Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?
Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.
Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?
Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.
This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".
Thursday, January 21, 2010
"Arrest"- the definition
"Arrest" is the euphemism for a kidnapping committed by government employees while they are "on the clock".
Too many cats? Says who?
Too many cats? Says who?
Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.
Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.
Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.
The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.
Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.
In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.
Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.
Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.
Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.
The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.
Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.
In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Death gives birth to life, but massacres are not baby showers
Death gives birth to life, but massacres are not baby showers
From death comes life. And perhaps, sometimes, by accident, from government actions could come good things. That isn't an endorsement of government any more than love of life is a good justification to go around killing indiscriminately. None of us, individually or collectively, is wise enough to exercise that power and claim we are doing it for the good of life.
Someone posted, on one of my rather old columns, the same old tired (and incorrect) just-so tale about how the government invented the internet that we liberty-lovers now so mean-spiritedly use to speak out against the government.
Even if this were correct, so what? Guns that were invented by Hitler's military contractors can now be used for fun and for self-defense. This doesn't mean we are "lucky" that Hitler came to power, or that we owe him anything for "giving us" these guns.
Many types of powerful poison have medicinal uses. Should you run right out and drink or inject yourself with poison as soon as you discover that fact? Not unless you are an authoritarian.
The commenter then compounds his error by claiming that the same government that blessed us with the invention of the internet guarantees our freedom of speech. Seriously? Who else besides government has been a credible threat to freedom of speech- or any other rights for that matter- in recent history?
I have never had any neighbor try to kidnap, kill, or "fine" me for exercising any of my rights. Never has an independent migrant- excuse me- an "illegal immigrant" tried to infringe on any of my rights. I have never had any person from any of the countries the US government is so busy attacking, invading, and occupying try to stop me from exercising even one of my rights. On the other hand I have never had even one agent of the government take any action other than try to prevent me from experiencing liberty in some meaningful way.
The only threat to my individual liberty, besides perhaps myself, is, and always has been, the government that the commenter claims is "guaranteeing" my freedoms. And he calls libertarians the "dumb bells"!
From death comes life. And perhaps, sometimes, by accident, from government actions could come good things. That isn't an endorsement of government any more than love of life is a good justification to go around killing indiscriminately. None of us, individually or collectively, is wise enough to exercise that power and claim we are doing it for the good of life.
Someone posted, on one of my rather old columns, the same old tired (and incorrect) just-so tale about how the government invented the internet that we liberty-lovers now so mean-spiritedly use to speak out against the government.
Even if this were correct, so what? Guns that were invented by Hitler's military contractors can now be used for fun and for self-defense. This doesn't mean we are "lucky" that Hitler came to power, or that we owe him anything for "giving us" these guns.
Many types of powerful poison have medicinal uses. Should you run right out and drink or inject yourself with poison as soon as you discover that fact? Not unless you are an authoritarian.
The commenter then compounds his error by claiming that the same government that blessed us with the invention of the internet guarantees our freedom of speech. Seriously? Who else besides government has been a credible threat to freedom of speech- or any other rights for that matter- in recent history?
I have never had any neighbor try to kidnap, kill, or "fine" me for exercising any of my rights. Never has an independent migrant- excuse me- an "illegal immigrant" tried to infringe on any of my rights. I have never had any person from any of the countries the US government is so busy attacking, invading, and occupying try to stop me from exercising even one of my rights. On the other hand I have never had even one agent of the government take any action other than try to prevent me from experiencing liberty in some meaningful way.
The only threat to my individual liberty, besides perhaps myself, is, and always has been, the government that the commenter claims is "guaranteeing" my freedoms. And he calls libertarians the "dumb bells"!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Computers die too
I had a computer scare tonight. My computer started making awful sounds and kept re-starting, but never going to my sign-in screen. Just as suddenly as it started doing that, it repaired itself and is seeming to work fine right now. Will it last?
Chances are I will not be able to afford another computer anytime soon if this one dies. Maybe if that happens I will take it as a sign that my years of embracing technology and writing about liberty have come to an abrupt end and it is time to go back to my stone tools and leather full time. There are worse things.
So, if I suddenly disappear from the online world, you will know what probably happened.
Chances are I will not be able to afford another computer anytime soon if this one dies. Maybe if that happens I will take it as a sign that my years of embracing technology and writing about liberty have come to an abrupt end and it is time to go back to my stone tools and leather full time. There are worse things.
So, if I suddenly disappear from the online world, you will know what probably happened.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware.
The latest JPFO alert reminded me of something I have thought many times, but have failed to properly express before it was too late in the past. This time I'm saying it now, hoping that you will take it to heart and not forget.
The upcoming Supreme Court case on the incorporation of the Second Amendment, McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, means that gun owners need to be especially vigilant for the next several months. Why? Because you can almost bet that the anti-gun forces are planning to stage another massacre with one of their pre-programmed "manchurian shooter" "sleepers" before the ruling.
Gun owners need to be ready, and able, to either prevent this entirely or stop it in its tracks if it does begin. The massacre will almost assuredly occur in a "gun free zone" and that means if it is to be stopped it will have to be stopped by a good person who violates that counterfeit "law". In the meantime you can not afford to go anywhere unarmed.
No matter the ruling, your rights will remain the same, since the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a government employee, and then it only forbids them to enact or enforce gun "laws" of any sort. However, your liberty will be damaged by any ruling other than full incorporation. I realize that an anti-incorporation ruling might be the trigger, pun intended, to set off the firestorm that finally brings down Leviathan, but I am in favor of peaceful solutions if at all possible. Let the state wither and die rather than commit a massive murder/suicide. And this is possibly the last opportunity for that peaceful solution.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware. Give the Supreme Court no excuses and no wiggle-room. Then, whatever happens, you can know you did your part and the blood is not on your hands.
The latest JPFO alert reminded me of something I have thought many times, but have failed to properly express before it was too late in the past. This time I'm saying it now, hoping that you will take it to heart and not forget.
