the superiority of free-market money.
Money should never be forced on someone. No one should dictate what you "should" use as your money, nor should they limit you to one type of money. Let the market choose the money that people trust and want. Even if that means some would choose to accept printed paper IOUs backed but nothing but a promise from a group of thieves that the money is "good", that is their choice. In this case, "seller beware!"
This is why it is a bad idea to have one person or one organization in control of all the money for a particular region. It is too easy for them to manipulate the money supply to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. When you allow them to have the power of government monopolistic coercion backing them up you are begging for disaster. Even if the people in charge of the money were "good people", infinitely more honest than the average person on Earth, the temptation is too great. That kind of power always attracts power-hungry bad people. Of all the people or groups to give the power to create "money", government is the absolute worst.
Personally, I prefer trading for silver or gold for most exchanges. Sometimes, if I am in need of something that another person has an excess of, we can work out a satisfactory deal based on that alternative currency. That is as it should be and how money should be allowed to work.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The 'libertarian approach'
The 'libertarian approach'
Many times I feel that I am in a time-loop; doomed to repeat myself eternally. I can't count the number of times I have addressed such things as "national borders" or "taxation". The answers don't change no matter who is offended, although I may refine my argument over time. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not complaining since this means new people are reading what I write. I just wish there were a simple way to organize all the answers in an "easy to point out" way.
Really, though, it isn't that hard to figure out for yourself. There is a "libertarian approach" to all things (an approach that increases the individual's control over his own life, liberty, and property), and there is a "statist approach" (one that lets government violate the individual's life, liberty and property). You may not like the libertarian approach, but that doesn't change the reality that every action or decision either weakens the state or strengthens it.
It is always obvious when you prick someone's favorite statist premise. They usually claim that the "libertarian solution" is not "libertarian", but what they mean is that they don't like the implications or they feel incapable of running their own lives. They are scared and want the government to protect them in this one particular instance and try to justify it. Strengthening the state is not ever "libertarian" or "individual-empowering", no matter whether you happen to like it or not.
I don't care if you consider yourself the Universe's gift to humanity, striking from your neocon cavern to refuse "Libertarian" credentials to those who don't "think" as you do. If your position empowers the state, or harms the freedom of individual people, it is not "libertarian" in any way. Whether it is statists on the "right" or the "left" or straddling the "middle" who are sacrificing individuals to the state, I am always opposed.
Many times I feel that I am in a time-loop; doomed to repeat myself eternally. I can't count the number of times I have addressed such things as "national borders" or "taxation". The answers don't change no matter who is offended, although I may refine my argument over time. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not complaining since this means new people are reading what I write. I just wish there were a simple way to organize all the answers in an "easy to point out" way.
Really, though, it isn't that hard to figure out for yourself. There is a "libertarian approach" to all things (an approach that increases the individual's control over his own life, liberty, and property), and there is a "statist approach" (one that lets government violate the individual's life, liberty and property). You may not like the libertarian approach, but that doesn't change the reality that every action or decision either weakens the state or strengthens it.
It is always obvious when you prick someone's favorite statist premise. They usually claim that the "libertarian solution" is not "libertarian", but what they mean is that they don't like the implications or they feel incapable of running their own lives. They are scared and want the government to protect them in this one particular instance and try to justify it. Strengthening the state is not ever "libertarian" or "individual-empowering", no matter whether you happen to like it or not.
I don't care if you consider yourself the Universe's gift to humanity, striking from your neocon cavern to refuse "Libertarian" credentials to those who don't "think" as you do. If your position empowers the state, or harms the freedom of individual people, it is not "libertarian" in any way. Whether it is statists on the "right" or the "left" or straddling the "middle" who are sacrificing individuals to the state, I am always opposed.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A word to non-libertarians
A word to non-libertarians
If you are not a libertarian (under my understanding of the concept), it means one of two things-
It could mean that you are not aware of what is going on. The mainstream media works very hard to keep you in the dark. They hide facts that would be embarrassing to their version of authoritarianism, while skewing information to make such authoritarianism seem reasonable or even necessary. They mercilessly attack the "other" authoritarian ideology to distract you from noticing their own inconsistency. Most people don't want to examine their own beliefs too closely anyway. It is uncomfortable to realize you have been supporting policies that are harmful to people, so you might be a willing participant in your own deception.
On the other hand, if you are not a libertarian it might mean that you do know what is going on, and you approve. You probably don't approve of everything, but you approve of enough of the authoritarianism as to compromise with evil in some areas. At least admit what you are supporting. Government is based upon murder. To support its actions when they go along with your own prejudices is to be complicit. No government program or policy is worth killing people over, nor worth destroying lives to finance. Not a single one. Not the "War on (some) Drugs"; not "Social Security". Not the US military; not Medicaid. "Not "national borders"; not "universal health care". Not "gun control"; not "defense of marriage". Those are all simply two sides of the same lie- that government owns you and can dispose of you or "protect" you as it sees fit.
I will let you in on a few little secrets: it is never "necessary" to attack anyone, and "collateral damage" is a euphemism for murder. It may be disconcerting, but "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" makes you the aggressor and makes you wrong. "Society" is only a collective term for individuals. Harm an individual and you are harming society no matter what you may claim. There is no such thing as "the common good". A "right" can never impose an obligation on another person. Theft is still theft no matter who is doing it. "Laws" that try to regulate or control anything other than theft or aggression are not real laws, and supporting or enforcing them means you are committing evil. This is not about the false divisions of "right/left" or "conservative/progressive"- this is about right and wrong. Period.
If you are not a libertarian (under my understanding of the concept), it means one of two things-
It could mean that you are not aware of what is going on. The mainstream media works very hard to keep you in the dark. They hide facts that would be embarrassing to their version of authoritarianism, while skewing information to make such authoritarianism seem reasonable or even necessary. They mercilessly attack the "other" authoritarian ideology to distract you from noticing their own inconsistency. Most people don't want to examine their own beliefs too closely anyway. It is uncomfortable to realize you have been supporting policies that are harmful to people, so you might be a willing participant in your own deception.
On the other hand, if you are not a libertarian it might mean that you do know what is going on, and you approve. You probably don't approve of everything, but you approve of enough of the authoritarianism as to compromise with evil in some areas. At least admit what you are supporting. Government is based upon murder. To support its actions when they go along with your own prejudices is to be complicit. No government program or policy is worth killing people over, nor worth destroying lives to finance. Not a single one. Not the "War on (some) Drugs"; not "Social Security". Not the US military; not Medicaid. "Not "national borders"; not "universal health care". Not "gun control"; not "defense of marriage". Those are all simply two sides of the same lie- that government owns you and can dispose of you or "protect" you as it sees fit.
I will let you in on a few little secrets: it is never "necessary" to attack anyone, and "collateral damage" is a euphemism for murder. It may be disconcerting, but "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" makes you the aggressor and makes you wrong. "Society" is only a collective term for individuals. Harm an individual and you are harming society no matter what you may claim. There is no such thing as "the common good". A "right" can never impose an obligation on another person. Theft is still theft no matter who is doing it. "Laws" that try to regulate or control anything other than theft or aggression are not real laws, and supporting or enforcing them means you are committing evil. This is not about the false divisions of "right/left" or "conservative/progressive"- this is about right and wrong. Period.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Age and responsibility
Age and responsibility
Once we finally turn our backs on coercive "government", who will protect the "minors"? I have heard people claim that there needs to be some way for society to decide who is a "minor", in other words one who is not responsible for his or her own safety and actions, and who is not a "minor". I have heard them insist that age is the best way to uniformly do so. This celebrated "uniformity" is a strike against its legitimacy. A one size fits all yardstick is not needed, and even if it were, age is the worst possible way to determine who is responsible for themselves and who is not.
