Remembering those who sacrificed for freedom

Remembering those who sacrificed for freedom

In the battle between the forces of the State and the lovers of freedom, there is a seemingly unending list of casualties on the pro-freedom side. Each week news reaches my ears of another one or two. I don't intend to let their sacrifices be forgotten, even if I do not know all their names. Even when the sheer numbers prevent an intimate knowledge of all their circumstances.

Most of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for your liberty never knew they would. They died just going about their own lives as they saw fit. People like Kathryn Johnston, Oscar Grant, Aiyana Jones, Isaac Singletary, and Sean Bell. In fact, their biggest connection to your liberty is that they were killed, murdered, by those who are the sworn enemies of liberty in all its forms. Their sacrifice is defined more by their enemy than it is by any other connection to those of us who strive for true justice and liberty for ALL.

Then there are those who have not been killed for standing up for liberty, but who have been imprisoned, or otherwise "legally" punished. They are still casualties of the war on your freedom. Some of them knew what they were getting in to, and others may have never intended to stand up for your rights, but once again, those who oppose liberty drew the line and these other people ended up on our side of it, whether that was their intention or not. People like Cory Maye, Len Savage, Ed Brown, Marc Emery, Larken Rose, Julian Heicklen, George Donnelly, John Stagliano, Wayne Fincher, and so many more that I did not mention. Their sacrifice is no less real.

My sincerest thanks to all of them, known and unknown.
_________________________

An Albuquerque neighborhood is facing groundwater contamination from jet fuel, millions of gallons of the stuff, that has leaked from pipes at Kirtland Air Force Base. And these are the same people, the Federal government, who think they have the authority to tell the rest of us how we should sacrifice in order to protect the environment? I don't think so. Damage to property calls for restitution. From the individuals who are accountable (or their survivors or replacements), to be paid from their own pockets, and not from "tax" funds.

Candidates compete for your attention with buffoonery

Candidates compete for your attention with buffoonery

Just in case you still think "democracy" is anything other than a three-ring circus, and the candidates anything other than clowns, with the voters being the suckers who are "born every minute" to be deceived and defrauded, here's a little slap to your sleeping brain: two candidates for the office of sheriff, one being the current officeholder, meet in downtown Albuquerque to.. to... I don't even know what to call this mutual stunt.

OK, so actually the current sheriff didn't personally show up; he just sent his familiars to do his clowning. It doesn't really change the nature of the stunt. The puppet master is still controlling the puppets.

Of course, in a free society there would be no such thing as a "speeding ticket" enforced by government. The roads would be privately owned and any violations of the mutually-agreed upon rules would be settled in arbitration, and probably, in most cases, no harm- no problem. In fact, I would say that any road owner who didn't abide by that would lose business to more reasonable road owners.

It is amazing how many opportunities exist to illustrate the stupidity of government at all levels. It really is a bountiful potluck.


**********************

Why cooperate with The State?

Why cooperate with The State?

Why do so many people automatically cooperate with the State? In most cases it is so easy to ignore. So why sell out and cooperate?

Is the cooperation due to actual consent? Are the cooperators hungry for approval from their Rulers? Is it fear? Or, are people ignorant of their true value to the State? Their value as a slave. (If you haven't already watched this video, please do.)

My first instinct when confronted with an edict is to ignore it. In fact cooperation doesn't usually occur to me until the threats are made. Then I become irritated or angry. Any cooperation the State forces me into is tainted and superficial. Any information they get is intentionally contaminated with debris.

Yet, so many people I know don't even think of the freedom-respecting option unless it is pointed out to them, and then they fear it and resent those who do not cooperate. They immediately hide behind things like "You have to obey! What if 'X'?" So, in these cases it is not consent, it is fear of coercive, aggressive actions on the part of the thugs of the State. The State still interprets this obedience as "consent" for its purposes, though. That makes it all the more important to refuse to cooperate even if you are afraid. If you can't resist now, when it is easy, what will you do when the cost is higher?
___________________________

In Albuquerque news-

Here on Examiner I saw an ad for a gubernatorial candidate. A quote at the bottom stood out and intrigued me. It said:

"Together, we can make New Mexico safe, prosperous, and free of corruption."

Sounds like a threat against all politicians in the state to me, since there is no way to achieve that goal while any politicians exist or hold office. I wonder if she is being watched as a potential domestic terrorist threat? Her statement is at least as threatening as any I have heard from anyone else. Or, maybe she is lying and has no intentions of following through.

