A problem with authority
'Authority' has had its meaning perverted. I have had people tell me that I have "a problem with authority". Nothing could be farther from the truth. I only have a problem with, a disgust for, counterfeit "authority". An empty "authority" that must rely on coercion to be maintained. When I run into real authority I defer to it. When I encounter false authority, I may not be spitting on the outside, but inside... I am spitting in its face.
True authority is the same as expertise. For years I tried to make fire with the bow drill. I followed directions in books. I spent hours, weeks, and months practicing. I made a lot of smoke and dust and blisters and bruises, but never one single fire. I could start fire easily with flint and steel, so it wasn't that I was helpless without matches and gasoline (like my dad is).
Then one day at a mountainman rendezvous, I heard that a man was giving a demonstration of starting a fire with the bow drill. I went and watched and listened as this man, this authority, started a couple of fires and helped a couple volunteers with their technique as well. When I left his presence I knew how it was done and I knew I could do it. I didn't even have to make the attempt to know. But, I soon did attempt the task anyway. I had a fire going in just a few minutes- from scratch to finish; sticks and cord to crackling flames. I was satisfied at my success, but not surprised.
This man was an authority and he had authority. He didn't need to force anyone to behave as though he were an authority. There was no coercion and no implied threat. You knew he had authority by his actions and his expertise and his results. If he told you that you were doing it wrong, you would be wise to listen, yet he would have let you try your own way if you refused to follow his suggestions. Your success or failure was no threat to his authority. I have now started hundreds (or thousands) of fires in this way, and taught the skill to others, all thanks to one true authority.
Cops, politicians, bureaucrats, and other so-called "authorities" can't compete in the real world, without the governments they cultivate and inhabit in Albuquerque and beyond, so they use threats and aggression to enforce their false "authority" on their victims. It shows them to be pathetic losers who try to claim that which is not theirs to claim.
Read more about Maturity and Authority.
.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wise up, people
Wise up, people
LEOs responded to a "domestic violence" call in rural Tome (south of Albuquerque) and ended up getting inside the house (foolishly "invited"?) and then decided they "smelled marijuana growing", got a "search warrant" rubber-stamped by a complicit judge (or more likely pulled a pre-stamped one from the stack they had handy), and they then found a cannabis growing operation in the house.
If you choose to do anything the government forbids, you would be wise to not do anything wrong. In other words, if you are non-coercively growing plants that can get you kidnapped or killed by "the law", don't initiate force against your significant other. In many cases it would even be foolish to fight back if attacked. Many "significant others" have no scruples at all and will call LEOs on you as an act of revenge for some imagined slight, especially if they can attack you and then get you to fight back. I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened in this instance, just keep it in mind.
Don't attract attention, and try to avoid doing anything that might get dishonorable people to report you to The State for upsetting them. Yes, it is stupid that you must live this way, but it is the reality of the police state we live in. Accept it.
And never, ever, imagine that calling the cops is going to end in anything other than disaster for you personally, no matter what someone else has done to you.
LEOs responded to a "domestic violence" call in rural Tome (south of Albuquerque) and ended up getting inside the house (foolishly "invited"?) and then decided they "smelled marijuana growing", got a "search warrant" rubber-stamped by a complicit judge (or more likely pulled a pre-stamped one from the stack they had handy), and they then found a cannabis growing operation in the house.
If you choose to do anything the government forbids, you would be wise to not do anything wrong. In other words, if you are non-coercively growing plants that can get you kidnapped or killed by "the law", don't initiate force against your significant other. In many cases it would even be foolish to fight back if attacked. Many "significant others" have no scruples at all and will call LEOs on you as an act of revenge for some imagined slight, especially if they can attack you and then get you to fight back. I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened in this instance, just keep it in mind.
Don't attract attention, and try to avoid doing anything that might get dishonorable people to report you to The State for upsetting them. Yes, it is stupid that you must live this way, but it is the reality of the police state we live in. Accept it.
And never, ever, imagine that calling the cops is going to end in anything other than disaster for you personally, no matter what someone else has done to you.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Money matters
I want about $1500 for something totally trivial.
At least it is only a fraction of what I needed for my coins. It still seems completely unrealistically out of reach. Since I basically have no income I would need to sell some items to raise the cash. That's when reality punches me in the face. I own nothing that is worth anything other than the few things I won't part with.
In my fantasies I dream of selling enough of my books to pay for stuff I want or need, but that ain't happening. Or, if I could get several thousand page views on my Examiner columns every day for a while, that might work. (Unless Examiner decided to change the rules if my page views got too high.) That seems as unlikely as selling hundreds of my books in the next few weeks.