People become responsible at different rates. They may be responsible in some areas of their lives now, but not yet responsible in other areas. Not all people will become responsible in the same areas in the same sequence, some never become self-responsible in all ways, yet "laws" don't recognize this. Sexual responsibility, financial responsibility, and responsibility for committing theft and aggression are completely unrelated to one another. In the case of aggression, even the "law" manages to admit that age does not work, as is demonstrated when the state decides to prosecute a suspected particularly violent "minor" as an "adult". This is to suit the state's own agenda, of course.
When there is a real need to decide if someone is self-responsible it should be done individually, on a case-by-case basis. After all, this is how it works when someone who falls outside the arbitrary age limit is suspected of not being able to be responsible for themselves. It is not worth ruining lives to expedite the resolution by removing discernment from the equation. It is "just too bad" if it takes a little longer to use your mind and think through a situation rather than brainlessly and cowardly pointing to a "law" as your justification. Haste makes waste, and it destroys lives.
I don't think it is any of "society's" business whether someone is self-responsible or not in most cases. It is the individual's business, and sometimes it is their family's business. Unless someone else is directly involved, that is where it ends. When someone else is involved, then the issue is still between the concerned individuals only.
People who victimize those who are unable to help themselves need to be held accountable. Not by society at large, but by the victim and their family and/or friends. The goal must be restitution; not retribution (as "Roger Young" correctly pointed out in a recent comment). Civilization depends on this.
Once we finally turn our backs on coercive "government", who will protect the "minors"? I have heard people claim that there needs to be some way for society to decide who is a "minor", in other words one who is not responsible for his or her own safety and actions, and who is not a "minor". I have heard them insist that age is the best way to uniformly do so. This celebrated "uniformity" is a strike against its legitimacy. A one size fits all yardstick is not needed, and even if it were, age is the worst possible way to determine who is responsible for themselves and who is not.
People become responsible at different rates. They may be responsible in some areas of their lives now, but not yet responsible in other areas. Not all people will become responsible in the same areas in the same sequence, some never become self-responsible in all ways, yet "laws" don't recognize this. Sexual responsibility, financial responsibility, and responsibility for committing theft and aggression are completely unrelated to one another. In the case of aggression, even the "law" manages to admit that age does not work, as is demonstrated when the state decides to prosecute a suspected particularly violent "minor" as an "adult". This is to suit the state's own agenda, of course.
When there is a real need to decide if someone is self-responsible it should be done individually, on a case-by-case basis. After all, this is how it works when someone who falls outside the arbitrary age limit is suspected of not being able to be responsible for themselves. It is not worth ruining lives to expedite the resolution by removing discernment from the equation. It is "just too bad" if it takes a little longer to use your mind and think through a situation rather than brainlessly and cowardly pointing to a "law" as your justification. Haste makes waste, and it destroys lives.
I don't think it is any of "society's" business whether someone is self-responsible or not in most cases. It is the individual's business, and sometimes it is their family's business. Unless someone else is directly involved, that is where it ends. When someone else is involved, then the issue is still between the concerned individuals only.
People who victimize those who are unable to help themselves need to be held accountable. Not by society at large, but by the victim and their family and/or friends. The goal must be restitution; not retribution (as "Roger Young" correctly pointed out in a recent comment). Civilization depends on this.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Repairing the 'justice system'
Repairing the 'justice system'
"Justice" is what we call the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed and correct the damage. It has nothing to do with "punishment" except in the sick minds of statists. If the aggressor himself can correct the situation, that is great, but it is not the necessary end-purpose of "justice". Justice never involves harming those who had nothing to do with the original offense. And "justice" never involves punishing someone who has no victim.
I'm not sure how anyone believes "justice" can happen when government controls each part of the process. Government makes the "laws", interprets the "laws", enforces those "laws", runs the courts where it is decided whether someone has violated the "laws" and doles out the punishment when the offender is found guilty. It is not surprising then that government tips the scales greatly in its own favor and toward its own purposes. The crazy thing is not realizing this obvious fact.
Government is just an organization made up of people. Members don't like for their organizations to be disbanded. It gives the members a sense of failure and loss. Therefore they will try to set up ways for their organization to keep going beyond its usefulness. If you give an organization like this the power and "authority" to protect itself to the detriment of the rest of society, you get a bad organization that deserves to be put out of business. In the worst case scenario you get a "government".
Government needs to be completely removed from the "justice system" and needs to cease being the owner of the courts. The current situation is the most blatant example of a conflict of interest imaginable. End the monopoly; privatize courts and allow for competition. Support and demand a separation of justice and state as an important step toward the real goal of a separation of life and state.
"Justice" is what we call the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed and correct the damage. It has nothing to do with "punishment" except in the sick minds of statists. If the aggressor himself can correct the situation, that is great, but it is not the necessary end-purpose of "justice". Justice never involves harming those who had nothing to do with the original offense. And "justice" never involves punishing someone who has no victim.
I'm not sure how anyone believes "justice" can happen when government controls each part of the process. Government makes the "laws", interprets the "laws", enforces those "laws", runs the courts where it is decided whether someone has violated the "laws" and doles out the punishment when the offender is found guilty. It is not surprising then that government tips the scales greatly in its own favor and toward its own purposes. The crazy thing is not realizing this obvious fact.
Government is just an organization made up of people. Members don't like for their organizations to be disbanded. It gives the members a sense of failure and loss. Therefore they will try to set up ways for their organization to keep going beyond its usefulness. If you give an organization like this the power and "authority" to protect itself to the detriment of the rest of society, you get a bad organization that deserves to be put out of business. In the worst case scenario you get a "government".
Government needs to be completely removed from the "justice system" and needs to cease being the owner of the courts. The current situation is the most blatant example of a conflict of interest imaginable. End the monopoly; privatize courts and allow for competition. Support and demand a separation of justice and state as an important step toward the real goal of a separation of life and state.
One final look at the 'bubble' of personal property
One final look at the 'bubble'
I think that one reason I am so highly skeptical of the claim that a concealed weapon can be legitimately prohibited by a property owner who otherwise "invites" visitors or customers onto his property is because of the similarity between this and the "if you don't like it you are free to leave" argument that statists continually use against those who suggest ways to increase freedom in America (or anywhere else) and who disagree with the rampant out-of-control growth of government power. It's that magical "social contract", don't you know.
Those who make that claim point out that nothing is stopping you from moving somewhere else that may be more to your liking. They ignore the governmental gauntlet that you must run, and the barriers erected to keep you from leaving with "too much" of your own property, but they are technically right. It is not impossible for you to leave. You can leave the increasingly fascist America for somewhere else even if it costs you most of your possessions and your family. Forget the fact that governments claim "authority" over every square inch of the planet now. Also forget the fact that there is no such thing as a "good government" and you would just be going from the frying pan to the griddle or into the fire. (And either will kill you.) Also ignore the fact that if all the good people abandon their homes to the bad people who make the demand, the bad guys have "won" by default.
So it is with this issue. If you don't like it, move somewhere that it isn't an issue, or change your behavior to reflect what others think you should do. After all, it is not impossible. It is possible to stay out of every business that is posted "no guns" (notice that LEOs are not obligated to obey this wish at all, which is not a recommendation to follow their lead by any means). You can get new friends and avoid your relatives if you happen to have the wrong ones. It would not directly kill you to avoid going places where your weaponry is forbidden, nor to disarm every single time before you go into those places you can't reasonably avoid. It might cause embarrassment to have to refuse to enter certain places without any honest explanation to your companions, but it is possible. You can choose to avoid the whole problem by never being armed with anything other than your mind and body. You would probably not even be killed on any particular occasion as a consequence of going about life as a toothless disarmed sheep. Can you count on that "probability" strongly enough to act on it? If that is the case, why bother ever taking the initiative to protect yourself? Just take your chances.
