This is my latest column (10-7-2010) in the local paper, which has no website to link to:
I care how Farwell looks. I probably care more than the vast majority of Farwell residents, and I can offer concrete proof of my concern, backed up by my actions, to those who doubt me. However, I care about liberty even more.
All socialism has the myth of "the common good", also known as "the general welfare", at its heart [and nothing but socialism can result from it]. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve and even if you benefit from it. It places the desires of "society", or even just a portion of society, above the inalienable rights of the individual.
So I am particularly appalled by the recent emphasis on "code enforcement". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal". Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.
I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, or causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. Until that happens their property is none of your business, no matter what.
"Codes" are just a way of taking control of a person's property away from them and giving it to a mythical entity called "the majority". It is wrong even if you like it and even if you can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications. I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.
Update: Check out the police chief's response, along with my added comments here.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Deadly ABQ motorcycle crash illustrates flaws of statism
Deadly ABQ motorcycle crash illustrates flaws of statism
Two people who were "speeding" and not wearing helmets were killed in a motorcycle crash in Albuquerque Saturday afternoon. Some control-freak types see this as an excuse to allow government to control what people do with their own bodies, for "the common good". They may claim that injuries cost "society" if the person isn't insured. They may claim that as long as government "owns" the road it can make the rules. And in making these claims they would be missing the point.
First of all there should be no government welfare that provides medical care through coercive financing. If charities, hospitals, or philanthropists want to donate time or money to take care of people who can't afford it, they can. Yet they wouldn't be forced to help those who they feel were injured by making life choices they don't personally like if they don't wish to. Anti-gun extremists could deny care to those who injure themselves in shooting accidents or while hunting, and those who feel everyone should wear a helmet could deny funds to those injured while not wearing one.
Second, government doesn't really own roads since government owns NOTHING it did not first steal or "buy" (or maintain) with money it stole. Thieves do not get to control the use of the property they stole. Private road owners could set any requirements for using their roads they wish (as long as their "requirement" doesn't violate a basic human right- which is never up for negotiation), and their customers could choose to use a competitor if they don't like the rules.
Since these conditions are not met it shows deeper problems that need to be addressed before the finer details can be debated in any meaningful way. That a cure reveals another disease doesn't discredit the original cure; it shows something else that needs to be addressed before the problem is truly solved.
*
Donate?
Two people who were "speeding" and not wearing helmets were killed in a motorcycle crash in Albuquerque Saturday afternoon. Some control-freak types see this as an excuse to allow government to control what people do with their own bodies, for "the common good". They may claim that injuries cost "society" if the person isn't insured. They may claim that as long as government "owns" the road it can make the rules. And in making these claims they would be missing the point.
First of all there should be no government welfare that provides medical care through coercive financing. If charities, hospitals, or philanthropists want to donate time or money to take care of people who can't afford it, they can. Yet they wouldn't be forced to help those who they feel were injured by making life choices they don't personally like if they don't wish to. Anti-gun extremists could deny care to those who injure themselves in shooting accidents or while hunting, and those who feel everyone should wear a helmet could deny funds to those injured while not wearing one.
Second, government doesn't really own roads since government owns NOTHING it did not first steal or "buy" (or maintain) with money it stole. Thieves do not get to control the use of the property they stole. Private road owners could set any requirements for using their roads they wish (as long as their "requirement" doesn't violate a basic human right- which is never up for negotiation), and their customers could choose to use a competitor if they don't like the rules.
Since these conditions are not met it shows deeper problems that need to be addressed before the finer details can be debated in any meaningful way. That a cure reveals another disease doesn't discredit the original cure; it shows something else that needs to be addressed before the problem is truly solved.
*
Donate?
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Win ANY argument...
Recently on Examiner I have seen ads for some product that promises to help you "win any argument".
Isn't that counterproductive? I don't want to simply win any argument. I want to be right. If I am wrong I want to be shown where and why I am wrong so that I can change my opinion and be right. Simply winning any argument won't help me do that in any way.
Plus, as long as the opposition doesn't run away, I can already win any argument that I am confident enough to get in to.
Isn't that counterproductive? I don't want to simply win any argument. I want to be right. If I am wrong I want to be shown where and why I am wrong so that I can change my opinion and be right. Simply winning any argument won't help me do that in any way.
Plus, as long as the opposition doesn't run away, I can already win any argument that I am confident enough to get in to.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Only ignorance justifies socialism
Only ignorance justifies socialism
I'm still mulling over recent thoughts. I understand that "the majority" in America, "conservatives" and "liberals", now support socialism, although they deny it is socialism. Popularity or acceptance doesn't make something right. Property rights are inconvenient if they would get in the way of the imaginary collective's wishes. So, for one example, we have property "codes". Living on stolen property is acceptable as long as you call the stolen goods "social security" or "farm subsidies". Or "a paycheck" if you work for the government in any capacity. I try really hard to understand.
I can understand supporting socialism- theft and coercion excused by "the common good"- as long as you don't know any better. Ignorance is a legitimate excuse. Perhaps you have never really thought about it. That's understandable. Life throws a lot of things your way that must be thought about and considered immediately for survival. Philosophy- right and wrong- gets put on the back burner or a religion gets substituted for real thought. I've been there.