The upcoming Supreme Court case on the incorporation of the Second Amendment, McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, means that gun owners need to be especially vigilant for the next several months. Why? Because you can almost bet that the anti-gun forces are planning to stage another massacre with one of their pre-programmed "manchurian shooter" "sleepers" before the ruling.
Gun owners need to be ready, and able, to either prevent this entirely or stop it in its tracks if it does begin. The massacre will almost assuredly occur in a "gun free zone" and that means if it is to be stopped it will have to be stopped by a good person who violates that counterfeit "law". In the meantime you can not afford to go anywhere unarmed.
No matter the ruling, your rights will remain the same, since the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a government employee, and then it only forbids them to enact or enforce gun "laws" of any sort. However, your liberty will be damaged by any ruling other than full incorporation. I realize that an anti-incorporation ruling might be the trigger, pun intended, to set off the firestorm that finally brings down Leviathan, but I am in favor of peaceful solutions if at all possible. Let the state wither and die rather than commit a massive murder/suicide. And this is possibly the last opportunity for that peaceful solution.
Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware. Give the Supreme Court no excuses and no wiggle-room. Then, whatever happens, you can know you did your part and the blood is not on your hands.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Theater shooting teaches lessons
Theater shooting teaches lessons
The Albuquerque theater negligent discharge incident has some very instructive lessons for those of us rational enough to pick them out.
This case, making the unfounded assumption that the media reports are correct, concerns a man who had his revolver slip out of his pocket during a movie, hit the floor and discharge, striking a woman in the foot. Of course, this has the hoplophobes wriggling with scarcely-concealed glee. They see it as an opportunity to further criminalize guns and gun owners. Even the police are calling the shooting "accidental" yet are charging the man in connection with the shooting. "Accidents" happen and should never be the basis for criminal charges. Bad government. No biscuit!
No "laws", new or otherwise, are necessary for dealing with events such as this.
The theater had no policy prohibiting the carrying of weapons as far as I can tell, nor should they- unless they don't care about the true safety of their customers. So, he was not "trespassing" or violating the stated wishes of the property owner as long as he paid for his ticket. No wrong was done there.
"Laws" prohibiting or regulating the carrying of weaponry, concealed or openly, are evil. They are also completely and utterly unconstitutional, if that concerns you. It is not the "possession" of anything, ever, that is wrong, but only your actions with that object. Once again, no wrong on the man's part.
You have a responsibility to carry your weapons in a secure manner. Obviously, he was not doing so. I have been guilty of this a time or two myself. This is irresponsible and has consequences. "Strike one" against him.
So, let's look at the harm he caused. If you cause harm you are responsible. Restitution is the proper remedy, not "criminal charges" like those the authoritards are filing. (Because they smell blood, the district attorney's office decided, against it's own normal policy, to get involved. This is politically motivated hogwash driven by emotionalism rather than reason. Why does that not surprise me?) The gun owner is responsible for the injured person's medical bills which result from her injury, whether he likes that fact or not. So, when he realized he had harmed someone, he lied. This is understandable in light of the authoritarian police-state in which we find ourselves, where anytime there is an accident, someone must be punished to satisfy Master, but it is still wrong. Strike two.
If this were a free society, and the same event had happened, the man would probably have not been afraid to own up to his grave mistake. He would have had no overwhelming reason to lie or try to run from his responsibility. And there would have been no "official" involvement; only arbitration if needed.
Also note- The first review of my book Indy-Pindy has been published.
The Albuquerque theater negligent discharge incident has some very instructive lessons for those of us rational enough to pick them out.
This case, making the unfounded assumption that the media reports are correct, concerns a man who had his revolver slip out of his pocket during a movie, hit the floor and discharge, striking a woman in the foot. Of course, this has the hoplophobes wriggling with scarcely-concealed glee. They see it as an opportunity to further criminalize guns and gun owners. Even the police are calling the shooting "accidental" yet are charging the man in connection with the shooting. "Accidents" happen and should never be the basis for criminal charges. Bad government. No biscuit!
No "laws", new or otherwise, are necessary for dealing with events such as this.
The theater had no policy prohibiting the carrying of weapons as far as I can tell, nor should they- unless they don't care about the true safety of their customers. So, he was not "trespassing" or violating the stated wishes of the property owner as long as he paid for his ticket. No wrong was done there.
"Laws" prohibiting or regulating the carrying of weaponry, concealed or openly, are evil. They are also completely and utterly unconstitutional, if that concerns you. It is not the "possession" of anything, ever, that is wrong, but only your actions with that object. Once again, no wrong on the man's part.
You have a responsibility to carry your weapons in a secure manner. Obviously, he was not doing so. I have been guilty of this a time or two myself. This is irresponsible and has consequences. "Strike one" against him.
So, let's look at the harm he caused. If you cause harm you are responsible. Restitution is the proper remedy, not "criminal charges" like those the authoritards are filing. (Because they smell blood, the district attorney's office decided, against it's own normal policy, to get involved. This is politically motivated hogwash driven by emotionalism rather than reason. Why does that not surprise me?) The gun owner is responsible for the injured person's medical bills which result from her injury, whether he likes that fact or not. So, when he realized he had harmed someone, he lied. This is understandable in light of the authoritarian police-state in which we find ourselves, where anytime there is an accident, someone must be punished to satisfy Master, but it is still wrong. Strike two.
If this were a free society, and the same event had happened, the man would probably have not been afraid to own up to his grave mistake. He would have had no overwhelming reason to lie or try to run from his responsibility. And there would have been no "official" involvement; only arbitration if needed.
Also note- The first review of my book Indy-Pindy has been published.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Dealing with aggressors
Dealing with aggressors
Aggressors can be found anywhere and everywhere. There are not very many of them compared to the rest of us, especially if you only count the aggressors who get their own hands dirty rather than the average, cowardly, ones who send the hired goons of government to commit their aggression for them. Most of those "send government" aggressors will hide in terror when they can't send hired thugs in their place. However, the small percentage of aggressors among us wreak a lot of havoc when we believe we are powerless to actually do something to stop them. We should get over that delusion.