As I have said before, rights do not overlap. If you have a right to your body, then that right doesn't go away no matter where you are and no matter what others may demand. If someone chooses to invite people onto their property, then one of the drawbacks of that choice is that the person you invite retains all the rights that come along with a living human body. You can not ask that they give up even the "least" of their human rights in exchange for passage. Well, you can ask, but no one is obligated to comply.
Perhaps you believe that you have a right to pick and choose what rights a person has when they are invited to your property. I don't. I have too much respect for you as a whole, functioning human being to make that demand, and too much respect for myself to even think that way. Yes, my real-estate is mine and I have absolute rights to it and what is done there (ignoring for a moment the reality of governmental violations of these rights), but I know and accept that my rights to my property end where your rights to your body begin even if I have invited you onto my property and you are surrounded and engulfed by my property. If I don't like that I am not forced to permit anyone to enter my property. It is the nature of rights that others have the exact same rights as I do regardless of their location.
As Bob Schoettker commented on Knappster's take on the issue
I have an obligation to my children to protect them, and myself, in spite of demands that I not be effectively equipped to do so. I also have an obligation to teach them to think these matters through for themselves and not take my word, nor the word of any other individual, without making sure it makes sense and passes the test. This is the issue I have weighed more carefully and intensely than any other. Yet I still come down on the side of a person's body and the immediate, intimate surroundings of that body being the primary vessel of his human rights, with all other rights deriving from that foundation. I think any other view is putting the cart before the horse, although it seems more polite and socially palatable.
I intend this to be my final word dealing with this issue, and I'll just have to agree to disagree with those who think I am off-base here. It in no way diminishes my respect for those who disagree with me, which I hope I have made clear, and I hope the same can be said of their opinions of me. In some cases you have to do what you think is right in the face of massive disagreement, and then live with the consequences of your decisions. This is one of those times.
I think that one reason I am so highly skeptical of the claim that a concealed weapon can be legitimately prohibited by a property owner who otherwise "invites" visitors or customers onto his property is because of the similarity between this and the "if you don't like it you are free to leave" argument that statists continually use against those who suggest ways to increase freedom in America (or anywhere else) and who disagree with the rampant out-of-control growth of government power. It's that magical "social contract", don't you know.
Those who make that claim point out that nothing is stopping you from moving somewhere else that may be more to your liking. They ignore the governmental gauntlet that you must run, and the barriers erected to keep you from leaving with "too much" of your own property, but they are technically right. It is not impossible for you to leave. You can leave the increasingly fascist America for somewhere else even if it costs you most of your possessions and your family. Forget the fact that governments claim "authority" over every square inch of the planet now. Also forget the fact that there is no such thing as a "good government" and you would just be going from the frying pan to the griddle or into the fire. (And either will kill you.) Also ignore the fact that if all the good people abandon their homes to the bad people who make the demand, the bad guys have "won" by default.
So it is with this issue. If you don't like it, move somewhere that it isn't an issue, or change your behavior to reflect what others think you should do. After all, it is not impossible. It is possible to stay out of every business that is posted "no guns" (notice that LEOs are not obligated to obey this wish at all, which is not a recommendation to follow their lead by any means). You can get new friends and avoid your relatives if you happen to have the wrong ones. It would not directly kill you to avoid going places where your weaponry is forbidden, nor to disarm every single time before you go into those places you can't reasonably avoid. It might cause embarrassment to have to refuse to enter certain places without any honest explanation to your companions, but it is possible. You can choose to avoid the whole problem by never being armed with anything other than your mind and body. You would probably not even be killed on any particular occasion as a consequence of going about life as a toothless disarmed sheep. Can you count on that "probability" strongly enough to act on it? If that is the case, why bother ever taking the initiative to protect yourself? Just take your chances.
As I have said before, rights do not overlap. If you have a right to your body, then that right doesn't go away no matter where you are and no matter what others may demand. If someone chooses to invite people onto their property, then one of the drawbacks of that choice is that the person you invite retains all the rights that come along with a living human body. You can not ask that they give up even the "least" of their human rights in exchange for passage. Well, you can ask, but no one is obligated to comply.
Perhaps you believe that you have a right to pick and choose what rights a person has when they are invited to your property. I don't. I have too much respect for you as a whole, functioning human being to make that demand, and too much respect for myself to even think that way. Yes, my real-estate is mine and I have absolute rights to it and what is done there (ignoring for a moment the reality of governmental violations of these rights), but I know and accept that my rights to my property end where your rights to your body begin even if I have invited you onto my property and you are surrounded and engulfed by my property. If I don't like that I am not forced to permit anyone to enter my property. It is the nature of rights that others have the exact same rights as I do regardless of their location.
As Bob Schoettker commented on Knappster's take on the issue
"I set the conditions for use of my property -- if I can't, then it's
hardly honest to pretend that it's my property, is it?"
I have commented on this subject before in another venue, but it seems the
arguments are being defined a little more definitively here. I think that the
phrase "use of my property" above shows the core of the disagreement between
most libertarians on this issue.
What is "use" of your property?
I believe in inherent natural rights and I do not think that a person being
on "my" property in any way legitimates my abrogation of their rights; not to
life (i.e. can I kill anyone on my property because it's my property), not their
liberty (can I enslave any one on my property). Then under what distorted
definition of "use" can I deny them the right to self defense? How are any of
these things a legitimate usurpation of the owners "property" rights? In what
way do they affect his own use or disposition of his "property"? They
nevertheless are CLEAR violations of the visitors natural rights.
I have an obligation to my children to protect them, and myself, in spite of demands that I not be effectively equipped to do so. I also have an obligation to teach them to think these matters through for themselves and not take my word, nor the word of any other individual, without making sure it makes sense and passes the test. This is the issue I have weighed more carefully and intensely than any other. Yet I still come down on the side of a person's body and the immediate, intimate surroundings of that body being the primary vessel of his human rights, with all other rights deriving from that foundation. I think any other view is putting the cart before the horse, although it seems more polite and socially palatable.
I intend this to be my final word dealing with this issue, and I'll just have to agree to disagree with those who think I am off-base here. It in no way diminishes my respect for those who disagree with me, which I hope I have made clear, and I hope the same can be said of their opinions of me. In some cases you have to do what you think is right in the face of massive disagreement, and then live with the consequences of your decisions. This is one of those times.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
The ZAP- essential, but not sufficient
The ZAP- essential, but not sufficient
I see the Zero Aggression Principle as essential for ethical behavior, but not sufficient. I "really believe" in zero aggression, but I recognize it is a part of ethical behavior, not the whole enchilada. In other words, you could never initiate force, and still be a bad guy.
Trespassing and theft (including fraud) may not involve any force at all, and many would conclude that they do not violate the ZAP in that case, but you and I both know that either way, these acts are wrong to engage in.
I recently read an anarchist arguing that shoplifting from a giant corporation is good because (and I paraphrase) "who owns the box of noodles?" All I can know is that I know it would be wrong for me to live that way or to act upon that kind of belief.
*********************
I see the Zero Aggression Principle as essential for ethical behavior, but not sufficient. I "really believe" in zero aggression, but I recognize it is a part of ethical behavior, not the whole enchilada. In other words, you could never initiate force, and still be a bad guy.
Trespassing and theft (including fraud) may not involve any force at all, and many would conclude that they do not violate the ZAP in that case, but you and I both know that either way, these acts are wrong to engage in.
I recently read an anarchist arguing that shoplifting from a giant corporation is good because (and I paraphrase) "who owns the box of noodles?" All I can know is that I know it would be wrong for me to live that way or to act upon that kind of belief.
*********************
Proud of America in my daydreams
Proud of America in my daydreams
People often talk about feeling "proud of America" when they watched Neil Armstrong step onto the moon. Or when the people of the country pull together to help someone who has been hurt. I can understand the desire to feel proud of "your country".
There is one thing that would truly make me proud of America. I don't think it will ever happen, but this is what would strike a chord in me.