So, what else could I sell...
Let's see, I have my dog tag stamping machine that cost me around $900 new. And I rarely use it anymore since I am out of the pet business. I could sell that, plus all the blank tags and stuff, but I'm not sure how much that would get. Plus, since it weighs between 40 and 50 pounds (not counting accessories), shipping would be a pain.
I could probably afford to part with some of my beloved hats, but that would kinda hurt and I doubt it would raise much money. Not everyone loves hats like I do.
I already auctioned off most of my original artwork a few years ago, and I haven't done any more recently.
I have odds and ends like an old mountain bike, lots of kerosene lanterns, and "junque". I doubt if it would add up to anything even if I sold it all.
Maybe I could offer services instead.
I doubt prostitution would be very profitable for me. A shame, that. Plus, girls would never pay for what they can all get for free anytime the notion crosses their mind.
I could give lessons in primitive survival techniques if someone has land that would work for the purpose.
I excel at sharpening knives by hand (no power grinders or anything so fast and damaging). I never charged enough to make it worth the effort, though.
My sharpest skills aren't very marketable. I'm good at sitting around and thinking/daydreaming. Oh, and I can wander aimlessly around wild places for days.
My best bet is to talk myself out of wanting what I want.
At least it is only a fraction of what I needed for my coins. It still seems completely unrealistically out of reach. Since I basically have no income I would need to sell some items to raise the cash. That's when reality punches me in the face. I own nothing that is worth anything other than the few things I won't part with.
In my fantasies I dream of selling enough of my books to pay for stuff I want or need, but that ain't happening. Or, if I could get several thousand page views on my Examiner columns every day for a while, that might work. (Unless Examiner decided to change the rules if my page views got too high.) That seems as unlikely as selling hundreds of my books in the next few weeks.
So, what else could I sell...
Let's see, I have my dog tag stamping machine that cost me around $900 new. And I rarely use it anymore since I am out of the pet business. I could sell that, plus all the blank tags and stuff, but I'm not sure how much that would get. Plus, since it weighs between 40 and 50 pounds (not counting accessories), shipping would be a pain.
I could probably afford to part with some of my beloved hats, but that would kinda hurt and I doubt it would raise much money. Not everyone loves hats like I do.
I already auctioned off most of my original artwork a few years ago, and I haven't done any more recently.
I have odds and ends like an old mountain bike, lots of kerosene lanterns, and "junque". I doubt if it would add up to anything even if I sold it all.
Maybe I could offer services instead.
I doubt prostitution would be very profitable for me. A shame, that. Plus, girls would never pay for what they can all get for free anytime the notion crosses their mind.
I could give lessons in primitive survival techniques if someone has land that would work for the purpose.
I excel at sharpening knives by hand (no power grinders or anything so fast and damaging). I never charged enough to make it worth the effort, though.
My sharpest skills aren't very marketable. I'm good at sitting around and thinking/daydreaming. Oh, and I can wander aimlessly around wild places for days.
My best bet is to talk myself out of wanting what I want.
ABQ cop fired, may face charges in shooting
ABQ cop fired, may face charges in shooting
In a follow-up to a previous column, the Albuquerque LEO who shot a burglary suspect late last year, and who had the unfortunate experience of the bullet wounds apparently not agreeing with the official story, has been fired. My previous thoughts are on record here.
This is one of those extremely rare, and getting even more so, cases where a LEO is found to have not followed departmental guidelines and actually suffers some consequences after a shooting. I admit I thought this never happened anymore. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong. It happens so rarely. (I'm joking! Give me a break!)
Now, the question remains, if you or I shot someone, would it take almost a year to decide whether it was a justifiable shooting, and if not, to press charges? Would we simply be fired from our job?
In a follow-up to a previous column, the Albuquerque LEO who shot a burglary suspect late last year, and who had the unfortunate experience of the bullet wounds apparently not agreeing with the official story, has been fired. My previous thoughts are on record here.
This is one of those extremely rare, and getting even more so, cases where a LEO is found to have not followed departmental guidelines and actually suffers some consequences after a shooting. I admit I thought this never happened anymore. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong. It happens so rarely. (I'm joking! Give me a break!)
Now, the question remains, if you or I shot someone, would it take almost a year to decide whether it was a justifiable shooting, and if not, to press charges? Would we simply be fired from our job?