Most freelance aggressors only seem dangerous when protected by "laws" that penalize self-defense (such as those thugs operating on the ruined streets of Haiti now). Only government- through its twisted legacy of "law and order" and disarmament- gives those thugs a safe environment in which to work. Hypothetically, if a thief is caught in your home and you kill him in the act, who would ever come knocking on your door to ask you if you had seen him? Does he have any connection to you in any way? Did he leave a sticky-note telling his family he would be at your address, just in case he went missing? It's doubtful. Don't fear or hesitate to deal with this type.
The rest of the aggressors are a more difficult case. Only when gathered into a gigantic organization do aggressors pose any (possibly) insurmountable threat. The government is bigger, more aggressive, and vastly more dangerous than any "street gang" of freelance thugs who victimize the denizens. Plus, a large percentage of the population is brainwashed into not seeing them as aggressors at all.
When an aggressor who works for the government is justifiably struck down by his intended victim, the rest of his organization, his gang of government, makes certain to severely punish the individual who was only defending himself from that aggression as an example to the rest of us. And the gang works tirelessly with lies and half truths to manipulate public opinion to take sides with them. Cory Maye is a prime, ongoing, example of this injustice.
At this time in history, the number of aggressors in the gang of the state seems endless when you are on the receiving end of their attention. They depend on this "strength in numbers" illusion to keep people intimidated enough that few openly resist, and even fewer fight back, and those who do are usually either caged or murdered. Only the resultant fear keeps people submitting to the "legalized" theft and coercion that is the founding principle of every government that has ever existed. That may not always be the case. In fact, by reading between the lines of the narrative, I'm sure that dog-eared chapter of The Story of Civilization is wrapping up. Remember, we outnumber them.
Aggressors can be found anywhere and everywhere. There are not very many of them compared to the rest of us, especially if you only count the aggressors who get their own hands dirty rather than the average, cowardly, ones who send the hired goons of government to commit their aggression for them. Most of those "send government" aggressors will hide in terror when they can't send hired thugs in their place. However, the small percentage of aggressors among us wreak a lot of havoc when we believe we are powerless to actually do something to stop them. We should get over that delusion.
Most freelance aggressors only seem dangerous when protected by "laws" that penalize self-defense (such as those thugs operating on the ruined streets of Haiti now). Only government- through its twisted legacy of "law and order" and disarmament- gives those thugs a safe environment in which to work. Hypothetically, if a thief is caught in your home and you kill him in the act, who would ever come knocking on your door to ask you if you had seen him? Does he have any connection to you in any way? Did he leave a sticky-note telling his family he would be at your address, just in case he went missing? It's doubtful. Don't fear or hesitate to deal with this type.
The rest of the aggressors are a more difficult case. Only when gathered into a gigantic organization do aggressors pose any (possibly) insurmountable threat. The government is bigger, more aggressive, and vastly more dangerous than any "street gang" of freelance thugs who victimize the denizens. Plus, a large percentage of the population is brainwashed into not seeing them as aggressors at all.
When an aggressor who works for the government is justifiably struck down by his intended victim, the rest of his organization, his gang of government, makes certain to severely punish the individual who was only defending himself from that aggression as an example to the rest of us. And the gang works tirelessly with lies and half truths to manipulate public opinion to take sides with them. Cory Maye is a prime, ongoing, example of this injustice.
At this time in history, the number of aggressors in the gang of the state seems endless when you are on the receiving end of their attention. They depend on this "strength in numbers" illusion to keep people intimidated enough that few openly resist, and even fewer fight back, and those who do are usually either caged or murdered. Only the resultant fear keeps people submitting to the "legalized" theft and coercion that is the founding principle of every government that has ever existed. That may not always be the case. In fact, by reading between the lines of the narrative, I'm sure that dog-eared chapter of The Story of Civilization is wrapping up. Remember, we outnumber them.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Oath Keepers? I'm still waiting
Oath Keepers? I'm still waiting
I have been critical of Oath Keepers in the past, and my concerns have not changed. However, judging by some comments on The War on Guns, I think some people are focused on the wrong things.
If the Oath Keepers actually do what they are swearing an oath to do- obey the Constitution by refusing to obey unconstitutional orders- then I will applaud them. I am simply encouraging them to actually keep the oath they have sworn and reaffirmed as part of Oath Keepers. I am also convinced that Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, is an honorable man without a secret agenda and with no desire to force anyone to do anything. This movement is all about refusing to force compliance with unconstitutional "laws". That's all.
No, I am not a fan of the Constitution, although I do believe a Constitutional government would be better than the travesty that attempts to rule us now. I have to wonder, though, if the individual Oath Keepers really understand what "unconstitutional" means. Don't rely on the black-robed furniture abusers of the Supreme Court to tell you what the Constitution means. They are wrong more often than they are right, and it was never their job to tell you and me what the Constitution means. That authority rests in you and me alone. They stole that "authority" for themselves and have gotten away with it so far.
"Unconstitutional" does not mean the Constitution clearly says that the action in question is forbidden, but that the Constitution does NOT say, explicitly, that the action in question is an authorized power of the government. Of course, where the Constitution and coercion, theft, and fraud join purposes (which they often do), the Constitution is in the wrong.
My concern remains: how many Oath Keepers are still doing unconstitutional things as a part of their "job"? How many LEOs who have taken the oath are still enforcing traffic "laws", drug "laws", or gun "laws"? Where are those "laws" explicitly authorized in the Constitution? How many are helping "arrest" (kidnap) people for violating tax "laws" or are helping other agents of the state steal the houses and other property of these people? Doesn't "right and wrong" mean more than "Constitutional"? How many military Oath Keepers are still allowing the government to send them around the globe to occupy other people's territory, and then killing those who fight back?