Imagine that some day soon the president holds a news conference. With The VP, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, a Supreme Courtjester or two, and token representatives of the "other" political party standing behind him, he announces that the US government will disband as of midnight due to the realization that government has been an abject failure in living up to all of its original justifications. It was tried; it failed, now they are all cutting their losses and going home before the "necktie parties" begin. All government "entitlement" payouts will end forever. Federal property will revert to the states or foreign lands in which they are located. All federal military weapons will go to the national guards to be handed out to the unorganized militia as restitution for the BATFE's abuses. And all federal employees around the world are welcome to come home, or stay where they are, as private individuals.
It isn't a perfect solution since we would still have to contend with smaller, more local governments who will undoubtedly feel a need to try to fill Uncle Scam's ill-gotten shoes. "State's rights" are still a vastly inferior philosophy, a comparatively pale shadow, to individual rights, but it's a healthy step in the right direction.
America could lead the world in something meaningful, inspiring others to seek real freedom. That would be a day that would really make me proud of America. I'm smiling even now.
People often talk about feeling "proud of America" when they watched Neil Armstrong step onto the moon. Or when the people of the country pull together to help someone who has been hurt. I can understand the desire to feel proud of "your country".
There is one thing that would truly make me proud of America. I don't think it will ever happen, but this is what would strike a chord in me.
Imagine that some day soon the president holds a news conference. With The VP, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, a Supreme Courtjester or two, and token representatives of the "other" political party standing behind him, he announces that the US government will disband as of midnight due to the realization that government has been an abject failure in living up to all of its original justifications. It was tried; it failed, now they are all cutting their losses and going home before the "necktie parties" begin. All government "entitlement" payouts will end forever. Federal property will revert to the states or foreign lands in which they are located. All federal military weapons will go to the national guards to be handed out to the unorganized militia as restitution for the BATFE's abuses. And all federal employees around the world are welcome to come home, or stay where they are, as private individuals.
It isn't a perfect solution since we would still have to contend with smaller, more local governments who will undoubtedly feel a need to try to fill Uncle Scam's ill-gotten shoes. "State's rights" are still a vastly inferior philosophy, a comparatively pale shadow, to individual rights, but it's a healthy step in the right direction.
America could lead the world in something meaningful, inspiring others to seek real freedom. That would be a day that would really make me proud of America. I'm smiling even now.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Texas 'election day' reminder
Texas 'election day' reminder
For my friends and readers in Texas- November 3 is election day. Before you head out to the polls I ask you to remember this: Voting is just another manifestation of "might makes right".
Instead of directly having a warlord killing off his rivals (the standard excuse against self-responsible, non-coercive living- "anarchy"), with voting there is another layer of camouflage to hide the reality. You have a mob voting on who the warlords, collectively referred to as "government", will kill next; whose rights will be violated, whose choices will be criminalized, whose value as a human will be marginalized simply because they are in the minority.
If you think you really can defend your freedom by voting I will not try to dissuade you. Just don't be too disappointed when it doesn't happen the way you want.
If you do choose to vote, please use the rest of the day actually increasing your own freedom by doing things that matter to you. Don't hurt any innocent people, but other than that, the sky is the limit. Ignore those "authorities" who would try to order you around for their own benefit. Have fun.
For my friends and readers in Texas- November 3 is election day. Before you head out to the polls I ask you to remember this: Voting is just another manifestation of "might makes right".
Instead of directly having a warlord killing off his rivals (the standard excuse against self-responsible, non-coercive living- "anarchy"), with voting there is another layer of camouflage to hide the reality. You have a mob voting on who the warlords, collectively referred to as "government", will kill next; whose rights will be violated, whose choices will be criminalized, whose value as a human will be marginalized simply because they are in the minority.
If you think you really can defend your freedom by voting I will not try to dissuade you. Just don't be too disappointed when it doesn't happen the way you want.
If you do choose to vote, please use the rest of the day actually increasing your own freedom by doing things that matter to you. Don't hurt any innocent people, but other than that, the sky is the limit. Ignore those "authorities" who would try to order you around for their own benefit. Have fun.
When an invitation is not an invitation
When an invitation is not an invitation
In discussing my "Bubble Theory" of property rights, the main issue that comes up is concealed carry of weapons. That is only because that is the primary area where even freedom oriented people think it is OK to violate the "you-shaped bubble" of your personal property, and assert ownership of the space between your skin and your clothes.
I say it is dangerous to single out guns when discussing this, since that issue is too emotionally charged. The issue is exactly the same if someone posts a sign refusing to allow colostomy bags, contact lenses, or your wallet on their property. Self-respecting individuals will stay way from such people and businesses if at all possible.
Even if you view this as a "contract" issue, there are problems. You can't open your property and then post a sign claiming that anyone who comes onto the property agrees, by "contract", to be a dog while they are there. Or that they must leave their intestines at home. Contracts can't change the nature of reality. Such a "contract" is really a warning to stay away.
I suppose I will defend their right to pretend to welcome people onto their property with such absurd exceptions. The reality is that any such "invitation" is not an invitation at all. The "inviter" is lying and is not actually inviting anyone onto their property. And that is their right, but they should be honest about it rather than defrauding people. If you do not wish to allow whole people onto your property, don't. Don't give false invitations and then make ridiculous, and evil, demands. If you are the recipient of such a deceptive "invitation", respect yourself and stay away from such perverted people. It is a deadly trap they set. Have nothing to do with them, and see them and their "invitation" for what they really are.
Lest you think, because of my argument, I am going out and violating property owners' wishes all the time, I will assure you I am not. Privately owned property that has signs prohibiting guns are places I avoid. I know in my heart they are wrong and they don't care a whit about their employees or customers; viewing them as nothing more than expendable property as long as they (and their personal property bubble) are surrounded by the other person's property. I will reward neither evil nor stupidity.
In discussing my "Bubble Theory" of property rights, the main issue that comes up is concealed carry of weapons. That is only because that is the primary area where even freedom oriented people think it is OK to violate the "you-shaped bubble" of your personal property, and assert ownership of the space between your skin and your clothes.
I say it is dangerous to single out guns when discussing this, since that issue is too emotionally charged. The issue is exactly the same if someone posts a sign refusing to allow colostomy bags, contact lenses, or your wallet on their property. Self-respecting individuals will stay way from such people and businesses if at all possible.
Even if you view this as a "contract" issue, there are problems. You can't open your property and then post a sign claiming that anyone who comes onto the property agrees, by "contract", to be a dog while they are there. Or that they must leave their intestines at home. Contracts can't change the nature of reality. Such a "contract" is really a warning to stay away.
I suppose I will defend their right to pretend to welcome people onto their property with such absurd exceptions. The reality is that any such "invitation" is not an invitation at all. The "inviter" is lying and is not actually inviting anyone onto their property. And that is their right, but they should be honest about it rather than defrauding people. If you do not wish to allow whole people onto your property, don't. Don't give false invitations and then make ridiculous, and evil, demands. If you are the recipient of such a deceptive "invitation", respect yourself and stay away from such perverted people. It is a deadly trap they set. Have nothing to do with them, and see them and their "invitation" for what they really are.
Lest you think, because of my argument, I am going out and violating property owners' wishes all the time, I will assure you I am not. Privately owned property that has signs prohibiting guns are places I avoid. I know in my heart they are wrong and they don't care a whit about their employees or customers; viewing them as nothing more than expendable property as long as they (and their personal property bubble) are surrounded by the other person's property. I will reward neither evil nor stupidity.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Another examination of property rights
Another examination of property rights
Sandusky County Politics Examiner Michael Stahl recently wrote a column examining property rights. His premise is that any property you set down can be ethically taken by a passerby. Something always seems fundamentally wrong with this argument, but other than "We'd die without property" I can't find good reasons to disagree. But, maybe that is the only argument necessary. "Utilitarianism" doesn't set well with me, though.