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Public Education Commission opposes education in New Mexico
Public Education Commission opposes education in New Mexico
Need yet another reason to get The State out of the business of schooling? The state's Public Education Commission has denied applications for six (out of eight) charter schools during their most recent meeting. The commission, along with the Orwellian "Education Department", has struck a blow against education and for the status quo.
Charter schools are not the best answer, obviously (since they still accept stolen money and are subject to government oversight), but they are one facet of the solution to the disaster of "public education". One that doesn't go near far enough, but can be a good first step for those still somewhat addicted to the government indoctrination centers called "schools". A way to begin to see that there are better options that can break the monopoly in some small way.
Any charter school that admitted it would emphasize independence, self-government, and critical thinking- especially where the claims of the parasitic governing class are concerned- wouldn't stand a chance of being accepted. Not that those likely to establish such a school would go seeking official permission or handouts. I'd also be willing to bet that those approved are promising to produce the kind of citizens most useful to, and accepting of, the gang of thugs known as "government". Of the two charter schools approved in the meeting, one is to be in Albuquerque: The New Mexico International School. Doesn't that sound like just what the collectivists envision for us all?
Here's an alternative suggestion and an offer: come to me, offer a little money or trade for my time and materials, and we can have our own School of Individual Liberty right in my yard.
Need yet another reason to get The State out of the business of schooling? The state's Public Education Commission has denied applications for six (out of eight) charter schools during their most recent meeting. The commission, along with the Orwellian "Education Department", has struck a blow against education and for the status quo.
Charter schools are not the best answer, obviously (since they still accept stolen money and are subject to government oversight), but they are one facet of the solution to the disaster of "public education". One that doesn't go near far enough, but can be a good first step for those still somewhat addicted to the government indoctrination centers called "schools". A way to begin to see that there are better options that can break the monopoly in some small way.
Any charter school that admitted it would emphasize independence, self-government, and critical thinking- especially where the claims of the parasitic governing class are concerned- wouldn't stand a chance of being accepted. Not that those likely to establish such a school would go seeking official permission or handouts. I'd also be willing to bet that those approved are promising to produce the kind of citizens most useful to, and accepting of, the gang of thugs known as "government". Of the two charter schools approved in the meeting, one is to be in Albuquerque: The New Mexico International School. Doesn't that sound like just what the collectivists envision for us all?
Here's an alternative suggestion and an offer: come to me, offer a little money or trade for my time and materials, and we can have our own School of Individual Liberty right in my yard.
Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is
Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is
In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.
This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.
This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.
As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.
* * * *
Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.
The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.
Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.
Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.
If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?
If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.
Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.
In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.
This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.
This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.
As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.
* * * *
Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.
The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.
Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.
Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.
If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?
If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.
Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Martinez misses the point yet again
Martinez misses the point yet again
Goobernut-orial candidate Susana Martinez is trying hard to "out-socialist" Diane Denish, the other socialist candidate for the office. Are Albuquerque voters buying the rotten goods these politicians are selling? I suppose we shall see soon enough.
Rather than facing the fact that "public schools" are not geared toward education, but toward indoctrinating the young inmates into socialism and conformity, Martinez proposes making school an even more unpleasant experience for the captives by imposing more tests (that will still be "gamed" in some way as soon as they are implemented).
If education is really the goal, and knowledge (and how to acquire it) is the path toward that goal, then it is imperative to get government out of the schooling business completely. Education is MUCH too important to let government be involved in any way.
If voting is such a good idea, of which I am not convinced, why not get candidates who actually have different perspectives rather than the same old business-as-usual collectivism that is rampant? A false choice between Socialist/fascist candidate A and Socialist/fascist candidate B gets tiresome very quickly, if you allow yourself to see beyond the empty rhetoric. But, of course, government-controlled schooling is necessary to keep people blind to the truth and ignorant of the alternatives. It's a safe system for tyrants and those with ambition to become one.
Goobernut-orial candidate Susana Martinez is trying hard to "out-socialist" Diane Denish, the other socialist candidate for the office. Are Albuquerque voters buying the rotten goods these politicians are selling? I suppose we shall see soon enough.
Rather than facing the fact that "public schools" are not geared toward education, but toward indoctrinating the young inmates into socialism and conformity, Martinez proposes making school an even more unpleasant experience for the captives by imposing more tests (that will still be "gamed" in some way as soon as they are implemented).
If education is really the goal, and knowledge (and how to acquire it) is the path toward that goal, then it is imperative to get government out of the schooling business completely. Education is MUCH too important to let government be involved in any way.