I would bet, though, that this is an attempt to gain followers who believe that while the current crop of statist scoundrels are making individuals in the state less safe, less prosperous, and subject to all forms of political corruption, a new crop of scoundrels would be totally different.
Yeah, right! Sounds like a Tea Party delusion.

So I watched her video. Sadly she just another Republican, so, more of the same. And she is/was a prosecutor; a tool of the State. Fully part of the establishment and a system insider.
She claims "law enforcement" hails her by saying "no tougher prosecutor on DWI". That all adds up to mean one thing: she is already corrupt.

So, her quote in the ads is nothing more than another Obama saying he would close Gitmo and get US invaders, "troops", out of wherever he promised to get them out of. Sorry, Gubernatorial Hopeful. Smart people don't fall for that anymore. Voting is consent. Withdraw consent, or agree to more of the same.

Census attempt #2

About an hour and a half ago, while I was filling my daughter's wading pool in the front yard, a car pulled up, stopped, and shut off the engine. A woman got out and made some comment that I didn't quite catch due to the loud sound of the hose spraying into the pool.

I shut off the water, looked up, and she said "Hi, I'm ____ and I'm here for the census."

I simply said "No thanks" and started filling the pool again, ignoring her completely. She stood there for 30 seconds or so (I have no idea if she said anything else or not) before finally getting back in her car and driving away.

I do not consent. Not to be counted or categorized, nor to be governed.

-----------------

Added: And good luck to them trying to find out any accurate information on me from neighbors. I just moved in to this house at the first of the year, and have barely spoken to any neighbors. I seriously doubt they even know for certain how many people live here, much less anything more compromising.


*********************

'I'm with the government. Look at me!'

'I'm with the government. Look at me!'

Why does a suspected theft require shutting down a section of town? Because government likes to be seen "doing something". Even if that "something" is misguided, melodramatic, and downright ham-fisted. You can't justify your budget if you aren't noticed, and the best way to be noticed is to cause a scene and inconvenience people.

Albuquerque police were "forced" to shut down streets because a security camera caught a man on a roof. The suspicion was that the man was stealing copper, but even if not, he was trespassing. Of course, you or I could have dealt with the situation without violating property rights or the right to travel, but since government "owns" the streets it claims the right to close them anytime it wishes.

This is why leaving "policing" to government is a really bad idea. Even when it manages to protect someone's interests, it can't seem to do so without harming those around who had nothing to do with the problem. This doesn't even take into account where the money to pay these police comes from or how it is obtained. Any individuals who cause harm should be held accountable even if they are doing what they think they should, and even if it is their "job".

Hijacking human evolution

Hijacking human evolution

The government is always doing things to us "for our own good". That many of these "nice" things result in needless death and imprisonment seems to go unnoticed. Even in the best case, this "for your own goodism" reduces the quality of life for all it touches.

The "War on (some) Drugs" is one terrible example. Now, the "War on Trans-fats" is depriving taste buds of choice already. The proposed "War on Salt" is another oncoming locomotive. For years there has been a "War on Sucrose" (AKA "sugar"). Recently this has shifted into a "War on HFCS" ("high fructose corn syrup"). This mutation amuses me since I remember fructose being hailed as a healthy alternative to sucrose, and now it is demonized as worse than sucrose. Whatever. Some people are just horrified that anyone might be enjoying something.

Moderation is the key, and too much of almost anything can hurt you. That is a personal choice that no one has the authority, and certainly not the right, to make for anyone else. If you are concerned about possible, or even certain, health threats, you are free to tell everyone you speak to. Education, not legislation.

Which brings up an important point. If salt, fat, sugar, or marijuana are that bad for us, evolution, through natural selection, will weed out those who like them too much. It will select for people who desire healthy foods instead. Let evolution do its job, and leave people free to choose. No, it won't happen overnight, or even in several generations. So what? It's enough that if it really is a threat, it will happen.

Don't screech about the "public health costs" either, since those should never have been allowed to exist, and they can, and should, be canceled with the stroke of a pen today.

If this change in human tastes and desires fails to happen, then the threat was never that great anyway, and we should be allowed to live our own lives as we see fit. Nanny-statists be darned.
_________________________________

And speaking of letting natural selection do its job...

The city of Albuquerque's difficulty in obtaining enough stolen loot to keep the goodies coming means that it is cutting back (or threatening to do so) on some of its summer programs for kids. One kid was quoted as saying without the programs he would "go bumming downtown" and get into constant fights. Nice admission.