He says
Nothing can be counted as "yours" except that which you can carry with you in this case, right? I'm wondering how you can be free if you can't count on your store of food being there when you come back to it. We would be forced to become nomads, yet even nomads have property such as a tent that they can count on as "theirs" even if it is out of sight. You couldn't ever leave your larder to collect more food, so it wouldn't be possible to prepare for winter or other times of scarcity. And unless you could claim a location as yours, such as the land where your larder exists, the same difficulty arises. It wouldn't even be right to defend your larder from thieves if you weren't sitting right on top of it. If you had wandered off to find more food, and you came "home" to discover someone else sitting in your larder stuffing their face and backpack with the food you had cached, it wouldn't be right to do anything to this person, even though in many cases this would doom you to death. We would be reduced to less than animals.
What does the natural world have to say? Many other animals have rudimentary property rights. As has been pointed out, if you don't believe that, just try to take a dog's food away. They also have territories that they scent-mark and defend. Other creatures manage it without government, why would humans be less capable? I think a big difference between humans and the other animals is our more highly developed sense of ethics. In most cases we may not want to admit when we do something wrong, but we know instinctively when we do. It takes a great deal of brainwashing to subdue that ethical sense.
Sometimes people say that the reason property rights are not real is that without government to "enforce" property rights they don't exist. That's not correct. There is no need to fall back on a government to defend your temporarily "abandoned" property for you. No one ever "needs" government. The question is, how can you envision a system that would allow for defense of your property without setting up a government and without violating the equal rights of others? I can see ways to agree to recognize the real estate property rights of another person without depending on a government to do so. There would be no government enforcing such property rights, but there would also be no government tracking down and punishing a property owner who does dare to defend his property. I need no government to force me to keep my agreements and respect my neighbors' (or a stranger's) property. It is simply a component of ethical behavior. This hits on another point I have made- The Zero Aggression Principle is necessary for ethical behavior, but it is not sufficient.
Here's a bizarre tangent to consider: picking something up off the ground actually does require an initiation of force. It is not initiated force against the body of a person, but it is an initiation of physical force to counter inertia and the force of gravity. Is it any less wrong simply because the "victim" isn't aware of the initiation of force until he returns to where he left his property? You could say a sleeping or drugged person isn't aware of force that is initiated against them at the moment it happens either. OK, so maybe I am getting way "out there". I'm just looking at all the angles here.
Now, if this interpretation of property is the reality of freedom, I am willing to accept it and deal with the consequences. Just because something leads to uncomfortable conclusions or makes life hard doesn't make it wrong. Yet it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
Sandusky County Politics Examiner Michael Stahl recently wrote a column examining property rights. His premise is that any property you set down can be ethically taken by a passerby. Something always seems fundamentally wrong with this argument, but other than "We'd die without property" I can't find good reasons to disagree. But, maybe that is the only argument necessary. "Utilitarianism" doesn't set well with me, though.
He says
"This does not mean property cannot exist, but rather that it would be a very
different creature, likely more personal, and probably less defined. If you have
something in your pocket, it would require force to remove it (or the pants)
from you. However, if you set it down and walk away, it no longer requires force
for someone to pick it up. Even if it required a huge amount of work for you to
craft, or you had it for a very long time-non-aggression does not have the
qualifier: unless you really want something."
Nothing can be counted as "yours" except that which you can carry with you in this case, right? I'm wondering how you can be free if you can't count on your store of food being there when you come back to it. We would be forced to become nomads, yet even nomads have property such as a tent that they can count on as "theirs" even if it is out of sight. You couldn't ever leave your larder to collect more food, so it wouldn't be possible to prepare for winter or other times of scarcity. And unless you could claim a location as yours, such as the land where your larder exists, the same difficulty arises. It wouldn't even be right to defend your larder from thieves if you weren't sitting right on top of it. If you had wandered off to find more food, and you came "home" to discover someone else sitting in your larder stuffing their face and backpack with the food you had cached, it wouldn't be right to do anything to this person, even though in many cases this would doom you to death. We would be reduced to less than animals.
What does the natural world have to say? Many other animals have rudimentary property rights. As has been pointed out, if you don't believe that, just try to take a dog's food away. They also have territories that they scent-mark and defend. Other creatures manage it without government, why would humans be less capable? I think a big difference between humans and the other animals is our more highly developed sense of ethics. In most cases we may not want to admit when we do something wrong, but we know instinctively when we do. It takes a great deal of brainwashing to subdue that ethical sense.
Sometimes people say that the reason property rights are not real is that without government to "enforce" property rights they don't exist. That's not correct. There is no need to fall back on a government to defend your temporarily "abandoned" property for you. No one ever "needs" government. The question is, how can you envision a system that would allow for defense of your property without setting up a government and without violating the equal rights of others? I can see ways to agree to recognize the real estate property rights of another person without depending on a government to do so. There would be no government enforcing such property rights, but there would also be no government tracking down and punishing a property owner who does dare to defend his property. I need no government to force me to keep my agreements and respect my neighbors' (or a stranger's) property. It is simply a component of ethical behavior. This hits on another point I have made- The Zero Aggression Principle is necessary for ethical behavior, but it is not sufficient.
Here's a bizarre tangent to consider: picking something up off the ground actually does require an initiation of force. It is not initiated force against the body of a person, but it is an initiation of physical force to counter inertia and the force of gravity. Is it any less wrong simply because the "victim" isn't aware of the initiation of force until he returns to where he left his property? You could say a sleeping or drugged person isn't aware of force that is initiated against them at the moment it happens either. OK, so maybe I am getting way "out there". I'm just looking at all the angles here.
Now, if this interpretation of property is the reality of freedom, I am willing to accept it and deal with the consequences. Just because something leads to uncomfortable conclusions or makes life hard doesn't make it wrong. Yet it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Privacy or a lack thereof
Privacy or a lack thereof
I was reading an entry on The Dilbert Blog, where Scott Adams was talking about the end of privacy. He was making the case that it might be liberating to have all your quirks exposed to the world. Suppose, as in the hypothetical world he proposed, a desire for broccoli were stigmatized. If everyone knew this information about you, you could gravitate toward other broccoli-lovers and find a new community. That sounds nice.
Let's think about that more carefully before we celebrate the loss of privacy and start waiting for our broccoli-fetish club invitations to come rolling in.
It probably wouldn't be too bad until some president, supreme court-jesters, LEOs, or bureaucrats decided it was necessary for "the common good" to kidnap ("arrest"), torture, and kill all the broccoli-lovers. Don't think it wouldn't happen. It would; it always does. Look at all the things from the past that are now demonized and even reasons for punishment. This is a recipe for a "genocide" of those whose tastes can be targeted.
You also need to realize that your neighbors will rationalize their own quirks while magnifying yours until it is imperative that they exorcise you from their midst. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little. Yet, if you were already unpopular because you respect the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of people your neighbors have decided they don't like, or because you painted your house orange with pink and purple polka-dots, any excuse will be sufficient to single you out. If they can hand you over to a government which is willing to do their dirty work for them, it is so much easier and therefore more likely.
This laying open of the secrets has another danger. It limits responses. If the broccoli-lovers happened to have the foresight to arm themselves sufficiently to effectively resist the coming genocide, the government and enemies would know about that as well. Love of broccoli could be a factor in forbidding gun ownership, assuming gun ownership wasn't totally prohibited already.
The danger isn't in the lack of privacy; it is in allowing anyone to have power or "authority" to do something with the information. In other words, it is in having a lack of privacy and allowing government to exist.
I was reading an entry on The Dilbert Blog, where Scott Adams was talking about the end of privacy. He was making the case that it might be liberating to have all your quirks exposed to the world. Suppose, as in the hypothetical world he proposed, a desire for broccoli were stigmatized. If everyone knew this information about you, you could gravitate toward other broccoli-lovers and find a new community. That sounds nice.