However, once someone has pointed out the truth you must make a choice. Pretending you don't have to make a choice is the same as making the choice for socialism. You must either admit you approve of theft and coercion as long as it benefits you personally, and is perhaps done by a clown in a government costume, or you have to turn from things you now know to be wrong. And if you approve or accept theft and coercion in these supposedly limited circumstances, how can you really condemn them in "other" circumstances that are really not as different as you pretend?
You do have a choice to make, if you haven't already made it, and your choice shows what kind of person you truly are. Your choice and your consistency in living that choice will determine the future of Albuquerque (or your town, wherever that may be) and the world. If you accept theft and coercion, knowing what you know, even if you have a different opinion about it, then at least be honest enough to admit where you stand so the rest of us will know you are a potential threat and can watch you closely. But maybe you will be brave enough, adult enough, and generous enough to embrace liberty. Will you stand up for liberty even if it is inconvenient?
Let's spread liberty around the globe. Nothing happens that doesn't happen one individual at a time.
*
Donate
I'm still mulling over recent thoughts. I understand that "the majority" in America, "conservatives" and "liberals", now support socialism, although they deny it is socialism. Popularity or acceptance doesn't make something right. Property rights are inconvenient if they would get in the way of the imaginary collective's wishes. So, for one example, we have property "codes". Living on stolen property is acceptable as long as you call the stolen goods "social security" or "farm subsidies". Or "a paycheck" if you work for the government in any capacity. I try really hard to understand.
I can understand supporting socialism- theft and coercion excused by "the common good"- as long as you don't know any better. Ignorance is a legitimate excuse. Perhaps you have never really thought about it. That's understandable. Life throws a lot of things your way that must be thought about and considered immediately for survival. Philosophy- right and wrong- gets put on the back burner or a religion gets substituted for real thought. I've been there.
However, once someone has pointed out the truth you must make a choice. Pretending you don't have to make a choice is the same as making the choice for socialism. You must either admit you approve of theft and coercion as long as it benefits you personally, and is perhaps done by a clown in a government costume, or you have to turn from things you now know to be wrong. And if you approve or accept theft and coercion in these supposedly limited circumstances, how can you really condemn them in "other" circumstances that are really not as different as you pretend?
You do have a choice to make, if you haven't already made it, and your choice shows what kind of person you truly are. Your choice and your consistency in living that choice will determine the future of Albuquerque (or your town, wherever that may be) and the world. If you accept theft and coercion, knowing what you know, even if you have a different opinion about it, then at least be honest enough to admit where you stand so the rest of us will know you are a potential threat and can watch you closely. But maybe you will be brave enough, adult enough, and generous enough to embrace liberty. Will you stand up for liberty even if it is inconvenient?
Let's spread liberty around the globe. Nothing happens that doesn't happen one individual at a time.
*
Donate
Consistency
Consistency. Staying true to the principles you claim to value. It is a rare thing anymore. Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right; you be can perfectly consistently wrong.
However, if you are inconsistent, you are obviously wrong somewhere.
Saying you love liberty, but then supporting "laws" that destroy liberty for some other people who are not harming anyone is not consistent. Looking down on a welfare mom while collecting your own farm subsidies or Social Security is not consistent. Saying that people should be "free to choose", until they choose things that offend or scare you, is not consistent.
Yet, while I have met people who seem consistently "libertarian" (something that can be done without much effort, as long as you overcome your conditioning and think matters through), I have yet to find anyone who is a completely consistent "authoritarian". They always make exceptions for themselves, and often for their friends. This is how you can tell that they are wrong somewhere, and that deep down they know it.
The inconsistencies that make a person take on authoritarian attributes confuse me. I respect consistency. I may hate a person's stance on a particular issue, but if they are completely consistent, I can at least respect the fact that they are not a hypocrite.
This doesn't mean that everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is consistent, just that it is more obvious and glaringly ridiculous when they aren't. All rights for everyone, everywhere, for all times without exception. That's where consistency dwells. Any "but" shows the flaws that are still present in the person's thinking.
*Note: This was previously published in The State Line Tribune a while back.
However, if you are inconsistent, you are obviously wrong somewhere.
Saying you love liberty, but then supporting "laws" that destroy liberty for some other people who are not harming anyone is not consistent. Looking down on a welfare mom while collecting your own farm subsidies or Social Security is not consistent. Saying that people should be "free to choose", until they choose things that offend or scare you, is not consistent.
Yet, while I have met people who seem consistently "libertarian" (something that can be done without much effort, as long as you overcome your conditioning and think matters through), I have yet to find anyone who is a completely consistent "authoritarian". They always make exceptions for themselves, and often for their friends. This is how you can tell that they are wrong somewhere, and that deep down they know it.
The inconsistencies that make a person take on authoritarian attributes confuse me. I respect consistency. I may hate a person's stance on a particular issue, but if they are completely consistent, I can at least respect the fact that they are not a hypocrite.