I don't believe an honest Oath Keeper could remain employed if they actually honored the oath. In fact, I doubt an honest Oath Keeper would stay out of prison for long.
I want to see Oath Keepers make a difference. I will not be shocked if they don't. It is amazing what a person can justify to themselves when a paycheck is on the line, or when nationalistic brainwashing has worked its magic.
I have been critical of Oath Keepers in the past, and my concerns have not changed. However, judging by some comments on The War on Guns, I think some people are focused on the wrong things.
If the Oath Keepers actually do what they are swearing an oath to do- obey the Constitution by refusing to obey unconstitutional orders- then I will applaud them. I am simply encouraging them to actually keep the oath they have sworn and reaffirmed as part of Oath Keepers. I am also convinced that Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, is an honorable man without a secret agenda and with no desire to force anyone to do anything. This movement is all about refusing to force compliance with unconstitutional "laws". That's all.
No, I am not a fan of the Constitution, although I do believe a Constitutional government would be better than the travesty that attempts to rule us now. I have to wonder, though, if the individual Oath Keepers really understand what "unconstitutional" means. Don't rely on the black-robed furniture abusers of the Supreme Court to tell you what the Constitution means. They are wrong more often than they are right, and it was never their job to tell you and me what the Constitution means. That authority rests in you and me alone. They stole that "authority" for themselves and have gotten away with it so far.
"Unconstitutional" does not mean the Constitution clearly says that the action in question is forbidden, but that the Constitution does NOT say, explicitly, that the action in question is an authorized power of the government. Of course, where the Constitution and coercion, theft, and fraud join purposes (which they often do), the Constitution is in the wrong.
My concern remains: how many Oath Keepers are still doing unconstitutional things as a part of their "job"? How many LEOs who have taken the oath are still enforcing traffic "laws", drug "laws", or gun "laws"? Where are those "laws" explicitly authorized in the Constitution? How many are helping "arrest" (kidnap) people for violating tax "laws" or are helping other agents of the state steal the houses and other property of these people? Doesn't "right and wrong" mean more than "Constitutional"? How many military Oath Keepers are still allowing the government to send them around the globe to occupy other people's territory, and then killing those who fight back?
I don't believe an honest Oath Keeper could remain employed if they actually honored the oath. In fact, I doubt an honest Oath Keeper would stay out of prison for long.
I want to see Oath Keepers make a difference. I will not be shocked if they don't. It is amazing what a person can justify to themselves when a paycheck is on the line, or when nationalistic brainwashing has worked its magic.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Political 'news': repetitious and unnecessary
Political 'news': repetitious and unnecessary
"The news" is not normally very interesting to me, except in the event of a big disaster. "Political news" is what I'm specifically talking about. I don't really care much about what such-and-such a politician is doing. It is safe to assume he is committing (or plotting and conspiring to commit) an act of incredible evil. Why worry yourself about the exact details? Especially when I refuse to take another single step back anyway.
You may claim that you need to know precisely what the vermin in "public office" are doing to us, but I have noticed that it is the same old story over and over. The thugs rotate, and the newest assaults on liberty get a new euphemistic name, but the political "news" remains virtually unchanged from year to year and decade to decade.
If you enjoy following the news, I encourage you to have fun with your hobby. I only think some people don't understand the reasons why others don't share their passion.
Assume the worst of politicians and their weapon of choice, "laws"- enforced by thugs with guns paid for by the very people they are assaulting and threatening, and you will rarely be wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention at all, I'm just thinking it is not healthy to obsess too much. You have enough to think about in living your own life and taking care of your own business. You do that and the rest will take care of itself.
***********************************************
Tangentially- I made the mistake yesterday of watching a few minutes of cable news coverage of the Haiti earthquake, only to be disgusted when the statist drones on screen became concerned over how the Haitian government would fare after this disaster. Among all the concerns that are real- all the death, injury, pain, loss of loved ones and homes and businesses- these "empathetic" reporters were concerned that the government might be hurt by this.
"The news" is not normally very interesting to me, except in the event of a big disaster. "Political news" is what I'm specifically talking about. I don't really care much about what such-and-such a politician is doing. It is safe to assume he is committing (or plotting and conspiring to commit) an act of incredible evil. Why worry yourself about the exact details? Especially when I refuse to take another single step back anyway.
You may claim that you need to know precisely what the vermin in "public office" are doing to us, but I have noticed that it is the same old story over and over. The thugs rotate, and the newest assaults on liberty get a new euphemistic name, but the political "news" remains virtually unchanged from year to year and decade to decade.
If you enjoy following the news, I encourage you to have fun with your hobby. I only think some people don't understand the reasons why others don't share their passion.
Assume the worst of politicians and their weapon of choice, "laws"- enforced by thugs with guns paid for by the very people they are assaulting and threatening, and you will rarely be wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention at all, I'm just thinking it is not healthy to obsess too much. You have enough to think about in living your own life and taking care of your own business. You do that and the rest will take care of itself.
***********************************************
Tangentially- I made the mistake yesterday of watching a few minutes of cable news coverage of the Haiti earthquake, only to be disgusted when the statist drones on screen became concerned over how the Haitian government would fare after this disaster. Among all the concerns that are real- all the death, injury, pain, loss of loved ones and homes and businesses- these "empathetic" reporters were concerned that the government might be hurt by this.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
'Losing your rights' part 2
The debate in the comments of a previous column, over whether rights can be lost or not, made me realize something which I think is vital. Whichever side if the debate you find yourself on I ask you: which premise would make for a more ethical, livable, society of maximum liberty?
I firmly believe that, whether you truly think rights are inherent in being a living human being or whether you think they can be forfeited by engaging in aggression, if you act as though rights can never be lost your society will be better for it.