When did it become a stranger's responsibility to pay for entertainment for kids who want to do bad things? Let them face real consequences for bad choices, and either learn or be removed from the gene pool. Once again government makes it safe to be irresponsible. This isn't "helping".

If kids' summer programs are beneficial and wanted, private individuals and business owners will step up and finance programs. All it takes is getting rid of the delusion that it is "government's job". Stop even pretending that coercion is an option. After all, if you are trying to demonstrate that being a thug is not a good life-choice, it helps if you are not being a thug.

Dealing with problems in a free society- Part 2

Dealing with problems in a free society- Part 2

Here is Part 2 of the discussion prefaced by the question I related in my previous column:

Please explain to me how Anarchism will deal with all types of violence and not
just “physical immediate violence”.

I can think of several instances when it
would be deemed appropiate (sic) to use force to stop some of the following
types of behavior.

And we move on to the next issue :

Ethnic violence, when people are expelled from their lands or subject to
discrimination because their ethnic group is considered threatening or inferior.

This falls under theft of property when people’s lands/homes are taken by force. They have the right to defend themselves and their property. As for discrimination- it isn’t nice, but everyone still has the basic human right to choose who to associate with and or do business with. In the long run it will economically harm the bigot to discriminate over stupid skin-deep things. The “pariahs” have economic needs and I will gladly trade with anyone who is not a thug. I will profit from the stupidity of the bigot. Only when such discrimination is made “the law” is it capable of doing much harm. Otherwise it is just jerks being jerks.

Gender violence, when the dignity and rights of women are violated, when they
are paid less for the same work, sexually harassed, denied educational
opportunities, or viewed as inferior to or of lesser status than men.

Once again, unless it is made “law” this wouldn’t hold up long. Stupid people can shoot themselves in the foot if they want to. Me, I’ll want to hire the best people and pay them what it takes to keep them, and treat them with the respect they deserve so they won’t go to a competitor (or become a competitor). Ignorant people can hold any views of any others person’s relative worth they want, but they had better not show it if they want to succeed.

Violence against children, when they are forced into labour, often in subhuman
conditions, or subjected to physical abuse at home or school, or to sexual abuse
by paedophiles and sex tourists.

In a free society there would probably be people who would make it their mission to find these kids and rescue them. And there would be no “law” to punish them for freeing individuals (“children”) from slavery. Since age-discrimination is as stupid as other kinds, the kids would also be defending themselves from abuse. Slavery and other abuse is a violation of anyone’s rights, and would be justification for defensive violence. These things happen even now, under the “protection of government”. They won’t go away in a free society, but the risks if caught would be much worse.

Violence to the unborn in abortion, particularly in the widespread modern
practices of female foeticide and infanticide.

Liberty may not always be pretty. It may not always support your particular view. Abortion is a touchy subject, too deep for this comment. I have written about my views a few times, and here is one such column: link

I do tend to think that if you allow people to give away unwanted children, and allow them to accept payment for them, there would be a lot fewer infanticides for any reason. That may seem crass, but do you deny it would save babies’ lives? So many people desperately want children, while others so desperately DON’T. Let them find one another without getting busybodies involved.

State violence of oppressive and discriminatory laws, ruthless or biased law
enforcement, unrestricted police practices, summary arrests, long-delayed
trials, the undue use of armed forces to deal with internal disturbances, the
suppression of right to dissent and freedom of association, excessive
militarisation, and the most pervasive of all, corruption in public life.

No more “State”; no more of these problems.

Violence to one’s self-image and self-respect, which makes individuals and
social groups feel themselves inferior, backward, and “dispensable. ”

This is just hurting feelings. It isn’t nice, but it happens to everyone. It has happened to me, and I survived. It is NOT “violence”, as no physical force is involved. Grow up and deal with it like an adult, or strike back and let an arbitrator decide if you were justified in your actions. I would not likely decide in your favor, though.

Violence against the homeland, in uprooting and evicting a people from their
lands and homes on the pretext of “progress” or the “common good.”

Once again, strictly a government-based problem. “Evicting” is just theft of land unless you have a government backing you up.

Ecological violence, when nature and its resources are greedily exploited for
personal profit, without concern for future generations, for contemporaries
whose survival depends on a careful husbanding of the earth’s resources, or for
the beauty and variety of Creation.