This doesn't mean that everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is consistent, just that it is more obvious and glaringly ridiculous when they aren't. All rights for everyone, everywhere, for all times without exception. That's where consistency dwells. Any "but" shows the flaws that are still present in the person's thinking.
*Note: This was previously published in The State Line Tribune a while back.
Clinging to their favorite crisis and avoiding solutions
Clinging to their favorite crisis and avoiding solutions
I am sometimes surprised that when offered a real, workable solution to problems which have been worried about for years, people pretend the solution was never offered. They don't even skip a beat in their continued hand-wringing over their favorite "crisis".
Here in my little town the school superintendant is upset over the utter failure of public schools and is asking people to contact the legislators to get them to implement some symbolic gesture that will solve nothing. He wants to make the legislators proclaim public education, and funding those "schools", to be a priority. I have brought up the point in the local paper that socialist schools are the problem, and getting government out of the mix is the solution. I know he reads the paper. He pretends there is no viable solution other than more of the same.
Here in my little town there is a sudden new emphasis on "code enforcement" (because a new enforcer was hired and something must be found for it to do), which I have pointed out is collectivist-speak for "Violating your property rights for 'the common good' using the threat of force". I do more to help clean up around this town than the vast majority of the residents combined, and can prove it to any doubters. I care how this town looks. But I use no force or coercion. In my latest column in the local paper I stated "Do not enforce 'codes' against my neighbors on my behalf". The police chief countered with some drivel about how without code enforcement, our town would be ugly and dangerous and no place anyone would want to live. In fact, he completely glossed over or ignored my point that "the common good" (or "the general welfare" as it is sometimes called) is at the very heart of all socialism and that nothing but socialism can come from it.
Every day I address the problems of Albuquerque in this column and offer solutions that would make those problems a thing of the past. I would be surprised if my opinions didn't get lost in the noise of such a big city, but here in my little town there is no excuse.
I realize I am working from a false premise. I assume that people are more like me than they really are. I assume they see a problem and want to actually solve it. Yet, I have known this isn't the case for many years. People fear or ignore solutions because they enjoy keeping the crisis around for entertainment. It gives them a purpose. They enjoy complaining and suggesting band-aid "fixes" that will only make the problem worse in the long run. It keeps providing them with crisis fodder in a way that a real solution would not.
So, I have a question with regard to this little town where I reside: Do I continue to point out the previously-offered solution again and again to counter each new collectivist whine, or do I rest content in the knowledge that the solution has been offered if they care to open their eyes and look, and move on to the next issue?
*
Donate?
I am sometimes surprised that when offered a real, workable solution to problems which have been worried about for years, people pretend the solution was never offered. They don't even skip a beat in their continued hand-wringing over their favorite "crisis".
Here in my little town the school superintendant is upset over the utter failure of public schools and is asking people to contact the legislators to get them to implement some symbolic gesture that will solve nothing. He wants to make the legislators proclaim public education, and funding those "schools", to be a priority. I have brought up the point in the local paper that socialist schools are the problem, and getting government out of the mix is the solution. I know he reads the paper. He pretends there is no viable solution other than more of the same.
Here in my little town there is a sudden new emphasis on "code enforcement" (because a new enforcer was hired and something must be found for it to do), which I have pointed out is collectivist-speak for "Violating your property rights for 'the common good' using the threat of force". I do more to help clean up around this town than the vast majority of the residents combined, and can prove it to any doubters. I care how this town looks. But I use no force or coercion. In my latest column in the local paper I stated "Do not enforce 'codes' against my neighbors on my behalf". The police chief countered with some drivel about how without code enforcement, our town would be ugly and dangerous and no place anyone would want to live. In fact, he completely glossed over or ignored my point that "the common good" (or "the general welfare" as it is sometimes called) is at the very heart of all socialism and that nothing but socialism can come from it.
Every day I address the problems of Albuquerque in this column and offer solutions that would make those problems a thing of the past. I would be surprised if my opinions didn't get lost in the noise of such a big city, but here in my little town there is no excuse.
I realize I am working from a false premise. I assume that people are more like me than they really are. I assume they see a problem and want to actually solve it. Yet, I have known this isn't the case for many years. People fear or ignore solutions because they enjoy keeping the crisis around for entertainment. It gives them a purpose. They enjoy complaining and suggesting band-aid "fixes" that will only make the problem worse in the long run. It keeps providing them with crisis fodder in a way that a real solution would not.
So, I have a question with regard to this little town where I reside: Do I continue to point out the previously-offered solution again and again to counter each new collectivist whine, or do I rest content in the knowledge that the solution has been offered if they care to open their eyes and look, and move on to the next issue?
*
Donate?
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Bureaucrats are stupid
Bureaucrats are stupid
Almost every inmate of public schools has been either the victim of a bully, or was a bully. I know I was victimized more than once. And when I had the gall to fight back, I was taught by the school that it was just as wrong to defend myself as to do the attacking. After this lesson, I carried a large hunting knife with me at school (which I was smart enough to never mention or show). If I was going to be in trouble for defending myself anyway, I was going to make sure I gave the authorities a reason to punish me if I were attacked again. Unintended consequences.