If voting is such a good idea, of which I am not convinced, why not get candidates who actually have different perspectives rather than the same old business-as-usual collectivism that is rampant? A false choice between Socialist/fascist candidate A and Socialist/fascist candidate B gets tiresome very quickly, if you allow yourself to see beyond the empty rhetoric. But, of course, government-controlled schooling is necessary to keep people blind to the truth and ignorant of the alternatives. It's a safe system for tyrants and those with ambition to become one.
No drivers licenses for 'illegals' (or anyone else)!
No drivers licenses for 'illegals' (or anyone else)!
Idiot politicians are expressing their vapid opinions yet again. This time the debate is over whether "illegal immigrants" (sic) should be granted driver's licenses.
Goobernut-orial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez are completely missing the point as they try really hard to say what they think voters want to hear. Albuquerque voters may be misguided, but are they really this stupid?
No, "illegals" (sic) should not be granted driver's licenses, and neither should anyone else. Driving, as a form of travel, is a basic human right, and is also protected from government interference by the 9th Amendment. It is not subject to approval from anyone. It is not subject to "licensing". For The State to pretend it has authority to decide who is allowed to travel by the predominate modern mode of transportation is disgusting and evil.
Idiot politicians are expressing their vapid opinions yet again. This time the debate is over whether "illegal immigrants" (sic) should be granted driver's licenses.
Goobernut-orial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez are completely missing the point as they try really hard to say what they think voters want to hear. Albuquerque voters may be misguided, but are they really this stupid?
No, "illegals" (sic) should not be granted driver's licenses, and neither should anyone else. Driving, as a form of travel, is a basic human right, and is also protected from government interference by the 9th Amendment. It is not subject to approval from anyone. It is not subject to "licensing". For The State to pretend it has authority to decide who is allowed to travel by the predominate modern mode of transportation is disgusting and evil.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Rescuing the innocent without harming them more
Rescuing the innocent without harming them more
An Albuquerque woman has been "arrested" because cops came into her home for a "welfare check" and discovered her baby caked in dried feces and with a used baby wipe stuffed in his mouth. Another candidate for ABQ Parent of the Year. But what's the solution?
Let's discount right away the sick notion that it is OK to have a group of people, paid with stolen money, who are authorized to enter private property and check up on people's activities. Because it is not "OK" under any circumstances using any justification.
Without an "official system" to regulate and punish abusive or neglectful parents people would have no excuse to not pay attention. It couldn't be claimed that it is "someone else's job" anymore. If you know of a situation like this next door or across town, it becomes your responsibility to take action to help the innocent, or to find someone who will.
Imprisoning the mother doesn't help the child in any way. Neither do "fines". It doesn't protect the next victim from a similar event. It only empowers The State.
In a free society tragedies will still occur, just as they do in our current police state. Yet, individuals would still be able to intervene when they see an innocent person in trouble- without government. They just won't have badges unless they buy one- but then the badge will have no official standing and no "sovereign immunity"- if they cause harm or step beyond their boundaries while intervening; they are fully accountable. No kicking in doors, beating the residents or shooting them and their dogs, then being excused by The State as "following department guidelines". In the long run, liberty will result in less tragedy and less harm to the innocent than The State.
An Albuquerque woman has been "arrested" because cops came into her home for a "welfare check" and discovered her baby caked in dried feces and with a used baby wipe stuffed in his mouth. Another candidate for ABQ Parent of the Year. But what's the solution?
Let's discount right away the sick notion that it is OK to have a group of people, paid with stolen money, who are authorized to enter private property and check up on people's activities. Because it is not "OK" under any circumstances using any justification.
Without an "official system" to regulate and punish abusive or neglectful parents people would have no excuse to not pay attention. It couldn't be claimed that it is "someone else's job" anymore. If you know of a situation like this next door or across town, it becomes your responsibility to take action to help the innocent, or to find someone who will.
Imprisoning the mother doesn't help the child in any way. Neither do "fines". It doesn't protect the next victim from a similar event. It only empowers The State.
In a free society tragedies will still occur, just as they do in our current police state. Yet, individuals would still be able to intervene when they see an innocent person in trouble- without government. They just won't have badges unless they buy one- but then the badge will have no official standing and no "sovereign immunity"- if they cause harm or step beyond their boundaries while intervening; they are fully accountable. No kicking in doors, beating the residents or shooting them and their dogs, then being excused by The State as "following department guidelines". In the long run, liberty will result in less tragedy and less harm to the innocent than The State.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
ABQ company ordered to violate rights of its customers, or else
ABQ company ordered to violate rights of its customers, or else
A major apartment management company has been threatened by the federal government and told it must ignore state "law" and obey federal "law" instead. All "laws" are balderdash, of course, but in this case the state "law" is slightly less evil than the federal "law".