The tragedy of the commons. People care for that which they own. Let every square inch have a real owner, and let every owner be responsible for any harm he causes to anyone else’s property. You are free to destroy your own property, but if any of your damage leaves your land- by air, groundwater, river, or on the back of trained turtles- you are personally responsible for restitution to all damaged parties. No “corporation” to hide behind; no “limits” capping your liability.

And there you have it.
____________________________

An Albuquerque man called police when he was told by a friend his "door stop" was a Civil War-era cannonball. He was afraid it could explode. I don't know about you, but this seems like an overreaction. Plus, I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people out there- people who wouldn't shut down and panic the neighborhood to examine a relic that has sat around without suddenly exploding for over 150 years. I'm just glad he didn't get arrested or Tasered for possessing a "weppina mass destruxun".

Dealing with problems in a free society- Part 1

Dealing with problems in a free society- Part 1

I recently answered some questions from someone who wanted to know how an anarchistic society would deal with types of violence other than a direct physical attack. Here is a breakdown of his questions and my responses to them (with extra links added).

Please explain to me how Anarchism will deal with all types of violence and
not
just “physical immediate violence”.

I can think of several instances when it would be deemed appropiate
(sic) to use force to stop some of the following types of
behavior.

Social violence, in which an individual or group is ostracized, demeaned,
and made the object of discrimination.

That isn’t nice behavior IF the target is innocent of wrongdoing, but it isn’t “violence”. Without a political system to use against the targets, it would probably fail. However, “shunning” is an appropriate way of dealing with people who are known to be bad people (DEA goons, or BATFE thugs) without using actual violence against them.

Cultural violence, where a people’s values and traditions are invaded, degraded,
or destroyed by other groups.

How can someone else invade, degrade, or destroy your values or traditions? That doesn’t even make sense to me. I have many values that are ridiculed by “society at large”, yet they are not harmed by that ridicule in any substantive way. I still value them just as much, possibly more. If your culture can’t hold up against a little bit of opposition or exposure, it probably isn’t worth much to begin with.

Religious violence, when one is denied religious freedom and made to suffer for
one’s beliefs, and people are looked down upon or discriminated against in law
because of their faith.

“Law” is the problem. Don’t establish it to begin with and it can’t be used to dictate or forbid religious beliefs and practices. I have warned people for years that any government strong enough to promote your religion is also strong enough to prohibit it. I am an atheist, and am pretty hard on religious beliefs, however I would NEVER demand anyone stop following their religion because it offends me. Only if it (or its followers) cause(s) me actual harm will I defend myself. I will also stand up for your right to follow whatever religion your conscience embraces in the face of anyone who tries to violate that basic human right. Now, I may ridicule some beliefs. My beliefs can stand up to it, so should your religion. If it can’t, then it has failed the test.

Economic violence, where people are denied, because of caste or social group,
opportunities granted to others, given inadequate pay, and forced to take only
the lowliest, most menial work.

Removal of corporatism and political favors, along with red tape and regulations designed to limit competition, will make this problem evaporate. If people are being used and taken advantage of, remove the “legal” barriers to them starting their own business. Let them brew beer in their living room, or braid hair in their back yard. Let them manufacture machine guns in their garage. Government is the main speedbump that the poor can’t get over or around. Remove it.

Political violence, where persons are dismissed from their positions, arrested,
tortured, and deprived of their rights because of their political beliefs.

This is tied so directly to government that I don’t think a free society would even understand what you mean. If you are fired due to your political beliefs, and you had a contract saying this was not permitted, then the breaker of the contract would owe restitution. Otherwise, you and your employer have a right of association, and can (in a free society) choose who to associate with, or not, for ANY reason- or for none at all. “Arrested” is just government-sponsored kidnapping. Torture is an initiation of force, and torturers are subject to self-defensive violence just like any other attacker. The same goes for “denial of rights”. If someone tries to violate your rights you are justified in stopping them, using whatever amount of force it takes to make them stop. It seems funny to me that all these examples are rampant under ALL governments on earth, yet you use them to refute the idea of a free society. Hmmm.

Tune in next time for Part 2.
___________________________

I often wonder about the details that are left out of news stories. Such as this one about an Albuquerque man who ran over an off-duty LEO's foot, and is now facing criminal charges. Why were they struggling? What is an off-duty cop doing with a Taser and handcuffs? Why isn't the LEO named in the report? It's almost like they think the APD has somethng to hide.