So, now the brilliant minds (cough cough) at Albuquerque Public Schools have decided a website is the way to address bullying. Idiots. I'm sure their "information" and advice of "who to call" will make all the difference. Don't encourage people to stand up for themselves, but to be dependent on someone else to solve their problems. We see how well this dependency and weakness works in other areas of life, right?
The only way to end bullying is to end the disparity in strength. Bullies do not listen to rational reasons they should be nice. They only understand a target that is able to end the attack. Either through determination and confidence or by striking back when struck, effectively and decisively. In many cases, this means the intended victim needs weapons. Either tools or training to end the attack. Sharp #2 pencils, long and new, can be good self defense tools and don't trigger metal detectors if your school has given up all pretense that it isn't a prison. Never forget that no matter where you may be, the world is completely filled with things that make wonderful improvised weaponry. It is not possible for the anti-human control freaks to remove them all. Of course, this doesn't fit in with the social nannies who want everything all warm and fuzzy and based on the philosophy of "you both share the blame, now hug and make up".
A website will solve nothing if it doesn't address the reality of the situation. And coming from the bubble-wrapped collectivists of "public education" I expect nothing less than undiluted stupidity.
Get government OUT of education: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
*
Donate
Almost every inmate of public schools has been either the victim of a bully, or was a bully. I know I was victimized more than once. And when I had the gall to fight back, I was taught by the school that it was just as wrong to defend myself as to do the attacking. After this lesson, I carried a large hunting knife with me at school (which I was smart enough to never mention or show). If I was going to be in trouble for defending myself anyway, I was going to make sure I gave the authorities a reason to punish me if I were attacked again. Unintended consequences.
So, now the brilliant minds (cough cough) at Albuquerque Public Schools have decided a website is the way to address bullying. Idiots. I'm sure their "information" and advice of "who to call" will make all the difference. Don't encourage people to stand up for themselves, but to be dependent on someone else to solve their problems. We see how well this dependency and weakness works in other areas of life, right?
The only way to end bullying is to end the disparity in strength. Bullies do not listen to rational reasons they should be nice. They only understand a target that is able to end the attack. Either through determination and confidence or by striking back when struck, effectively and decisively. In many cases, this means the intended victim needs weapons. Either tools or training to end the attack. Sharp #2 pencils, long and new, can be good self defense tools and don't trigger metal detectors if your school has given up all pretense that it isn't a prison. Never forget that no matter where you may be, the world is completely filled with things that make wonderful improvised weaponry. It is not possible for the anti-human control freaks to remove them all. Of course, this doesn't fit in with the social nannies who want everything all warm and fuzzy and based on the philosophy of "you both share the blame, now hug and make up".
A website will solve nothing if it doesn't address the reality of the situation. And coming from the bubble-wrapped collectivists of "public education" I expect nothing less than undiluted stupidity.
Get government OUT of education: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
*
Donate
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
How to fix the police
How to fix the police
I am enthusiastic about offering solutions to the problems of statism I point out, Sometimes the solution is between the lines; sometimes, as in this article, I will lay it right out for you to see.
Unless you have been asleep or in deep authority-worshiping denial, you have to admit that having police is a bad idea. It simply doesn't work as advertised. It doesn't help anyone but The State. A look at the police in even such a limited geographical area as the city of Albuquerque should demonstrate that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even just the past couple of weeks of Albuquerque news should prove my point. The best solution is to immediately disband all police departments and simply walk away; not replacing them with anything. Fearful sheep might be reluctant to slaughter the wolf, trample the shearer, and live free, so what is the next best solution.
Could police be privatized and reined in? Maybe. Pretending that the current method of funding police through theft were ended, and they were either paid by subscription or voluntary contributions, what would their proper role in a free society be? Certainly not arresting people for crimes against the State, such as tax offenses, gun violations, lacking a permit, using or selling drugs, not wearing a seat belt, smoking in a bar, free market sex, speeding, or other victimless acts. In fact, probably not arresting people for anything at all. That is your job and mine if we see an act that can't be made right any other way (which is extremely rare). In a free society cops could do the paperwork for us after we stopped the bad guy.
Police could also perhaps help people who are in trouble, but who can't turn to anyone else for some reason. Such as those who have no friends left after a lifetime of taking advantage of others or just being a jerk. Even these people might deserve some help occasionally.
The primary use of police would be to do the kind of things only a "local" with a lot of time on his hands and no pressing need to be doing anything in particular could do. They could help find lost kittens. They could give directions to the nearest marijuana cafe. They could give a safety pin to someone with a broken zipper. They could jump-start a car with a dead battery. They could give a ride home to a shopper weighed down with grocery bags who is caught in a sudden downpour without a car. In other words they would again be limited to serving and protecting as they were before they became militarized swaggering thugs sheltered from the consequences of their disgusting acts by the badge they wear.
Anything else and they are simply proving themselves to be harmful to civilization, and sealing their eventual fate.
*
Donate
I am enthusiastic about offering solutions to the problems of statism I point out, Sometimes the solution is between the lines; sometimes, as in this article, I will lay it right out for you to see.