At issue are the state's medical marijuana "laws" versus the federal War on (some) Drugs/"jobs for idiots" program. The management company, because it accepts federal (sic) housing money, has been told it must follow federal edicts which falsely and bizzarely, contrary to scientific evidence, claim marijuana has no medicinal value. I understand the problems with accepting government handouts- a principled business owner would simply refuse to be bought- but with mass-housing (as with mass-transit), federally-doled money is a reality that isn't going away soon.
Absent the federal coercion the management company would be free to set its own policy. It would be within the owner's rights to kick people out for possessing marijuana, but it would still be wrong. Not everything you have a right to do is the right thing to do. This would be one of those cases.
A major apartment management company has been threatened by the federal government and told it must ignore state "law" and obey federal "law" instead. All "laws" are balderdash, of course, but in this case the state "law" is slightly less evil than the federal "law".
At issue are the state's medical marijuana "laws" versus the federal War on (some) Drugs/"jobs for idiots" program. The management company, because it accepts federal (sic) housing money, has been told it must follow federal edicts which falsely and bizzarely, contrary to scientific evidence, claim marijuana has no medicinal value. I understand the problems with accepting government handouts- a principled business owner would simply refuse to be bought- but with mass-housing (as with mass-transit), federally-doled money is a reality that isn't going away soon.
Absent the federal coercion the management company would be free to set its own policy. It would be within the owner's rights to kick people out for possessing marijuana, but it would still be wrong. Not everything you have a right to do is the right thing to do. This would be one of those cases.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
A graphic demonstration of authoritarianism
A graphic demonstration of authoritarianism
A man got so upset over a crying 2 year-old on an Albuquerque city bus that he sliced the kid's mom's friend with a knife. He demanded that the mom make the kid stop crying. As if one person is responsible for and can control the actions of another. Then, when the mom did take the only non-coercive path open to her (got off the bus before her stop), the aggressor couldn't just let her go, but got off as well in order to attack. Then, in a classic example of "mission creep", he used his knife to injure a third party who was not even the cause of his aggravation. This is the authoritarian mindset in action.
Every time someone advocates passing a new "law" to control non-coercive behavior they don't like they are following the same pattern as this aggressor. Every time their actions or "laws" injure a person who wasn't even directly engaging in the offending behavior they are guilty of the same thing as this attacker. Every time someone thinks people should be punished for offending them they are copying this thug's behavior to the letter.
This man should be held up as the new poster child of The State. Statists will never see themselves in him even as they continue to follow in his footsteps.
*
A man got so upset over a crying 2 year-old on an Albuquerque city bus that he sliced the kid's mom's friend with a knife. He demanded that the mom make the kid stop crying. As if one person is responsible for and can control the actions of another. Then, when the mom did take the only non-coercive path open to her (got off the bus before her stop), the aggressor couldn't just let her go, but got off as well in order to attack. Then, in a classic example of "mission creep", he used his knife to injure a third party who was not even the cause of his aggravation. This is the authoritarian mindset in action.
Every time someone advocates passing a new "law" to control non-coercive behavior they don't like they are following the same pattern as this aggressor. Every time their actions or "laws" injure a person who wasn't even directly engaging in the offending behavior they are guilty of the same thing as this attacker. Every time someone thinks people should be punished for offending them they are copying this thug's behavior to the letter.
This man should be held up as the new poster child of The State. Statists will never see themselves in him even as they continue to follow in his footsteps.
*
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Technology in the service of liberty
Technology in the service of liberty
Drunk driving arrests at illegal (no matter what the complicit courts may claim), unethical "checkpoints" in Albuquerque are down from previous years.
It may be due to people being more responsible; it may be due to people being scared of being kidnapped and altering their behavior; it may be due to bars watching their customers more carefully; or it may be due to freedom-enhancing, tyranny busting technology.
I'm betting it is a combination. The one to celebrate the most is the technology, only because "drunk driving" has been defined down to the point that "responsible behavior" is no longer possible as a significant factor.
No matter what the thugs of The State may decree, technology has always managed to foil tyranny in the end, even while the statists try to monopolize technology in the service of tyranny and oppression. In the arms race between liberty and government, liberty is smarter, more adaptable, and quicker. This is, obviously, good news for liberty.