Government just a social club for sociopaths

Government just a social club for sociopaths


I think that people who feel "we need government" have a mistaken notion of reality. They seem to feel that individuals are prone to be selfish, brutal, dishonest, and base, but putting a lot of these same individuals together into a group cancels out these bad traits and makes them to do the right thing. They seem to think that the evil is canceled out by the large numbers of people involved.

I think the opposite: that putting all these people together only serves to concentrate the worst of our species in one organization while it allows them to pretend the evil they do or support isn't their fault. The problem lies in the fact that the types of people attracted to jobs that give them power over others have fewer of humanity's good qualities and a preponderance of the bad ones to begin with.

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent,
you don't dare have one." ~Robert LeFevre

There are good people and there are bad people. Good people- those who rarely do anything to harm any innocent person, and who feel real remorse when they do- vastly outnumber the bad people. At least in the general population. However, when you set up a club which is allowed to have a monopoly of force, and where meaningful consequences for abusing that force are rare, you have set out a buffet that will attract people who wish to use force against others, but are scared to do so in a fair fight. And you end up with SWAT teams murdering children, the "PATRIOT Act", torture, the DEA, eminent domain, TSA thugs, Bush, Obama, Cheney, Pelosi, Stalin, Lincoln... the list goes on and on.

Bad people will always exist. It is foolish to allow them to establish, impose, and enforce rules on the rest of us. It is suicidal to allow them to claim legitimacy as they do so.
____________________________

An Albuquerque area homeowner faces hundreds of dollars in "fines" from his homeowners' association for putting a "for sale" sign in his yard. He claims the rule for not putting signs in his yard didn't exist until after he bought his home. Yet, he knew there was a homeowners' association when he bought his home, and these "mini-governments" are likely to do things of this sort.

I once ran into a situation like this. More than a year after I had bought a home, never being told there were any covenants involved, even after mentioning some of my plans for the property, I started getting anonymous notes, including a copy of the covenants with all my violations highlighted. I ignored them. Especially since, after reading the document, I saw that every other homeowner in the area was violating many different parts of the covenant as well.

Such is the folly of "majority rule".



*********************

Racist' flier is actually 'statist'

Racist' flier is actually 'statist'

An Albuquerque man is upset at a campaign flier that was left on his door. He feels it is "racist".
I agree that the flier displays ignorance in singling out "illegal immigrants" who live at the expense of others, while apparently ignoring the same character flaw in "citizens". It shows that the candidate is not a person to be trusted with any authority over the lives of others. However, I see nothing in it that mentions race; just pedigree.

"Racism" has become the "crying 'Wolf!'" of the early 21st century. Those who can't figure out anything else to fall back on, even where obvious evil (such as the statism and "borderism" in this flier) is staring them in the eye, frequently grasp at this straw. This tactic has backfired and made claims of "racism" into a laughing-stock to most people.

Racism is wrong, but most wrongs are not racist in nature.



************************

Rand Paul, racism, and 'libertarianism'

Rand Paul, racism, and 'libertarianism'

The Rand Paul "racism" flap just proves a point. To stupid people, much of libertarianism sounds like it is "not nice". Like the truthful statement I just made in the previous sentence. Yes, I am being a little hyperbolic- possibly.

I don't know if Rand Paul is "libertarian" or not; what little I have heard from him didn't pass the sniff-test for me, but that is what the mainstream media is loudly calling him. And they are using his statement to denigrate all libertarianism. What utter nonsense. Libertarians are the only ones out there who are NOT racist. Mr. Paul's statement wasn't racist in the slightest, either. It was individualist.

Now, maybe it sounds "mean" to allow people to make their own choices and face their own consequences. But how it "sounds" and the reality of the situation are polar opposites. It is the only nice thing you can do. And, if you want to step in and personally, individually, save people from the consequences of some of their own actions, when possible, go right ahead. Just don't use the illegitimate, coercive force of government to impose upon other people to grant your wishes at their own expense.

Was the federal government right to force private businesses to integrate back during the civil rights movement? No. It was a violation of personal property rights and the right of association. People have the right to be wrong, and discrimination based on trivial matters is a prime example of being wrong by exercising a right. If an individual or business discriminates against non-violent, honest people, you and I have a right, maybe even an ethical responsibility, to exercise our own right of association and shun those people and businesses. After all, if it can happen to "them" it could happen to "us".
________________________

The city of Albuquerque is cutting the pay of "its" employees. That's a good first step. The proper pay cut should be 100% for all "city employees". If something needs to be done, the market will fill the niche. More ethically (without relying on theft), more cost-effectively, better, and only if really necessary. Anything less is just dancing around trying to avoid the truth.
Posted using ShareThis

Membership has its privileges- and its pitfalls

Membership has its privileges- and its pitfalls

One notion I run into when people are trying to justify "immigration" control is that of "citizenship gives us rights", and you can't just give those rights to anyone. This is so wrong.