Unless you have been asleep or in deep authority-worshiping denial, you have to admit that having police is a bad idea. It simply doesn't work as advertised. It doesn't help anyone but The State. A look at the police in even such a limited geographical area as the city of Albuquerque should demonstrate that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even just the past couple of weeks of Albuquerque news should prove my point. The best solution is to immediately disband all police departments and simply walk away; not replacing them with anything. Fearful sheep might be reluctant to slaughter the wolf, trample the shearer, and live free, so what is the next best solution.
Could police be privatized and reined in? Maybe. Pretending that the current method of funding police through theft were ended, and they were either paid by subscription or voluntary contributions, what would their proper role in a free society be? Certainly not arresting people for crimes against the State, such as tax offenses, gun violations, lacking a permit, using or selling drugs, not wearing a seat belt, smoking in a bar, free market sex, speeding, or other victimless acts. In fact, probably not arresting people for anything at all. That is your job and mine if we see an act that can't be made right any other way (which is extremely rare). In a free society cops could do the paperwork for us after we stopped the bad guy.
Police could also perhaps help people who are in trouble, but who can't turn to anyone else for some reason. Such as those who have no friends left after a lifetime of taking advantage of others or just being a jerk. Even these people might deserve some help occasionally.
The primary use of police would be to do the kind of things only a "local" with a lot of time on his hands and no pressing need to be doing anything in particular could do. They could help find lost kittens. They could give directions to the nearest marijuana cafe. They could give a safety pin to someone with a broken zipper. They could jump-start a car with a dead battery. They could give a ride home to a shopper weighed down with grocery bags who is caught in a sudden downpour without a car. In other words they would again be limited to serving and protecting as they were before they became militarized swaggering thugs sheltered from the consequences of their disgusting acts by the badge they wear.
Anything else and they are simply proving themselves to be harmful to civilization, and sealing their eventual fate.
*
Donate
Former cop finds old habits hard to break
Former cop finds old habits hard to break
I could claim to be surprised, but I'd be lying. A former cop, 15 years with the Albuquerque Police Department, has been arrested for robbing a drug store. For the drugs, of course.
When you train people that it is OK for them to run around and force people to comply with their demands at gunpoint, and train them that it is OK to live off of stolen property, it will either attract this sort of character, or change ethically-ambivalent people into this type. It will give them a sense of entitlement and a callous attitude about the value of people and a disregard for the property of others. I'm just surprised it doesn't happen more. Or does it without being reported?
*
Donate!
I could claim to be surprised, but I'd be lying. A former cop, 15 years with the Albuquerque Police Department, has been arrested for robbing a drug store. For the drugs, of course.
When you train people that it is OK for them to run around and force people to comply with their demands at gunpoint, and train them that it is OK to live off of stolen property, it will either attract this sort of character, or change ethically-ambivalent people into this type. It will give them a sense of entitlement and a callous attitude about the value of people and a disregard for the property of others. I'm just surprised it doesn't happen more. Or does it without being reported?
*
Donate!
Armed attack on New Mexico school
Armed attack on New Mexico school
Heavily armed thugs in bullet-proof vests raided a middle school near Espanola (way north of Albuquerque) last month. The parasites thought they had spotted marijuana plants while unethically spying from their airborne anti-liberty vehicles. Instead they risked killing young students and teachers over tomato plants. And, unbelievably, they thought the risk was justified!
Every single one of these "officers" should be fired and jailed, individually- in cells containing victims they have personally helped kidnap and who recognize their assailant. Instead, they are just embarrassed over the "mix up". Embarrassed? They should be so humiliated that they commit suicide over the shame associated with their inexcusable actions!
This is where the evil and stupid War on (some) Drugs inevitably leads. It is past time to end it, and divide the assets of all drug enforcement agencies between all the victims of drug "laws".
One last thought occurs to me: I want to know why this information is just now being made available. Who was hiding this? And why? Why did the school employees or students not spread the news of this endangerment of innocent lives? Why was the news media not doing their job? Did I simply miss this headline-worthy story while everyone else knew about it?
*
Donate!
Heavily armed thugs in bullet-proof vests raided a middle school near Espanola (way north of Albuquerque) last month. The parasites thought they had spotted marijuana plants while unethically spying from their airborne anti-liberty vehicles. Instead they risked killing young students and teachers over tomato plants. And, unbelievably, they thought the risk was justified!
Every single one of these "officers" should be fired and jailed, individually- in cells containing victims they have personally helped kidnap and who recognize their assailant. Instead, they are just embarrassed over the "mix up". Embarrassed? They should be so humiliated that they commit suicide over the shame associated with their inexcusable actions!
This is where the evil and stupid War on (some) Drugs inevitably leads. It is past time to end it, and divide the assets of all drug enforcement agencies between all the victims of drug "laws".
One last thought occurs to me: I want to know why this information is just now being made available. Who was hiding this? And why? Why did the school employees or students not spread the news of this endangerment of innocent lives? Why was the news media not doing their job? Did I simply miss this headline-worthy story while everyone else knew about it?
*
Donate!