*
Drunk driving arrests at illegal (no matter what the complicit courts may claim), unethical "checkpoints" in Albuquerque are down from previous years.
It may be due to people being more responsible; it may be due to people being scared of being kidnapped and altering their behavior; it may be due to bars watching their customers more carefully; or it may be due to freedom-enhancing, tyranny busting technology.
I'm betting it is a combination. The one to celebrate the most is the technology, only because "drunk driving" has been defined down to the point that "responsible behavior" is no longer possible as a significant factor.
No matter what the thugs of The State may decree, technology has always managed to foil tyranny in the end, even while the statists try to monopolize technology in the service of tyranny and oppression. In the arms race between liberty and government, liberty is smarter, more adaptable, and quicker. This is, obviously, good news for liberty.
*
When 'normal' is perverted
When 'normal' is perverted
Some situations are tangled and difficult to ever sort out. And, sometimes, the people involved understand it is not in their interest to help The State sort it out. This is one reason The State shouldn't impose itself on anyone (or in any situation) without the consent of some of those involved.
An Albuquerque woman "frying panned" and stabbed a man; initially claiming self defense. Her boyfriend was also injured, probably by the stabbed man. The stories have changed and now seem to center around jailhouse sex and embarrassment, and "honor" of some twisted type. The stabbed man is in the hospital with a tube down his throat and cops are waiting until he can speak to try to get him to incriminate himself in some way.
If these people were smart, which seems extremely unlikely given the circumstances, they would all refuse to speak to The Law. In a free society the matter would end there unless some of them sought restitution from the others involved, and then arbitration would be hired. Yet, this is not a free society and The State must get involved and find someone to punish. And most people think this is "normal"?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Will you help fugitive slaves?
Will you help fugitive slaves?
I wasn't aware that the "Fugitive Slave Law" was still in force in Albuquerque. Yet, I see a report in the news that indicates it is. Those who harbor slaves who have managed to evade those who believe themselves to be the masters can be punished and the slaves will be returned to the plantation.
In this case, just as in the 19th century case, "the majority" sees nothing wrong with the slavery. They blame the slaves and those who help them avoid the slave- overseers. They claim this is for the slave's own good. They believe themselves to have a righteous cause- to be the "good guys". They are not.
This time around, the excuse is "education". The real goal is conformity and indoctrination into statism. Fortunately, kids are strong enough that the conditioning is not 100% effective. Let's help them avoid the fate the state would impose on them and those who help them. Education is much too important to let government have anything whatsoever to do with it.
I wasn't aware that the "Fugitive Slave Law" was still in force in Albuquerque. Yet, I see a report in the news that indicates it is. Those who harbor slaves who have managed to evade those who believe themselves to be the masters can be punished and the slaves will be returned to the plantation.
In this case, just as in the 19th century case, "the majority" sees nothing wrong with the slavery. They blame the slaves and those who help them avoid the slave- overseers. They claim this is for the slave's own good. They believe themselves to have a righteous cause- to be the "good guys". They are not.
This time around, the excuse is "education". The real goal is conformity and indoctrination into statism. Fortunately, kids are strong enough that the conditioning is not 100% effective. Let's help them avoid the fate the state would impose on them and those who help them. Education is much too important to let government have anything whatsoever to do with it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Are you stimulated yet?
Are you stimulated yet?
The governor is using federal economic stimulus money, taken by threat of force from you and me or counterfeited by the "Federal Reserve", to ramp up enforcement of a state ban on cockfighting.
How is this use of the ill-gotten money stimulating the economy in any way? Sure, the enforcers will benefit and have more loot to spend. Why just hand it to them, though? Let them actively work to steal the money like their brethren in freelance coercion rackets do.
Rather, isn't this doing the opposite of "stimulating the economy"? I'm assuming money would be wagered in these fights, since that is the whole point. If people come from out of state and then spent their winnings in local Albuquerque stores, that would help the local economy.
Banning an activity and sending enforcers out to kidnap or kill those engaging in that activity seems unrelated, at least as an enhancement, to economics.
I'm not saying that cockfighting or dog fighting is a nice thing to do. I find both disgusting. So, I don't participate. Nor would I willingly associate with those who do.
I ask again: How is this use of the "stimulus" money stimulating the economy in any way? It seems a clear case of fraud to me. Taking money under one pretext and then using it for some other purpose. Maybe the governor should be "arrested".