Let's think about that more carefully before we celebrate the loss of privacy and start waiting for our broccoli-fetish club invitations to come rolling in.
It probably wouldn't be too bad until some president, supreme court-jesters, LEOs, or bureaucrats decided it was necessary for "the common good" to kidnap ("arrest"), torture, and kill all the broccoli-lovers. Don't think it wouldn't happen. It would; it always does. Look at all the things from the past that are now demonized and even reasons for punishment. This is a recipe for a "genocide" of those whose tastes can be targeted.
You also need to realize that your neighbors will rationalize their own quirks while magnifying yours until it is imperative that they exorcise you from their midst. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little. Yet, if you were already unpopular because you respect the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of people your neighbors have decided they don't like, or because you painted your house orange with pink and purple polka-dots, any excuse will be sufficient to single you out. If they can hand you over to a government which is willing to do their dirty work for them, it is so much easier and therefore more likely.
This laying open of the secrets has another danger. It limits responses. If the broccoli-lovers happened to have the foresight to arm themselves sufficiently to effectively resist the coming genocide, the government and enemies would know about that as well. Love of broccoli could be a factor in forbidding gun ownership, assuming gun ownership wasn't totally prohibited already.
The danger isn't in the lack of privacy; it is in allowing anyone to have power or "authority" to do something with the information. In other words, it is in having a lack of privacy and allowing government to exist.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
'Do no harm'
'Do no harm'
In a recent comment, "Mike" suggested that the operating principle for life, rather than being the Zero Aggression Principle (with my addendum of the "Principle of Zero Initiated Deceit") might be simplified to "Do no harm".
"Do no harm". If "do" is interpreted to include actions in self-defense, which it might be, then I am not on-board. After all, if someone attacks you, I defend your absolute human right to do harm to your attacker to make him stop. We'll assume for a moment that "Do no Harm" is understood in this way- "Do" as in "cause an action"; "initiate". Initiate no harm. If "Mike" disagrees, I hope he will speak up.
What about "harm"? Harm may still happen that you are not able to prevent, but that is not your fault. If you are able to prevent harm, yet you refuse to act, I might question your integrity and courage, but I would not blame you for the harm as long as you didn't "do"it. I shouldn't second-guess your choices in this case. I can't be inside your head and have access to all the information and values you possess. Weigh your decisions and learn from your experiences and perhaps next time you will be ready, willing, and able to reach out and prevent harm to some innocent person in your sphere.
My other concern about expressing our principles as "Do no harm" is how many people consider it "doing harm" to mind your own business and not meddle in the affairs of others. After all, you have to remember how many people foolishly feel that it is "doing harm" to not force others, at gunpoint ultimately, to provide and pay for health care for people who are not providing it for themselves for one reason or another. Or look at all the people who say that private, non-coercive "drug" use is "harming society" in some way.
Still, "do no harm" is a suggestion I have made before on my blog, especially where government is concerned. In the case of "the state" I would much rather "suffer" harm from something that happens due to "extralegal" freedom than to suffer harm from something that some short-sighted imbecile wrote into law.
I say again: It is better for bad things to happen due to a lack of action than to cause bad things to happen due to your actions. In other words, it is less wrong to watch a mugging occur without helping the victim than it is to be doing the mugging. It is sad when a person is harmed because harm wasn't prevented, but it is positively evil when something bad happens to an innocent person because the harm was enabled or made inevitable by the passage of a "law". When you pass "laws" to "help" people you are becoming the mugger.
Bad things, harm, will always happen. That is the stark reality. No amount of law pollution will ever be able to change that. No saturation of cameras watching our every more; no RFIDs in our skin; no stronger "law" could ever prevent all harm from ever occurring to us.
Use the term "Do no harm", but be prepared to respond to those whose ideas of "do" and "harm" are based upon irrational emotionalism rather than truth.
***********************
In a recent comment, "Mike" suggested that the operating principle for life, rather than being the Zero Aggression Principle (with my addendum of the "Principle of Zero Initiated Deceit") might be simplified to "Do no harm".
"Do no harm". If "do" is interpreted to include actions in self-defense, which it might be, then I am not on-board. After all, if someone attacks you, I defend your absolute human right to do harm to your attacker to make him stop. We'll assume for a moment that "Do no Harm" is understood in this way- "Do" as in "cause an action"; "initiate". Initiate no harm. If "Mike" disagrees, I hope he will speak up.
What about "harm"? Harm may still happen that you are not able to prevent, but that is not your fault. If you are able to prevent harm, yet you refuse to act, I might question your integrity and courage, but I would not blame you for the harm as long as you didn't "do"it. I shouldn't second-guess your choices in this case. I can't be inside your head and have access to all the information and values you possess. Weigh your decisions and learn from your experiences and perhaps next time you will be ready, willing, and able to reach out and prevent harm to some innocent person in your sphere.
My other concern about expressing our principles as "Do no harm" is how many people consider it "doing harm" to mind your own business and not meddle in the affairs of others. After all, you have to remember how many people foolishly feel that it is "doing harm" to not force others, at gunpoint ultimately, to provide and pay for health care for people who are not providing it for themselves for one reason or another. Or look at all the people who say that private, non-coercive "drug" use is "harming society" in some way.
Still, "do no harm" is a suggestion I have made before on my blog, especially where government is concerned. In the case of "the state" I would much rather "suffer" harm from something that happens due to "extralegal" freedom than to suffer harm from something that some short-sighted imbecile wrote into law.
I say again: It is better for bad things to happen due to a lack of action than to cause bad things to happen due to your actions. In other words, it is less wrong to watch a mugging occur without helping the victim than it is to be doing the mugging. It is sad when a person is harmed because harm wasn't prevented, but it is positively evil when something bad happens to an innocent person because the harm was enabled or made inevitable by the passage of a "law". When you pass "laws" to "help" people you are becoming the mugger.
Bad things, harm, will always happen. That is the stark reality. No amount of law pollution will ever be able to change that. No saturation of cameras watching our every more; no RFIDs in our skin; no stronger "law" could ever prevent all harm from ever occurring to us.
Use the term "Do no harm", but be prepared to respond to those whose ideas of "do" and "harm" are based upon irrational emotionalism rather than truth.
***********************
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The best course
The best course
Contrary to my youngest sister's childhood opinion, I don't know everything. But I do know certain things quite well. One thing I do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that it is possible- not only possible, but imperative- to live a life of maximum freedom for yourself, protecting your life and your freedom as if it were your purpose for existing, while respecting the same in others. This means living by the Zero Aggression Principle and not initiating deception. Happiness is more important than freedom, but only with freedom can you truly "pursue happiness".
Even if freedom were not a successful "strategy", you would do well living that way. If the statists are right, and "might makes right", and theft, kidnapping and murder are OK as long as you have the winning vote, then society is doomed anyway. In such a case I would rather go out doing what I know is right instead of becoming an evil person just to get a little temporary benefit for myself.
I don't have all the answers. I am still learning from others, and learning from myself. I absorb all I can and I digest it until I use what I need and discard the rest. Then, the knowledge I have made a part of me, I rearrange into myself. Freedom is never finalized. Areas where I am not certain can be altered or changed by good arguments. Areas where I am certain need to be challenged and re-evaluated. Explaining myself and my views to others is the best way to untangle it in my own mind, and to find any weaknesses. I may not change my mind, but ideas that can't stand up to scrutiny are not worth much anyway.
Contrary to my youngest sister's childhood opinion, I don't know everything. But I do know certain things quite well. One thing I do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that it is possible- not only possible, but imperative- to live a life of maximum freedom for yourself, protecting your life and your freedom as if it were your purpose for existing, while respecting the same in others. This means living by the Zero Aggression Principle and not initiating deception. Happiness is more important than freedom, but only with freedom can you truly "pursue happiness".