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
My message of liberty and responsibility to the world
My message of liberty and responsibility to the world
You are humans first. And second and third, and so on, for that matter. I don't care what secondary designation you choose, be it "Christian", atheist, American, Chinese, cop, shoe salesman, "Black", Asian, straight, or gay. Those don't matter one bit if you ignore your humanity. As a human it is your obligation to respect the rights of everyone else, whether you want to or not, and to live with the consequences of your evil acts if you choose to violate the rights of others. If you believe that rights don't really exist outside the mind, then that means you can have no right to impose on anyone else under any justification. It means you can have no authority. Regardless, you have no authority to Rule anyone but yourself. A government paycheck can't give you that authority. The only thing a government job can do is to make you subservient to everyone who is not a government employee. If you forget this fact, or start behaving otherwise, you are scum. You are a festering boil on the flesh of your species. No "law" that attempts to regulate or punish anything outside a real wrong- aggression, theft, fraud, or trespassing- is a legitimate law, and anyone who proposes, advocates, passes, or enforces one of these counterfeit "laws" is an enemy to the species. My species. Such a person is no better than a tapeworm, and probably worse. The tapeworm at least has no ill intent, nor does it pretend to be helping the host. You have no obligation to any imaginary political entity no matter where you were born. If you choose to pledge allegiance to one, realize you are admitting you place thugs and coercion above non-aggressive individuals. You are declaring your enmity to the rest of us, and to our liberty. Collectivism is destructive and stupid, whether it is "E pluribus unum" or "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". They are two ways of saying the same disgusting thing. That the individual has no inherent worth beyond his value to the collective. No piece of paper or contract written and agreed to by people long-dead can apply to you in any way, and you will not impose it on me against my will. If you are scared enough that you want a wall around your property, fine. Just don't involve the rest of us who are not subject to your childish fears. Don't wall me in for I have no need for your type of "safety". If someone doesn't speak the same language as you, it doesn't mean they are talking about you or plotting against you. Either find a way to communicate or go on your way. Their speech does not harm you in the slightest way. Get over it. If someone doesn't have the same idea of Sky Daddy that you do, you'll be OK. There are bigger issues than "morality", such as actual right and wrong. Don't impose your superstition on them; it will only make them hate you. But don't give them the tool, government, to force you to live according to their superstitions, either. If you don't trust the rest of us with guns or other tools of human ingenuity you are welcome to stay at home, cowering in your cave-like shelter- watching TV, safe from the real people surrounding you. If you choose to think of yourself as a victim, then don't be surprised if less-than-nice people victimize you. Your life is in your hands. We, the good people, outnumber the bad people. Both freelance and governmental thugs. And, don't be surprised if we outgun them as well. After all, there is nothing that bad people possess that the good people can't take back if given a reason. It seems as though the bad people are trying their hardest to give good people a reason. They are trying to shove the answer to the "Claire Wolfe question" in our faces. But we are better than them. We are stronger than them. And when they force us to act it will be too late for them to claim they were only kidding. If you want to change the world, change your "nation". To change America, change your state. To change New Mexico, change your town. To change Albuquerque, change yourself. Stop pretending coercion is OK if done "officially" and "legally". Reject it in all your interactions and accept it nowhere. Purge it from your very being. Embrace liberty instead.
*
Please help!
You are humans first. And second and third, and so on, for that matter. I don't care what secondary designation you choose, be it "Christian", atheist, American, Chinese, cop, shoe salesman, "Black", Asian, straight, or gay. Those don't matter one bit if you ignore your humanity. As a human it is your obligation to respect the rights of everyone else, whether you want to or not, and to live with the consequences of your evil acts if you choose to violate the rights of others. If you believe that rights don't really exist outside the mind, then that means you can have no right to impose on anyone else under any justification. It means you can have no authority. Regardless, you have no authority to Rule anyone but yourself. A government paycheck can't give you that authority. The only thing a government job can do is to make you subservient to everyone who is not a government employee. If you forget this fact, or start behaving otherwise, you are scum. You are a festering boil on the flesh of your species. No "law" that attempts to regulate or punish anything outside a real wrong- aggression, theft, fraud, or trespassing- is a legitimate law, and anyone who proposes, advocates, passes, or enforces one of these counterfeit "laws" is an enemy to the species. My species. Such a person is no better than a tapeworm, and probably worse. The tapeworm at least has no ill intent, nor does it pretend to be helping the host. You have no obligation to any imaginary political entity no matter where you were born. If you choose to pledge allegiance to one, realize you are admitting you place thugs and coercion above non-aggressive individuals. You are declaring your enmity to the rest of us, and to our liberty. Collectivism is destructive and stupid, whether it is "E pluribus unum" or "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". They are two ways of saying the same disgusting thing. That the individual has no inherent worth beyond his value to the collective. No piece of paper or contract written and agreed to by people long-dead can apply to you in any way, and you will not impose it on me against my will. If you are scared enough that you want a wall around your property, fine. Just don't involve the rest of us who are not subject to your childish fears. Don't wall me in for I have no need for your type of "safety". If someone doesn't speak the same language as you, it doesn't mean they are talking about you or plotting against you. Either find a way to communicate or go on your way. Their speech does not harm you in the slightest way. Get over it. If someone doesn't have the same idea of Sky Daddy that you do, you'll be OK. There are bigger issues than "morality", such as actual right and wrong. Don't impose your superstition on them; it will only make them hate you. But don't give them the tool, government, to force you to live according to their superstitions, either. If you don't trust the rest of us with guns or other tools of human ingenuity you are welcome to stay at home, cowering in your cave-like shelter- watching TV, safe from the real people surrounding you. If you choose to think of yourself as a victim, then don't be surprised if less-than-nice people victimize you. Your life is in your hands. We, the good people, outnumber the bad people. Both freelance and governmental thugs. And, don't be surprised if we outgun them as well. After all, there is nothing that bad people possess that the good people can't take back if given a reason. It seems as though the bad people are trying their hardest to give good people a reason. They are trying to shove the answer to the "Claire Wolfe question" in our faces. But we are better than them. We are stronger than them. And when they force us to act it will be too late for them to claim they were only kidding. If you want to change the world, change your "nation". To change America, change your state. To change New Mexico, change your town. To change Albuquerque, change yourself. Stop pretending coercion is OK if done "officially" and "legally". Reject it in all your interactions and accept it nowhere. Purge it from your very being. Embrace liberty instead.