* * * *
Filed under "Do as I demand; not as I do": This morning, on a street that runs alongside an elementary (government indoctrination center) school, I watched as a police car passed in traffic. I had a very good view of the driver. The cop inside was looking down and texting while driving instead of watching his surroundings. I wish I'd had a video camera.
The governor is using federal economic stimulus money, taken by threat of force from you and me or counterfeited by the "Federal Reserve", to ramp up enforcement of a state ban on cockfighting.
How is this use of the ill-gotten money stimulating the economy in any way? Sure, the enforcers will benefit and have more loot to spend. Why just hand it to them, though? Let them actively work to steal the money like their brethren in freelance coercion rackets do.
Rather, isn't this doing the opposite of "stimulating the economy"? I'm assuming money would be wagered in these fights, since that is the whole point. If people come from out of state and then spent their winnings in local Albuquerque stores, that would help the local economy.
Banning an activity and sending enforcers out to kidnap or kill those engaging in that activity seems unrelated, at least as an enhancement, to economics.
I'm not saying that cockfighting or dog fighting is a nice thing to do. I find both disgusting. So, I don't participate. Nor would I willingly associate with those who do.
I ask again: How is this use of the "stimulus" money stimulating the economy in any way? It seems a clear case of fraud to me. Taking money under one pretext and then using it for some other purpose. Maybe the governor should be "arrested".
* * * *
Filed under "Do as I demand; not as I do": This morning, on a street that runs alongside an elementary (government indoctrination center) school, I watched as a police car passed in traffic. I had a very good view of the driver. The cop inside was looking down and texting while driving instead of watching his surroundings. I wish I'd had a video camera.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Problem? Solved!
Get it before you can buy it? My newest book is called "Problem? Solved! Libertarian solutions for the real world".
It isn't officially available for purchase yet. That should happen sometime in the next week or so. BUT- It is available as a free download even before you can buy it.
Just go to My Books and download away!
Gangland kidnapping in ABQ results in one hostage and one wounded gang member
Gangland kidnapping in ABQ results in one hostage and one wounded gang member
An Albuquerque gang member has been shot in the leg while committing an early morning kidnapping with other members of his gang. The kidnapping succeeded. I have zero sympathy for someone who gets hurt while initiating force. It is simply a reasonable consequence of aggression.
The injured individual is a member of the gang known as SWAT, which is a branch of the infamous "Police"; the largest and most violent gang in America- responsible for more aggression and theft than all the other gangs combined.
SWAT "teams" were established under the lie that they were needed and would only be used to handle extreme situations, such as hostage rescues, where military weaponry (illegally prohibited to the rightful bearers), military tactics, and shockingly over-the-top violent responses might help get the hostage out alive. Or at least end the situation decisively. That they have been co-opted to handle mundane cop work, like serving warrants, exposes the uselessness of their existence and the "mission creep" inherent in all government agencies. The teams exist, they have a budget, so they will be used even if this escalates the situation.
Added to this fact is that, in this case, the warrant was being served for a victimless NONcrime, a consequence of the inexcusably stupid and evil "Drug War". No one needs another shred of evidence that SWAT is nothing more than another disgusting branch of the US Gestapo.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
'Just give 'em what they want'
'Just give 'em what they want'
Albuquerque cops have some fatal advice for you. "Your life is not worth just a wallet. Just follow their demands. Be the best witness you possibly can."
Sure... it sounds reasonable- as long as you don't think too much. But, if what the bad guys want is to make sure there are no living witnesses who can identify them- then what? I'm sure they'll not notice you looking them over for identifying features and decide they don't want to risk you being "the best witness" they ever mugged.
This deadly "advice" comes after an early morning mugging spree by a pair of thugs. Three muggings in about 20 minutes. Those should be fatal odds for muggers in New Mexico. Yet the cops and "laws" have managed to make sure bad guys like these have a steady supply of compliant, disarmed victims.
Dare to be different. Be the last target your mugger ever tries to rob.
***********************
Cop's justification in shooting still under investigation
Cop's justification in shooting still under investigation
A cop who shot a man in Albuquerque last year is getting another paid vacation as a result. (Hey, it isn't the police department's money they are handing out.)
There is still some question as to whether the cop shot the man in the back with at least one shot. That would conflict significantly with the official story. Now, cops lie. That much should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, nonsensical legalities aside, if a person is trespassing inside a home, and is KNOWN to be the trespasser rather than someone who has legitimate business inside, I don't care if he is shot in the back or between the eyes. He had no business being there, and you can't assume he means you no harm.