One example that comes to mind will be a real issue after the fall of government. There may be a strong temptation to zealously pursue and punish, or even execute, everyone who has added to the death and destruction of the previous society by working with, or for, government. After all, "government" can do nothing without individual human beings initiating force and committing theft and fraud. Do these individual aggressors deserve death? In a great majority of cases, yes. You could say that by their acts of aggression they have given up their right to liberty or life. And, if rights can be lost, you would be right.
However I think it would be better to wipe the slate clean and only kill them in self-defense if they return to their old government-like ways in the new, free, society. What kind of society would we have after the fall of the state if we spent the next several decades trying to ferret out everyone who had been a part of government and give them what they deserve? I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.
I firmly believe that, whether you truly think rights are inherent in being a living human being or whether you think they can be forfeited by engaging in aggression, if you act as though rights can never be lost your society will be better for it.
One example that comes to mind will be a real issue after the fall of government. There may be a strong temptation to zealously pursue and punish, or even execute, everyone who has added to the death and destruction of the previous society by working with, or for, government. After all, "government" can do nothing without individual human beings initiating force and committing theft and fraud. Do these individual aggressors deserve death? In a great majority of cases, yes. You could say that by their acts of aggression they have given up their right to liberty or life. And, if rights can be lost, you would be right.
However I think it would be better to wipe the slate clean and only kill them in self-defense if they return to their old government-like ways in the new, free, society. What kind of society would we have after the fall of the state if we spent the next several decades trying to ferret out everyone who had been a part of government and give them what they deserve? I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The problem is aggression, not government
The problem is aggression, not government
A recent comment on this column, a column that had nothing to do with government, makes me think that some people don't see that evil is evil, whether it is committed by government or by freelance thugs.
A commenter using the name "oddtime" said
To which I replied
I'm not sure about the local "laws" concerning restraining orders, nor do I care, but I do know that in some other places you must have some intimate connection to a person to get "protected" by those flimsy pieces of paper, and that is, thankfully, not the case in this instance. The "advice" from "oddtime" also ignores the fact that a restraining order does nothing to protect anyone. I had a very dear friend who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend while she had a restraining order against him. It was apparently the "last straw" that made him snap. Yes, "oddtime", she was "Done!" alright. I am better off taking care of the problem myself, as would anyone else be. I am not a victim, nor will I beg anyone to turn me into one.
Coercion, aggression, and theft are the issues. The only reason government actions are targeted as much as they are by those who love and understand liberty is that the state is the focus of these evil forces. Using coercion, aggression, and theft wielded on your behalf by the biggest gang of thugs to deal with a threatening individual is simply wrong and pathetic.
You and I can deal with individual aggressors (like the one mentioned in the previous column) by ourselves, unless we refuse to act as self-responsible humans. Evil acts are evil due to their nature, not because of who is doing them. Don't fall in to the trap of thinking that only government does bad things. Government is bad because of the things it does, not because it is "government".
A new blog: Our friend "Black Flag" has a new blog out there that I just became aware of. Visit Freedom Flies a Black Flag soon, and often, for some great wisdom!
And don't forget to check out my books Indy-Pindy and Kent's Liberty Primer
A recent comment on this column, a column that had nothing to do with government, makes me think that some people don't see that evil is evil, whether it is committed by government or by freelance thugs.
A commenter using the name "oddtime" said
I'm failing to follow you in this. Are you implying the government made this
person follow you? The person was breaking laws, trespassing, and assault. These
laws are enforces (sic) by the government. Go to the government you dislike and
get a restraining order. Done!
To which I replied
Who said anything about government? Government is not the only force for evil
out there. There are freelance ones, too. Like psycho, aggressive individuals. I
solved the problem without depending on another evil: government. There is no
situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding government to the mix. Why
would any "adult" have someone else do their job for them, especially someone
else financed by theft? I don't need government and neither do you.
I'm not sure about the local "laws" concerning restraining orders, nor do I care, but I do know that in some other places you must have some intimate connection to a person to get "protected" by those flimsy pieces of paper, and that is, thankfully, not the case in this instance. The "advice" from "oddtime" also ignores the fact that a restraining order does nothing to protect anyone. I had a very dear friend who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend while she had a restraining order against him. It was apparently the "last straw" that made him snap. Yes, "oddtime", she was "Done!" alright. I am better off taking care of the problem myself, as would anyone else be. I am not a victim, nor will I beg anyone to turn me into one.
Coercion, aggression, and theft are the issues. The only reason government actions are targeted as much as they are by those who love and understand liberty is that the state is the focus of these evil forces. Using coercion, aggression, and theft wielded on your behalf by the biggest gang of thugs to deal with a threatening individual is simply wrong and pathetic.
You and I can deal with individual aggressors (like the one mentioned in the previous column) by ourselves, unless we refuse to act as self-responsible humans. Evil acts are evil due to their nature, not because of who is doing them. Don't fall in to the trap of thinking that only government does bad things. Government is bad because of the things it does, not because it is "government".
A new blog: Our friend "Black Flag" has a new blog out there that I just became aware of. Visit Freedom Flies a Black Flag soon, and often, for some great wisdom!
And don't forget to check out my books Indy-Pindy and Kent's Liberty Primer
Monday, January 11, 2010
'Losing your rights'
Frequently, when discussing "crime", we hear it stated that once a person has committed certain acts, he has "lost his rights" for a certain amount of time. This inconsistency has always bothered me, even when I have used the same phrase.
The truth is that due to the nature of rights, rights can not ever be "lost"; not under any circumstances.
They can, however, be violated in certain circumstances without the violator necessarily becoming a bad guy. An example would be when you shoot a person who is attacking or robbing you and therefore violate his "right to life". In the case of a person initiating force, you have the right to defend yourself. His poor choice set events in motion and he may not like the outcome. He did not lose his rights, but in defending your own rights you justifiably violated his rights and no one in an ethical society would ever punish you for your act.
But rights can never be legitimately violated after the fact by government (or anyone else) under any pretext. This is the foundation of "punishment"- violating a person's rights based upon (often highly disputable) past events rather than the events of the current moment.