*
Please help!
Monday, October 04, 2010
Property rights, responsibility, and cattle
Property rights, responsibility, and cattle
Cattle keep wandering into an Albuquerque suburban neighborhood, and the residents don't like it.
They do have a right to not have other people's property trespass and damage their property, but I also think if you move into a cattle-intensive area you need to know what you're getting in to. It's like moving into the desert and complaining about sand or the lack of rain.
New Mexico "law" says it is the homeowners' responsibility to build a fence if they don't like having the cattle come in their yard. Regardless of "the law", common sense and decency would seem to indicate this is the better response than turning to government coercion. The ranchers should do all they can to prevent the trespassing cattle, and should offer to pay for any damages no matter what the "law" requires. It's the right thing to do. Turning to government is always the wrong thing to do.
When I lived in Colorado, the ranchers would drive their cattle down the highway past my house a couple of times a year. They had been doing so for generations. It would have been silly of me to move there and then whine about it. They tried to keep their cattle on the road, but since cattle do have minds of their own, they sometimes do things the humans responsible for them don't want them to do. Such as trot off the highway and into my yard. So what? I'm a big boy and if it was that upsetting to me I am fully capable of building a fence. And so are the residents of North Meadows.
(I almost tagged this post under "immigration")
*
Please help!
Cattle keep wandering into an Albuquerque suburban neighborhood, and the residents don't like it.
They do have a right to not have other people's property trespass and damage their property, but I also think if you move into a cattle-intensive area you need to know what you're getting in to. It's like moving into the desert and complaining about sand or the lack of rain.
New Mexico "law" says it is the homeowners' responsibility to build a fence if they don't like having the cattle come in their yard. Regardless of "the law", common sense and decency would seem to indicate this is the better response than turning to government coercion. The ranchers should do all they can to prevent the trespassing cattle, and should offer to pay for any damages no matter what the "law" requires. It's the right thing to do. Turning to government is always the wrong thing to do.
When I lived in Colorado, the ranchers would drive their cattle down the highway past my house a couple of times a year. They had been doing so for generations. It would have been silly of me to move there and then whine about it. They tried to keep their cattle on the road, but since cattle do have minds of their own, they sometimes do things the humans responsible for them don't want them to do. Such as trot off the highway and into my yard. So what? I'm a big boy and if it was that upsetting to me I am fully capable of building a fence. And so are the residents of North Meadows.
(I almost tagged this post under "immigration")
*
Please help!
In the wake of Obama- more bags of hot air
In the wake of Obama- more bags of hot air
After days and days of Obamania, the Albuquerque news has turned to other bags of hot air. But these are more pleasant bags of hot air than politicians, and not dangerous except to those who choose to associate with them. And no one is forced to associate with them if they'd rather not. That's refreshing hot air.
I have no clue what all is involved in the planning of an event such as the Balloon Fiesta, but I'm sure it is a daunting job to plan and organize and run. I also wonder how much unnecessary red tape is imposed by government. I hate to think of all the government agencies that insist on having their egos stroked by "requiring" permits and licenses and fees. Not to mention the silly "laws" that are enforced against the balloonists.
It's amazing that big events like this can still be carried out under the US Police State. But I am glad they can.
*
Please help!
After days and days of Obamania, the Albuquerque news has turned to other bags of hot air. But these are more pleasant bags of hot air than politicians, and not dangerous except to those who choose to associate with them. And no one is forced to associate with them if they'd rather not. That's refreshing hot air.
I have no clue what all is involved in the planning of an event such as the Balloon Fiesta, but I'm sure it is a daunting job to plan and organize and run. I also wonder how much unnecessary red tape is imposed by government. I hate to think of all the government agencies that insist on having their egos stroked by "requiring" permits and licenses and fees. Not to mention the silly "laws" that are enforced against the balloonists.