This is also why I remain somewhat unconvinced about "proportional response" when an innocent person is attacked. The moment of the attack is not a good time to be second-guessing how much force is appropriate. If you don't want an "unproportional response" to your aggression, theft, or trespass, don't do it. I have no pity for thieves who end up caught in the consequences of their bad choices. It would be better for liberty and justice if the home's resident had shot the invader, of course, yet I'm sure such a justified shooting would have been scrutinized much more closely than the LEO's shooting has been. It just shows how badly "the system" is broken.
A cop who shot a man in Albuquerque last year is getting another paid vacation as a result. (Hey, it isn't the police department's money they are handing out.)
There is still some question as to whether the cop shot the man in the back with at least one shot. That would conflict significantly with the official story. Now, cops lie. That much should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, nonsensical legalities aside, if a person is trespassing inside a home, and is KNOWN to be the trespasser rather than someone who has legitimate business inside, I don't care if he is shot in the back or between the eyes. He had no business being there, and you can't assume he means you no harm.
This is also why I remain somewhat unconvinced about "proportional response" when an innocent person is attacked. The moment of the attack is not a good time to be second-guessing how much force is appropriate. If you don't want an "unproportional response" to your aggression, theft, or trespass, don't do it. I have no pity for thieves who end up caught in the consequences of their bad choices. It would be better for liberty and justice if the home's resident had shot the invader, of course, yet I'm sure such a justified shooting would have been scrutinized much more closely than the LEO's shooting has been. It just shows how badly "the system" is broken.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Do you have what you must lack to be a cop?
Do you have what you must lack to be a cop?
I have decided, after much corroborating evidence, that cops are the least-principled people possible. They have to be in order to "do the job" without committing suicide from guilt over what they have done. In just one recent post from a cop (on another site) I read all these opinions:
The "laws" are not their fault, they just enforce them. Government doesn't impose "laws"; "The People" do. "Laws" are a result of "The People ... violating human morals and trust". ..."Times have changed and you MUST roll with it!"... "We must do our job wether (sic) people want us to or not, to keep the peace."
OK, can I gag now? As I have said before, LEOs vastly overestimate their importance to society. Just give one the chance and you will be regaled with fairy tales as to how we'd all be stealing, killing, and raping one another without the cops' big brotherly oversight. In reality, they are as important to civilization as ankle-weights are to an eagle.
In Albuquerque news: A couple of adult brothers have been charged with "negligent child abuse resulting in death". Apparently they were in their mom's yard fighting over money, after drinking, and the 3 year-old daughter of one of the men got upset and ran into the street and was hit by a car. Neither man was driving the car. Neither man chased or threw the child into the street. Was no other adult present? What about the driver of the car? If so, why would some of these other people not be charged as well, as long as bogus charges are being filed? The more victims that can be punished, the better for the State, right?
I'm not saying that they weren't stupid for drinking and fighting over $20. What I am saying is that the facts of the incident do not show "child abuse" by either man by any stretch of the imagination. This is just another example that The State feels the need to criminalize every tragedy.
I have decided, after much corroborating evidence, that cops are the least-principled people possible. They have to be in order to "do the job" without committing suicide from guilt over what they have done. In just one recent post from a cop (on another site) I read all these opinions:
The "laws" are not their fault, they just enforce them. Government doesn't impose "laws"; "The People" do. "Laws" are a result of "The People ... violating human morals and trust". ..."Times have changed and you MUST roll with it!"... "We must do our job wether (sic) people want us to or not, to keep the peace."
OK, can I gag now? As I have said before, LEOs vastly overestimate their importance to society. Just give one the chance and you will be regaled with fairy tales as to how we'd all be stealing, killing, and raping one another without the cops' big brotherly oversight. In reality, they are as important to civilization as ankle-weights are to an eagle.
In Albuquerque news: A couple of adult brothers have been charged with "negligent child abuse resulting in death". Apparently they were in their mom's yard fighting over money, after drinking, and the 3 year-old daughter of one of the men got upset and ran into the street and was hit by a car. Neither man was driving the car. Neither man chased or threw the child into the street. Was no other adult present? What about the driver of the car? If so, why would some of these other people not be charged as well, as long as bogus charges are being filed? The more victims that can be punished, the better for the State, right?
I'm not saying that they weren't stupid for drinking and fighting over $20. What I am saying is that the facts of the incident do not show "child abuse" by either man by any stretch of the imagination. This is just another example that The State feels the need to criminalize every tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)