"Citizenship" is like any other membership, it can neither add to your rights, nor take away from them. It can give you privileges in addition to your rights. You can also agree to not exercise some of your rights in exchange for these privileges if you so choose. However, those non-exercised rights remain unequivocally yours, to be called upon whenever you decide, no matter what the membership agreement claims. More on this in a moment.

If you do not explicitly agree to terms of membership, the club has no authorization to automatically force you to be a member simply because of where you were born, nor to demand you not exercise some of your rights in exchange for privileges you don't want.

Even if you agree to the membership, it is not a life sentence for either party.

If you decide at some point that the privileges of the membership are not worth the rights you agreed to not exercise you can unilaterally decide you no longer want the membership. You do not need to ask permission from the club. The club can also revoke your membership, once again unilaterally, if you don't abide by the terms of your membership agreement. It can't then kidnap you, steal your money and other property, or kill you because you are no longer a member. The most the "club" can legitimately do is allow you to go your separate way and stop delivering the privileges.

That doesn't mean "love it or leave it". This doesn't mean you must move to a new location, since the club does not have a claim to your house. Membership requirements only apply to property the club actually owns or to individuals who accept the terms of membership.

Any club that tries to impose beyond its authority is evil. It doesn't matter if it is a "country" or a book club.

I want nothing to do with "citizenship" of any sort. I am a denizen, since I do not agree to the membership agreement terms.
________________________

Albuquerque "authorities" are encouraging the idea that foreclosed and abandoned homes are becoming gang hangouts. The city "has to do something". Some sheeple are asking for more police patrols.

Government caused the problem, more government won't solve it. Government meddling in the housing market has caused a flood of foreclosures. The Federal Reserve's counterfeiting operation is making money lose value. Socialism is destroying jobs. End the stupid and evil "War on (some) Drugs" and pull the rug out from under the gangs. Stop criminalizing self-defense and the effective tools for delivering it. It is a solved problem- the solutions are known- but government refuses to allow the solution to be implemented. Government is a disease pretending to be the cure.

I'm a grandfather

As of 1:45 PM, central time, I became a grandfather. My older daughter gave birth to a healthy boy who weighed 6 pounds, 15 ounces, and was 19 inches long. Is my younger daughter, at the age of 2 3/4, ready for someone to call me "Granddad"? Am I ready?

Wee-hour musings lead to questions

I've recently been wondering something a little strange.

Is it a "crime" to threaten to kill a former president who has already died? Say, if some writer started calling for the assassination of "Murderous Abe" Lincoln, "The American Lenin", would the jackboots show up at his or her door to kidnap the writer?

What if the jackboots were suspicious that the writer was actually referring to a living tyrant instead of the specifically named dead one, in spite of no truth to the suspicion?

It's just a question that has been hanging around in my skull. Nothing sinister here.

I love liberty

I love liberty

Why do I care about liberty? Why do I want it for you just as much as I want it for myself? Because I LOVE liberty, not only for myself, but for everyone. Even if it is inconvenient to me for others to have it. I would rather see my worst enemy living a life of liberty than being "controlled" by the state. Is this crazy? No. It is consistent.

Anything that impacts my enemy's liberty will be just as bad for mine in the long-run. I'd prefer to take my chances in a free society, taking responsibility for my own life, than have empty guarantees from a government that "only" demands I give up "little bits" of my liberty that I'll "probably never miss" anyway.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy liberty- the freedom to exercise all their rights- to the fullest extent they can. Right up to where their rights end and someone else's identical individual rights begin. Think of the potential society is destroying by placing thugs with government guns and a "legal" monopoly to use them, at all the gateways that lead to innovation and real progress.
Liberty leads to better life. Not safer in every case, but better. Fuller, richer, more meaningful. Wider horizons and brighter colors. The sky doesn't even begin to be the limit.