Putting the aggressor/thief in prison or taking away his means of self-defense does not restore his victim to their former condition; it only satisfies a lust for retribution and for causing pain. If a person is dangerous enough that he needs to be caged, then he is dangerous enough that he should be killed by his next intended victim or a rescuer. Don't protect him from the consequences of his actions.
Restitution should be the goal for those acts that self-defense failed to stop. Restitution is the paying off of a debt that was incurred by some act of coercion or theft. This does not violate the rights of the debtor since he voluntarily took on this debt by his actions. He may have thought he would never have to pay the debt, but it was still his choice to take it on.
The individual rights of the lowest, most dastardly member of society always trump the authority of any agent of government. Once people begin to truly understand this, civilization can once again begin to advance. Until then, we must find ways to deal with the stagnation that statism and other forms of authoritarianism cause. The authoritarians will not like our ways of dealing with (and working around) them.
Update: Please read 'Losing your rights' part 2
.
The truth is that due to the nature of rights, rights can not ever be "lost"; not under any circumstances.
They can, however, be violated in certain circumstances without the violator necessarily becoming a bad guy. An example would be when you shoot a person who is attacking or robbing you and therefore violate his "right to life". In the case of a person initiating force, you have the right to defend yourself. His poor choice set events in motion and he may not like the outcome. He did not lose his rights, but in defending your own rights you justifiably violated his rights and no one in an ethical society would ever punish you for your act.
But rights can never be legitimately violated after the fact by government (or anyone else) under any pretext. This is the foundation of "punishment"- violating a person's rights based upon (often highly disputable) past events rather than the events of the current moment.
Putting the aggressor/thief in prison or taking away his means of self-defense does not restore his victim to their former condition; it only satisfies a lust for retribution and for causing pain. If a person is dangerous enough that he needs to be caged, then he is dangerous enough that he should be killed by his next intended victim or a rescuer. Don't protect him from the consequences of his actions.
Restitution should be the goal for those acts that self-defense failed to stop. Restitution is the paying off of a debt that was incurred by some act of coercion or theft. This does not violate the rights of the debtor since he voluntarily took on this debt by his actions. He may have thought he would never have to pay the debt, but it was still his choice to take it on.
The individual rights of the lowest, most dastardly member of society always trump the authority of any agent of government. Once people begin to truly understand this, civilization can once again begin to advance. Until then, we must find ways to deal with the stagnation that statism and other forms of authoritarianism cause. The authoritarians will not like our ways of dealing with (and working around) them.
Update: Please read 'Losing your rights' part 2
.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Shun the scanner cult
Shun the scanner cult
Guess what. If I would be forced to pass through any sort of "security" scanner, from a simple metal detector to a full-blown Pedophile-O-Vision, I will not do business with you. I do not believe in your "security" cult, and I don't trust those who do not trust their customers. I certainly don't have enough self-loathing to do business with those who have open contempt for their customers, or in the case of government, fear and contempt for those they are coercing to associate with them.
I know that the only path to real security is a universally-armed populace, and that anything less only helps those who wish to harm the innocent: in other words these "security" scanners enable government and terrorists and all other murderous rapists (sorry for the redundancy). The bad guys will always find a way around such measures, through official "only one" status, bribes, or just innovative thinking and new weaponry. Always.
If you operate one of those machines for your employer you are working to ensure success for the bad guys and you should stop now if you have any principles that are worth living up to. Yes, it means you will need to find an ethical way to earn money in a governmentally-damaged economy, but sometimes to do the right thing is hard and a little painful. It is still the right thing to do.
Any sort of "security" scanner should be seen as a gigantic warning sign saying "Keep Out!" and you should heed it for your own good. After all, those who own the scanners will not rush to save you when "the system" inevitably fails. Have respect for yourself and walk away from the scanners. Starve those who use them.
Guess what. If I would be forced to pass through any sort of "security" scanner, from a simple metal detector to a full-blown Pedophile-O-Vision, I will not do business with you. I do not believe in your "security" cult, and I don't trust those who do not trust their customers. I certainly don't have enough self-loathing to do business with those who have open contempt for their customers, or in the case of government, fear and contempt for those they are coercing to associate with them.
I know that the only path to real security is a universally-armed populace, and that anything less only helps those who wish to harm the innocent: in other words these "security" scanners enable government and terrorists and all other murderous rapists (sorry for the redundancy). The bad guys will always find a way around such measures, through official "only one" status, bribes, or just innovative thinking and new weaponry. Always.
If you operate one of those machines for your employer you are working to ensure success for the bad guys and you should stop now if you have any principles that are worth living up to. Yes, it means you will need to find an ethical way to earn money in a governmentally-damaged economy, but sometimes to do the right thing is hard and a little painful. It is still the right thing to do.
Any sort of "security" scanner should be seen as a gigantic warning sign saying "Keep Out!" and you should heed it for your own good. After all, those who own the scanners will not rush to save you when "the system" inevitably fails. Have respect for yourself and walk away from the scanners. Starve those who use them.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Rights are inseparably entangled
Rights are inseparably entangled
Each right you have is inseparably entangled and connected with every other right. They form a web that is a unit rather than something that can be subject to "picking and choosing". This is why "liberals" and "conservatives" fail to respect liberty. They each wish to pick out their favorite rights while denying that others, which they don't like, exist at all or pretending they are not important. It doesn't work that way.
Instead, when you try to disparage or violate one right, the entire tapestry of liberty starts to unravel and is weakened. This means that even those rights you wish to have the freedom to exercise fall prey to the destruction that your foolish meddling introduced.
Don't be a part of the problem, but stand up for all rights- including the rights that you dislike, even against those who claim to be on your side. They may not appreciate your principled stand exposing their inconsistency, but that is their shortcoming, not yours.
Liberty is nothing but the freedom to exercise your rights. All of your rights; all of her rights; all of his rights. You don't have to take the freedom, but you have to accept that it exists in order to be consistent and ethical.