Even if freedom were not a successful "strategy", you would do well living that way. If the statists are right, and "might makes right", and theft, kidnapping and murder are OK as long as you have the winning vote, then society is doomed anyway. In such a case I would rather go out doing what I know is right instead of becoming an evil person just to get a little temporary benefit for myself.
I don't have all the answers. I am still learning from others, and learning from myself. I absorb all I can and I digest it until I use what I need and discard the rest. Then, the knowledge I have made a part of me, I rearrange into myself. Freedom is never finalized. Areas where I am not certain can be altered or changed by good arguments. Areas where I am certain need to be challenged and re-evaluated. Explaining myself and my views to others is the best way to untangle it in my own mind, and to find any weaknesses. I may not change my mind, but ideas that can't stand up to scrutiny are not worth much anyway.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
My approach
My approach
I was recently asked about "my approach" to freedom and life. It isn't that complicated. My main goal is to increase my own personal freedom. Secondary to that is to increase freedom in society, which obviously includes everyone I deal with regularly. Living by the ZAP and by not initiating deceit is how I attempt to achieve this goal. I know from experience that it works in real life, with real people. Whether they wish to cooperate or not. Whether they live by the same principles or not.
This is "my approach". It may not be the best way for everyone, but it works for me. When I have energy left over from living my own life I may decide to spend some of that spare energy on political projects; at least the ones that don't make me feel like I have abandoned my principles. Or I may choose to add value to my own life in some other way.
Is that "selfish"? I don't think so. One must remove the mote from one's own eye before he goes around blindly poking in the eyes of others. You can't toss someone a life jacket if you are deeper underwater than they are. A person must understand and even feel what it is he is working toward in order to avoid losing his way. You can't point the way to camp when you are lost.
This column helps me get my own thoughts in order. If others get some benefit, then that makes me happier. If there is something you would like to hear my opinion on, feel free to ask a question or suggest something. Believe it or not, though, there are a few things I have discovered that I simply have no opinion on. That doesn't mean it isn't important; just that it is outside my sphere of concern.
I was recently asked about "my approach" to freedom and life. It isn't that complicated. My main goal is to increase my own personal freedom. Secondary to that is to increase freedom in society, which obviously includes everyone I deal with regularly. Living by the ZAP and by not initiating deceit is how I attempt to achieve this goal. I know from experience that it works in real life, with real people. Whether they wish to cooperate or not. Whether they live by the same principles or not.
This is "my approach". It may not be the best way for everyone, but it works for me. When I have energy left over from living my own life I may decide to spend some of that spare energy on political projects; at least the ones that don't make me feel like I have abandoned my principles. Or I may choose to add value to my own life in some other way.
Is that "selfish"? I don't think so. One must remove the mote from one's own eye before he goes around blindly poking in the eyes of others. You can't toss someone a life jacket if you are deeper underwater than they are. A person must understand and even feel what it is he is working toward in order to avoid losing his way. You can't point the way to camp when you are lost.
This column helps me get my own thoughts in order. If others get some benefit, then that makes me happier. If there is something you would like to hear my opinion on, feel free to ask a question or suggest something. Believe it or not, though, there are a few things I have discovered that I simply have no opinion on. That doesn't mean it isn't important; just that it is outside my sphere of concern.
Monday, October 26, 2009
What freedom is up against
What freedom is up against
I hesitated and almost didn't post the column that I wrote yesterday. It was a little more personal than most. I finally decided the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.
The main reason is that I feel it is necessary to answer those who try to criticize the ideas I present here. If readers do not see the criticisms, they are missing half of the story. You have to see where critics get the facts wrong if you wish to defend your principles effectively.
The other reason is to show what free people are up against. We simply wish to be left alone as long as we are harming no one else. If we cause harm, we understand that there are consequences that we may not like.
That isn't good enough for those who oppose freedom. We could coexist with them in peace if they would let us. Even if they don't want to cooperate, we would leave them to their own path until they attempted to use coercion or deception. Yet this is unthinkable to them.
They will misrepresent what we believe. They will make "mistakes" in quoting us or in interpreting what we are saying. They will call us names if they think it will work. When it doesn't, they will either attack us or, much more likely, send hired thugs to do their dirty work.
The enemies of freedom want to force us to go along with them. They would kill us for simply not wanting to be a part of their "system" of coercion and deception.
In other words, any conflict would be of their choosing. This ethical failing on their part shows that they are wrong, and that they probably know it on an instinctual level. It is why they are so desperate to hide the truth any way they can.
I hesitated and almost didn't post the column that I wrote yesterday. It was a little more personal than most. I finally decided the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.
The main reason is that I feel it is necessary to answer those who try to criticize the ideas I present here. If readers do not see the criticisms, they are missing half of the story. You have to see where critics get the facts wrong if you wish to defend your principles effectively.
The other reason is to show what free people are up against. We simply wish to be left alone as long as we are harming no one else. If we cause harm, we understand that there are consequences that we may not like.
That isn't good enough for those who oppose freedom. We could coexist with them in peace if they would let us. Even if they don't want to cooperate, we would leave them to their own path until they attempted to use coercion or deception. Yet this is unthinkable to them.
They will misrepresent what we believe. They will make "mistakes" in quoting us or in interpreting what we are saying. They will call us names if they think it will work. When it doesn't, they will either attack us or, much more likely, send hired thugs to do their dirty work.
The enemies of freedom want to force us to go along with them. They would kill us for simply not wanting to be a part of their "system" of coercion and deception.
In other words, any conflict would be of their choosing. This ethical failing on their part shows that they are wrong, and that they probably know it on an instinctual level. It is why they are so desperate to hide the truth any way they can.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Who achieves what?
Who achieves what?
I got a comment on an earlier post that I thought I'd share, since it probably won't be seen otherwise. I shouldn't give the commenter the honor of calling attention to his comments, but they illustrate the poor reasoning skills of some people so clearly.
This person, calling himself "john jones", says
First of all, I didn't say it is wrong to engage in politics, just that it has a poor track record for increasing freedom in any meaningful way. Can a person be aware of history and not recognize this fact? I also said that if "political action" is your desire, go for it. My point was that it is wrong-headed to criticize people who have seen that politics isn't "the way" to get where they want to go. The reliance on politics has all the signs of being a religion to some people. Not everyone- some people.
Second, I am not "paranoid". I don't buy most conspiracy theories, including the ones that claim that there could never be a governmental conspiracy. Once again, history has exposed the lie of this delusional argument. Exposed governmental evil is never called a "conspiracy" once it is widely known. That way statists can continue to claim that there have not been any government conspiracies. Totally dishonest.
I also do not think anyone is "out to get me". I am not that important or influential. There are much bigger fish to fry. However, the distrust of those who think it is their duty to steal from you and kill you if you refuse to cooperate is not "paranoia". It is reality and common sense. The results of ignoring this fact can be seen everywhere. That also shows it is not a "fantasy". Refusal to accept the demonstrable facts, however, is a fantasy. It may make you popular with certain parasitical folk, but is it worth it?
Then he claims that my "approach" is "no solution at all". Seriously? To be "no solution" my "approach" sure has solved a lot of problems. Not just for myself, but for others who really make the commitment to live up to it. Maybe his idea of a "solution" involves a lot of repeated failure so that he can continue exercising his approach and keep failing.
People like this "john jones" who have no foundation for rational debate can always be relied upon to bring children into their attacks. They like innocent collateral damage. It is the way of manipulators to try to use your family against you. Sorry. It won't work.
I guess teaching your children self-responsibility and self-reliance is attempting to "warp their minds" to people like "him". So be it. To do less is unthinkable abuse. I know too much about the workings of government indoctrination camps known as "public schools" to trust them with my kids' education and safety. I feel sorry for the off-spring of "john jones". He must be raising compliant sheep who will be willingly led to the slaughter. Maybe they will even facilitate their own demise to impress their masters. I'm sure he will be so proud.