If that life isn't for you, what are your options? Where will you go in a free society? Liberty even makes room for those too afraid of the real world to live "free"; they can choose to have their choices limited by a voluntary arrangement. A "daycare" for people who refuse to accept their responsibilities. You can avoid all contact with the rest of the world so you can be just as safe as you are now if that is your choice. Even safer, in all probability, since you and all your neighbors will be scanned, tagged, watched, and tracked from the moment you sign up.

That's not for me, but it is not my place to tell you how to live. This is why I write about liberty- complete, whole, full liberty. Exceptions destroy liberty for everyone, one piece at a time. I don't buy into the watered-down versions extolled by "conservatives", "progressives", or even some "Libertarians". Liberty is liberty, and if weakened or restricted in any way, it is no longer liberty, but something smaller. Less.

If you are afraid of liberty, or if you don't like it fully-expressed for some reason, that is your business. But don't pretend you are advocating liberty or libertarianism while making excuses for placing limits on the liberty of others. It just doesn't work that way. Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition. Ending only where you have no right to tread.
___________________________

In Albuquerque news, some tennis players have let their bladders do the talking. Unhappy that Sister Cities Park has no restroom facilities, they allowed themselves get "caught" urinating at the park anyway, to bring attention to their distress. The city spokescritter says they didn't have to go this far; all they had to do was call. Why do I suspect that had already been tried without result?

Just another demonstration that governments can't manage what they claim to own. A privately-owned park would have probably addressed the issue before it came to this. I'm also surprised the urinators were not charged with sex crimes and placed on the "sex offender" list. It has happened before.

Examiner advice request

My Examiner columns have been doing very poorly recently. I'm getting only a fraction of the page views I was getting just a few weeks ago (not counting the "troll attention"). That impacts my motivation to invest the time to write, which may cause a self-destructive feedback loop.

So, I need to ask if I am getting off-track or not touching on subjects that are interesting. Any suggestions (that will keep me within the guidelines Examiner.com) will be considered.

Mayor Berry uses weasel-words to straddle the fence

Mayor Berry uses weasel-words to straddle the fence

Albuquerque Mayor Berry recently said the "immigrant community" (whatever that may be) is welcome in Albuquerque, but criminals are not. So, let's look at that statement and see what he, as a politician, actually means.

Since "criminals" are simply people who do things the government doesn't approve of, whether the things are actually bad (harmful to others; a violation of another person's identical rights) or not, the statement is empty rhetoric of the sort frequently spoken by parasites. Of course a government tool would not want people around who do things that the government doesn't approve of; they don't fit the plan. One of those things is moving to a new place without "official government permission". He can therefore justify, to himself and others without an ethical foundation, kidnapping people his LEOs find who are lacking permission papers.

Now, supposedly this new policy only affects those who have already been kidnapped in connection with other "crimes", but how many government programs ever fail to grow in breadth and depth? How many of these "crimes" involve actions that are within a person's rights to do?

If a person attacks, defrauds, or steals from anyone, they are subject to self-defensive actions, up to and including extermination when caught in the act. Get government out of the way of that basic right and the "illegal immigrant" problem, as well as most other societal problems, will evaporate faster than you can close and raze the now-obsolete government facilities. Where a person was born, or what papers he possesses, has nothing to do with it. And that is why government-lovers will never willingly recognize this basic human right. It takes away their power and prestige and exposes them as the worst of the species, subject to the same self-defensive consequences. The hand-wringing over "illegal immigrants" is smoke and mirrors to keep you from thinking about the real issue. Real liberty.

Albuquerque woman fears for her daughter's safety

Albuquerque woman fears for her daughter's safety

An Albuquerque woman is afraid for the safety of her daughter. She fears the outcome of a murder trial. Her case may be unusual, due to her making really bad choices of acquaintances in the past, but all parents should keep the safety of their children in mind at all times, extraordinary circumstances or not.

I doubt this anonymous woman will read these words, but if she does, or if a caring friend of hers happens across this column, I have some advice for her.

It is not the government's responsibility, not even a police officer's responsibility, to protect you or your children. Court cases prove this fact over and over. Relying on any employee of any government to protect you will leave you vulnerable. Or dead. If you have reason to believe your child may be in danger, and you do not take action personally and with grave determination, how will you feel if something happens? Will you be satisfied if the attacker is arrested? Me neither.

Your child's safety is your responsibility. If you think your child is in danger from anyone, and even if you have no reason to suspect any unusual danger, it is your responsibility to make sure you are prepared, physically and mentally, to protect your child.