Each right you have is inseparably entangled and connected with every other right. They form a web that is a unit rather than something that can be subject to "picking and choosing". This is why "liberals" and "conservatives" fail to respect liberty. They each wish to pick out their favorite rights while denying that others, which they don't like, exist at all or pretending they are not important. It doesn't work that way.
Instead, when you try to disparage or violate one right, the entire tapestry of liberty starts to unravel and is weakened. This means that even those rights you wish to have the freedom to exercise fall prey to the destruction that your foolish meddling introduced.
Don't be a part of the problem, but stand up for all rights- including the rights that you dislike, even against those who claim to be on your side. They may not appreciate your principled stand exposing their inconsistency, but that is their shortcoming, not yours.
Liberty is nothing but the freedom to exercise your rights. All of your rights; all of her rights; all of his rights. You don't have to take the freedom, but you have to accept that it exists in order to be consistent and ethical.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Your 'right of association'
Your 'right of association'
You have an absolute human right to choose who is allowed to be around you, do business with you, or impose themselves on you. This is another of those basic, fundamental human rights that is violated all the time by government.
Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they choose, for any reason- or for no reason at all. If you discriminate for poor reasons you may make a few enemies. If you do not wish to associate with people of certain races, religions, political persuasions, sexual orientation, or whatever else, then no one has the right to demand that you do so. Of course, if you discriminate based upon ignorant prejudices, other people can choose to refuse to deal with you, too. Even if you have good reasons for your choices, some will take issue with your decision. In this, as in every other choice you make, there will be consequences.
This right does not mean you can follow a person around, into their own territory or where they otherwise have a right to be, and then complain that you are being "forced" to be around them.
Just a few days ago I exercised this right by throwing a constant trouble-maker off my property. For about a year she has been causing trouble (including an incident about a week earlier), and I am not even her primary target; she thinks she can get to her target through me, but I do not play the "drama game". Six months ago, when she followed me and my daughter around the park, screaming at me because I wouldn't force her target to alter her behavior, I told her in very clear language to stay completely away from my daughter and me. Yet, she did not heed the "request" and showed up in the company of another person (who was invited) a few days ago. I asserted my right of association and stopped her from trespassing. I was berated and called the bad guy for exercising my right. That is fine.
Government spends a lot of money and propaganda trying to convince you that you have no right of association, and finding ways to punish people who do not buy the lie. Perhaps that is because government wishes to impose itself and its "human tools" into your private life and doesn't want you to realize you have the higher authority to say "no!".
Take note: My newest book, Kent's Liberty Primer is now available. And don't forget my childrens' book- Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse.
You have an absolute human right to choose who is allowed to be around you, do business with you, or impose themselves on you. This is another of those basic, fundamental human rights that is violated all the time by government.
Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they choose, for any reason- or for no reason at all. If you discriminate for poor reasons you may make a few enemies. If you do not wish to associate with people of certain races, religions, political persuasions, sexual orientation, or whatever else, then no one has the right to demand that you do so. Of course, if you discriminate based upon ignorant prejudices, other people can choose to refuse to deal with you, too. Even if you have good reasons for your choices, some will take issue with your decision. In this, as in every other choice you make, there will be consequences.
This right does not mean you can follow a person around, into their own territory or where they otherwise have a right to be, and then complain that you are being "forced" to be around them.
Just a few days ago I exercised this right by throwing a constant trouble-maker off my property. For about a year she has been causing trouble (including an incident about a week earlier), and I am not even her primary target; she thinks she can get to her target through me, but I do not play the "drama game". Six months ago, when she followed me and my daughter around the park, screaming at me because I wouldn't force her target to alter her behavior, I told her in very clear language to stay completely away from my daughter and me. Yet, she did not heed the "request" and showed up in the company of another person (who was invited) a few days ago. I asserted my right of association and stopped her from trespassing. I was berated and called the bad guy for exercising my right. That is fine.
Government spends a lot of money and propaganda trying to convince you that you have no right of association, and finding ways to punish people who do not buy the lie. Perhaps that is because government wishes to impose itself and its "human tools" into your private life and doesn't want you to realize you have the higher authority to say "no!".
Take note: My newest book, Kent's Liberty Primer is now available. And don't forget my childrens' book- Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
My books are both available now!
Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse - a new childrens' book for freedom loving children, and Kent's Liberty Primer, for their parents.
Hello everyone! Here is a book that should be on every freedom-lover's bookshelf, in all their childrens' hands, and obviously, given to every disadvantaged child of statists. Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse is exactly the book you are looking for to introduce kids to liberty, self-responsibility, and independence. And I'm only saying that because I am the author and illustrator. ( https://www.createspace.com/3418555 )
But that's only half of the story. I have also published Kent's Liberty Primer. ( https://www.createspace.com/3419679 ) It is an introduction to the basics of liberty, either for those unfamiliar with the concept (send a copy to "your" congresscritter, a judge, and the president) or for anyone who needs a reminder of why liberty is right and the "alternatives" are wrong.
Here's your chance to lift me out of poverty. Order a few thousand copies of each today, and spam everyone you know with hypnotically irresistible messages to do the same! Whine until your local bookstores agree to stock the book and donate a few copies to local libraries, both "public" and private. I'll be glad you did.
Oh, and if, for some incomprehensible reason, you want an autographed copy, that can be ordered directly from me for the same price in FRNs (payable by Paypal or whatever method we agree on), or for a half an ounce of .999 fine silver for Indy-Pindy or a quarter ounce of .999 fine silver for Kent's Liberty Primer. In the spirit of the free market, you are welcome to pay me more if that would make you happy.
And please, pass this newsworthy item on to anyone else who might be interested.
Thank you very much.