He then claims my approach will achieve "nothing". Been there; done that. My approach has already achieved more than I could have hoped when I began this journey. I wonder what the approach of "john jones" has achieved so far?
Finally his desperate attempts to discredit me reach the realm of absurdity. Someone can believe I am like a cartoon character if that is what they want to do. If "Dale" agrees with me anywhere, then he would be smarter than I give him credit for. Obviously "john jones" has not actually read enough to get to know my views very well. He responds with a knee-jerk attack when something threatens to make him think. And that is what is not funny, and, instead, is so very sad.
Nothing illustrates the approaching "Idiocracy" better than "john jones" and his comment. I would guess that he is a bitter person who is tired of losing from trying the same failed tactics over and over again, so he attacks others. That is purely speculation, however. I invite him to write more to confirm my suspicions. I probably won't respond again, but at least other people can learn from the example.
I got a comment on an earlier post that I thought I'd share, since it probably won't be seen otherwise. I shouldn't give the commenter the honor of calling attention to his comments, but they illustrate the poor reasoning skills of some people so clearly.
This person, calling himself "john jones", says
Your approach, to avoid politics and live in a paranoid fantasy, is no solution
at all. I'm sorry to read that you have kids, and that you are doing your best
to warp their minds. I feel sorry for them and for you. Your approach will
achieve nothing. You remind me of the character Dale from King of the Hill, but
in real life that is not funny. It is just sad. So, so sad.
First of all, I didn't say it is wrong to engage in politics, just that it has a poor track record for increasing freedom in any meaningful way. Can a person be aware of history and not recognize this fact? I also said that if "political action" is your desire, go for it. My point was that it is wrong-headed to criticize people who have seen that politics isn't "the way" to get where they want to go. The reliance on politics has all the signs of being a religion to some people. Not everyone- some people.
Second, I am not "paranoid". I don't buy most conspiracy theories, including the ones that claim that there could never be a governmental conspiracy. Once again, history has exposed the lie of this delusional argument. Exposed governmental evil is never called a "conspiracy" once it is widely known. That way statists can continue to claim that there have not been any government conspiracies. Totally dishonest.
I also do not think anyone is "out to get me". I am not that important or influential. There are much bigger fish to fry. However, the distrust of those who think it is their duty to steal from you and kill you if you refuse to cooperate is not "paranoia". It is reality and common sense. The results of ignoring this fact can be seen everywhere. That also shows it is not a "fantasy". Refusal to accept the demonstrable facts, however, is a fantasy. It may make you popular with certain parasitical folk, but is it worth it?
Then he claims that my "approach" is "no solution at all". Seriously? To be "no solution" my "approach" sure has solved a lot of problems. Not just for myself, but for others who really make the commitment to live up to it. Maybe his idea of a "solution" involves a lot of repeated failure so that he can continue exercising his approach and keep failing.
People like this "john jones" who have no foundation for rational debate can always be relied upon to bring children into their attacks. They like innocent collateral damage. It is the way of manipulators to try to use your family against you. Sorry. It won't work.
I guess teaching your children self-responsibility and self-reliance is attempting to "warp their minds" to people like "him". So be it. To do less is unthinkable abuse. I know too much about the workings of government indoctrination camps known as "public schools" to trust them with my kids' education and safety. I feel sorry for the off-spring of "john jones". He must be raising compliant sheep who will be willingly led to the slaughter. Maybe they will even facilitate their own demise to impress their masters. I'm sure he will be so proud.
He then claims my approach will achieve "nothing". Been there; done that. My approach has already achieved more than I could have hoped when I began this journey. I wonder what the approach of "john jones" has achieved so far?
Finally his desperate attempts to discredit me reach the realm of absurdity. Someone can believe I am like a cartoon character if that is what they want to do. If "Dale" agrees with me anywhere, then he would be smarter than I give him credit for. Obviously "john jones" has not actually read enough to get to know my views very well. He responds with a knee-jerk attack when something threatens to make him think. And that is what is not funny, and, instead, is so very sad.
Nothing illustrates the approaching "Idiocracy" better than "john jones" and his comment. I would guess that he is a bitter person who is tired of losing from trying the same failed tactics over and over again, so he attacks others. That is purely speculation, however. I invite him to write more to confirm my suspicions. I probably won't respond again, but at least other people can learn from the example.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Freedom odds and ends
Freedom odds and ends
Here is a collection of random bits and pieces I have written or collected that don't fit anywhere else:
"Overpopulation": The problem isn't that there are too many humans on earth, the problem is that we are still in our cradle. That is crazy. It is time to force NASA and the governments of the world to step aside so that we can start crawling out of the nursery of Earth and out into our real long-term home. It is inevitable and it is essential that we do so. Soon.
Fear of anarchy in a post-governmental world: Anarchy will reign supreme (as it does in almost every area of our personal lives), and it will crowd out "chaos", since they are mutually exclusive conditions (regardless of common misconceptions). Governments are "slow chaos" that people don't seem to recognize as chaos. Anarchy is order, and can be bewilderingly fast and scary to those conditioned to accept the slow chaos of government.
Black Flag on property rights:
Black markets: You don't FIND the black market; you MAKE the black market.
Some "pro-gun" politicians: If they are too stupid or evil to understand that there exists a basic human right to own and to carry whatever type of weapon we see fit, wherever we go, in any way we wish, without asking permission of anyone, ever, then they are not "pro-gun" at all, but are just debating how severely to violate your rights.
Freedom: Freedom isn't free, nor can it be purchased from or by government.
************************
Here is a collection of random bits and pieces I have written or collected that don't fit anywhere else:
"Overpopulation": The problem isn't that there are too many humans on earth, the problem is that we are still in our cradle. That is crazy. It is time to force NASA and the governments of the world to step aside so that we can start crawling out of the nursery of Earth and out into our real long-term home. It is inevitable and it is essential that we do so. Soon.
Fear of anarchy in a post-governmental world: Anarchy will reign supreme (as it does in almost every area of our personal lives), and it will crowd out "chaos", since they are mutually exclusive conditions (regardless of common misconceptions). Governments are "slow chaos" that people don't seem to recognize as chaos. Anarchy is order, and can be bewilderingly fast and scary to those conditioned to accept the slow chaos of government.
Black Flag on property rights:
Property rights derive from Scarcity. If I stand "here", no one else can, since
only one 'thing' can occupy 'this' space at any one point in time. Property
rights exist to establish who has 'the exclusive use' of that space. It is a way
civilized society can organize and sustain itself. The only other way to obtain
exclusive use is to fight for it - and initiation of violence is an incredibly
de-stabilizing force on civilized society to to the point of collapse. Where
ever exclusivity is required to use a 'thing', Property rights must be invoked.
From that light, one can see where property rights are properly exercised and
where they are not.
Black markets: You don't FIND the black market; you MAKE the black market.
Some "pro-gun" politicians: If they are too stupid or evil to understand that there exists a basic human right to own and to carry whatever type of weapon we see fit, wherever we go, in any way we wish, without asking permission of anyone, ever, then they are not "pro-gun" at all, but are just debating how severely to violate your rights.
Freedom: Freedom isn't free, nor can it be purchased from or by government.
************************
Chaos- the definition
The societal/"legal" condition where actions cease to have predictable consequences. Evil is rewarded, and honor is punished. Nothing makes sense. This is the chaos that results when "laws" make a thing both mandatory and prohibited at the same time. Rather than being due to physical laws, it is dependent upon people committing evil acts. In other words it is the result of government.
(This is separate from the mostly benign but sometimes annoying scientific "chaos" where Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle combines with a lack of "all the facts" and "unseen initial conditions" leading to unpredictable outcomes.)
.
(This is separate from the mostly benign but sometimes annoying scientific "chaos" where Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle combines with a lack of "all the facts" and "unseen initial conditions" leading to unpredictable outcomes.)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)