This means get the most effective self-defense tool available no matter what stands in your way, learn how to use it properly, make up your mind that you will not hesitate to strike back with it in a crisis, and make sure you never leave it behind for any reason. Any reason. If a particular place does not trust you with the best tools for self defense, you are wise to not go there. Period.

This responsibility means teaching your child developmentally-appropriate self-defensive lessons. Lessons they will need even if your fears turn out to be groundless.

This responsibility even means moving to a new area if you find it impossible to protect your child adequately where you currently reside. No price or inconvenience is "too high". Regrets can never be fixed; only avoided. Make up your mind now, before it is too late.

'Right and wrong' vs. the majority of life

'Right and wrong' vs. the majority of life

There is right and there is wrong; there are no "gray areas". However there are a lot of areas, the vast majority of our lives, in fact, that have nothing whatsoever to do with right or wrong. They lie completely outside the rather small realm of "right or wrong".

It is not "right" or "wrong" to walk across the room, nor to smoke some pot, nor to read a book.
If you are doing one of those things instead of something you should be doing, such as rescuing an innocent person in the room with you who is being attacked by killer chihuahuas, then you are doing wrong, but not because of what you are doing; rather because of what you are not doing.

The mere fact that you are "breaking the law" is no indication of whether you are in the right or in the wrong. That depends completely on whether the "law" you are violating has a foundation in prohibiting aggression, theft, or fraud. It is wrong to do those things regardless of the "legal" landscape, because as long as you are not initiating force, theft, or fraud the "law" has no legitimate say in what you do. For "the law" to pretend it does makes "the law", and those who advocate, write, and enforce it, the ones in the wrong. Are you, by your actions, harming any innocent person in any real way?

I am amazed by how many people don't get this. It is not wrong to be "dogmatic" and recognize this truth. In fact, to act as though this truth is unimportant can contribute to you acting in ways that are wrong. It can even lead you to support acts and policies that are evil.

Most people who argue for "gray areas" seem to do so due to a desire to do wrong, or support it, without feeling bad about it. They want to approve of torture, theft, aggression, and countless other things that an admission of "right or wrong" would put them unequivocally on the wrong side of.

Standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, at ALL times is right. Finding ways to weasel your way into imaginary "gray areas" exposes your failure to be consistent and puts you in danger of being wrong.
___________________

The Albuquerque bank robber (oops- "alleged bank robber") who crashed his car into a vehicle, killing its two occupants, while fleeing pursuing LEOs, has been charged with robbing the bank and killing the two women. And the LEOs, without whose "public-endangering" pursuit the crash likely would never have happened, escape consequences. "Public safety", in a pig's eye. With "help" like this, we are better off on our own.

Could you become an 'illegal immigrant'?

Could you become an 'illegal immigrant'?

If roles were reversed, and I lived in a "country" where economic and individual liberty had been almost completely destroyed by thugs (both governmental and governmentally-enabled), either with the approval of the "voters" or by rigging the results of elections to give the appearance of voter approval, and there were a nearby "country" where life had the potential to be a little better, would I make a run for the border? You bet I would. What if I didn't have the permission of either country's government to migrate? That wouldn't even be a consideration.

If I did manage to escape to a better life, would I immediately turn my back on the culture I had grown up with? Not a chance. There is nothing wrong with "my culture", there is a problem with the controlling and oppressive government that made me want to escape. While I would attempt to learn the "native language" enough to at least be able to function, I would naturally seek out fellow migrants who spoke the language I was familiar with. People seek out those they can relate to, and who treat them nicely. I don't blame anyone else for doing the same thing I would do in their shoes.

Being the person I am, with the principles I possess, I would not collect welfare, even if it were offered in the new "country". Yet, if I had been raised in a "country" where "wealth redistribution"- theft- was the norm, I might not understand the wrongness of what I was doing. And if there were "natives" all around me living off the stolen property of their fellow "citizens" the message about right and wrong would undoubtedly get even more muddled.

Being me, I would not initiate force or fraud on the "natives", even while I watched them attack and rob one another. I would not be to blame for any of the other migrants who committed acts of this type, no matter whether their skin-tone and preferred language were the same as mine or not. I would retain the right to defend myself from immigrant-bashing violence, even knowing it would make me more unpopular to do so.

Do you believe this scenario could never happen? The reality is that with the course the US government seems determined to stay on, roles might really end up reversed for you and me. Sooner than we might imagine. Remember the Golden Rule, and it's more specific cousin: The Zero Aggression Principle. That is the only way to a civilized life.