Kent
Hello everyone! Here is a book that should be on every freedom-lover's bookshelf, in all their childrens' hands, and obviously, given to every disadvantaged child of statists. Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse is exactly the book you are looking for to introduce kids to liberty, self-responsibility, and independence. And I'm only saying that because I am the author and illustrator. ( https://www.createspace.com/3418555 )
But that's only half of the story. I have also published Kent's Liberty Primer. ( https://www.createspace.com/3419679 ) It is an introduction to the basics of liberty, either for those unfamiliar with the concept (send a copy to "your" congresscritter, a judge, and the president) or for anyone who needs a reminder of why liberty is right and the "alternatives" are wrong.
Here's your chance to lift me out of poverty. Order a few thousand copies of each today, and spam everyone you know with hypnotically irresistible messages to do the same! Whine until your local bookstores agree to stock the book and donate a few copies to local libraries, both "public" and private. I'll be glad you did.
Oh, and if, for some incomprehensible reason, you want an autographed copy, that can be ordered directly from me for the same price in FRNs (payable by Paypal or whatever method we agree on), or for a half an ounce of .999 fine silver for Indy-Pindy or a quarter ounce of .999 fine silver for Kent's Liberty Primer. In the spirit of the free market, you are welcome to pay me more if that would make you happy.
And please, pass this newsworthy item on to anyone else who might be interested.
Thank you very much.
Kent
Thursday, December 31, 2009
A resolution suggestion and Happy New Year!
A resolution suggestion and Happy New Year!
Here is a suggestion for a New Year's Resolution, if you attempt such things.
Write yourself a credo. After you have done so, you can post it where you see it all the time so that you can memorize it and will be reminded to live by it. If individual liberty is important to you (and why would you be reading this if it weren't?), make your credo adhere to the principles of liberty.
Here is my credo, just as an example:
I know there is room for improvement, and I have tweaked it many times as my understanding grows. It does give me a personalized starting place, though. Try it and see if doing this doesn't help you organize your own thoughts in a concrete way.
Happy New Year! Explore your liberty more in 2010!
*********************
Here is a suggestion for a New Year's Resolution, if you attempt such things.
Write yourself a credo. After you have done so, you can post it where you see it all the time so that you can memorize it and will be reminded to live by it. If individual liberty is important to you (and why would you be reading this if it weren't?), make your credo adhere to the principles of liberty.
Here is my credo, just as an example:
On my honor as a human being, I will give zero respect or obedience to
counterfeit 'laws' or systems of belief, present or future. I do not give, nor
have I ever given, consent to be subject to the whims of the criminal collective
known as 'government'. I will strive to avoid aggression, and will defend myself
and others in whatever way I see fit against all attacks. I will seek to live as
free in my body as I already envision in my mind.
I know there is room for improvement, and I have tweaked it many times as my understanding grows. It does give me a personalized starting place, though. Try it and see if doing this doesn't help you organize your own thoughts in a concrete way.
Happy New Year! Explore your liberty more in 2010!
*********************
Monday, December 28, 2009
Bad laws and fixing them
Bad laws and fixing them
The most common "solution" for bad laws misses the mark. It helps add to the "law pollution" that surrounds us and makes each real rule of decent behavior more likely to be lost in the maelstrom. In cases where there is an obviously bad "law", too many activists propose passing a new "law" to fix the problem. This is like continually adding patches on top of patches to your worn-out moccasins and never considering that it might be time to throw them in the fire and make a new pair.
If the law applies only to government and its agents, to restrict what they can "legally" do to you and me, I have no problem with that. Those kind of "laws" are all too rare (and even less likely to be enforced since they depend on the offenders stopping or punishing themselves).
Prohibiting government action by taking away its "legality" sometimes increases liberty by binding the enemy of liberty. Of course, you and I have to back up the law with determination and fortitude.
If, on the other hand, the new "law" applies to regular people, I don't think adding patches helps enough. It may increase liberty somewhat, but always at a high price. Normally it allows government to put a price on rights, and fool a lot of people into thinking the right is a privilege, which is never a good thing.
The better solution, when faced with a bad "law", such as those that regulate "concealed carry", to cite a common example, is not to pass a new "law" saying who can carry where, under what conditions, and for what price, but to get completely rid of the old "law" that unethically tried to restrict a basic human right in the first place.
Don't pass "better laws". Get rid of bad ones. Or simply ignore them.
**********************
The most common "solution" for bad laws misses the mark. It helps add to the "law pollution" that surrounds us and makes each real rule of decent behavior more likely to be lost in the maelstrom. In cases where there is an obviously bad "law", too many activists propose passing a new "law" to fix the problem. This is like continually adding patches on top of patches to your worn-out moccasins and never considering that it might be time to throw them in the fire and make a new pair.
If the law applies only to government and its agents, to restrict what they can "legally" do to you and me, I have no problem with that. Those kind of "laws" are all too rare (and even less likely to be enforced since they depend on the offenders stopping or punishing themselves).
Prohibiting government action by taking away its "legality" sometimes increases liberty by binding the enemy of liberty. Of course, you and I have to back up the law with determination and fortitude.
If, on the other hand, the new "law" applies to regular people, I don't think adding patches helps enough. It may increase liberty somewhat, but always at a high price. Normally it allows government to put a price on rights, and fool a lot of people into thinking the right is a privilege, which is never a good thing.
The better solution, when faced with a bad "law", such as those that regulate "concealed carry", to cite a common example, is not to pass a new "law" saying who can carry where, under what conditions, and for what price, but to get completely rid of the old "law" that unethically tried to restrict a basic human right in the first place.
Don't pass "better laws". Get rid of bad ones. Or simply ignore them.
**********************
Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse
I am very pleased and excited to announce that my childrens' book is now available.It is called Indy-Pindy. It is about a mouse who moves out into the world beyond his nest and discovers that being independent and responsible is the best way to live.
I drew the illustrations too.
Ordering information: Indy-Pindy
If you have (or know of) no children to give a book to, I have another book coming out very soon so you grow-ups won't feel left out. I will announce it as soon as it is available.
For those of you who keep asking when I plan to write a book, this is your chance.
...............................................
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)