It's amazing that big events like this can still be carried out under the US Police State. But I am glad they can.
*
Please help!
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Budget shortfall presents opportunity
Budget shortfall presents opportunity
Albuquerque Public Schools may soon be laying off teachers due to a shortfall of stolen loot. APS is faced with the options of asking The State to steal more on their behalf, cutting extra-curricular activities (which may be great, but do not belong under the control, or finances, of schools), or getting rid of teachers. Of course, instead of using merit to determine which teachers will keep their jobs, APS will use the poor criteria of "seniority".
Teachers are upset, as would be anyone facing the loss of their job. But job loss, at least for the good teachers, is not inevitable. There is a fantastic solution: sell off (or hand over) the so-called "public schools". Then, for the schools that intend to stick with the old method of using teachers and students in classrooms, there will be lots of new job openings. Let the teachers apply for the new jobs. Chances are they could earn a larger paycheck under the new arrangement anyway. Everyone wins. Except The State, and the unfit teachers.
Government has no business being in the business of education. In fact, according to the Constitution, it is illegal since nowhere in that document are public schools specifically authorized. This is an opportunity. Set the children free from the government indoctrination centers, get government out of education, get schools out of the business of extra-curricular activities, and get serious about educating Albuquerque and America. Problem, solved.
*
Please help!
Albuquerque Public Schools may soon be laying off teachers due to a shortfall of stolen loot. APS is faced with the options of asking The State to steal more on their behalf, cutting extra-curricular activities (which may be great, but do not belong under the control, or finances, of schools), or getting rid of teachers. Of course, instead of using merit to determine which teachers will keep their jobs, APS will use the poor criteria of "seniority".
Teachers are upset, as would be anyone facing the loss of their job. But job loss, at least for the good teachers, is not inevitable. There is a fantastic solution: sell off (or hand over) the so-called "public schools". Then, for the schools that intend to stick with the old method of using teachers and students in classrooms, there will be lots of new job openings. Let the teachers apply for the new jobs. Chances are they could earn a larger paycheck under the new arrangement anyway. Everyone wins. Except The State, and the unfit teachers.
Government has no business being in the business of education. In fact, according to the Constitution, it is illegal since nowhere in that document are public schools specifically authorized. This is an opportunity. Set the children free from the government indoctrination centers, get government out of education, get schools out of the business of extra-curricular activities, and get serious about educating Albuquerque and America. Problem, solved.
*
Please help!
Known burglar set free. You know what to do
Known burglar set free. You know what to do
The Albuquerque Police Chief is upset that a man who is accused of over 50 burglaries was let out of jail due to a deal he made with The State. That is perfectly understandable.
I wonder if he would be just as upset if the next time this crook broke into a place, he encountered an armed property owner he didn't know was around and was summarily removed from the gene pool. Or if he had his head architecture renovated by a well-designed booby trap as he broke in. Would the chief seek to punish the property owner for defending his property?
The crook joined forces with The State by turning in his accomplices, and that was a big part of the reason he was let out. Won't this result in a net decrease in the number of thieves on the street? And if this man is known to be a crook, won't it be easy to keep an eye on him from now on? Why not publicize his picture so that everyone will know who the man is and what he chooses to do? That way people can exercise their right of association with regard to the thief.
Maybe the chief is afraid that such actions would make his enforcers more irrelevant. Or give victims of ALL forms of theft new ideas.
*
Please help!
The Albuquerque Police Chief is upset that a man who is accused of over 50 burglaries was let out of jail due to a deal he made with The State. That is perfectly understandable.
I wonder if he would be just as upset if the next time this crook broke into a place, he encountered an armed property owner he didn't know was around and was summarily removed from the gene pool. Or if he had his head architecture renovated by a well-designed booby trap as he broke in. Would the chief seek to punish the property owner for defending his property?
The crook joined forces with The State by turning in his accomplices, and that was a big part of the reason he was let out. Won't this result in a net decrease in the number of thieves on the street? And if this man is known to be a crook, won't it be easy to keep an eye on him from now on? Why not publicize his picture so that everyone will know who the man is and what he chooses to do? That way people can exercise their right of association with regard to the thief.
Maybe the chief is afraid that such actions would make his enforcers more irrelevant. Or give victims of ALL forms of theft new ideas.
*
Please help!
Friday, October 01, 2010
Is a sheriff better than you or me?
Is a sheriff better than you or me?
Enforcers think they are better than you and me. Need proof? Sandoval County Sheriff John Paul Trujillo was recently caught by state police speeding through a construction zone in Albuquerque and was found to have expired out-of-state license plates on his vehicle. The plates were not even for his vehicle at all, but were borrowed from a friend. How long had he gotten away with this "crime" before getting caught? We may never know. So, now the sheriff is in trouble from another chapter of his own gang.
Of course, The State is wrong to pretend it has the authority to force individuals to pay for, and display, license plates on our private vehicles. If they want to make that requirement for all vehicles "purchased" with our stolen money for "official use only", that is their business.
The State is also wrong to set speed limits. Most people automatically drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, regardless of the speed limit. Speed limits, in my experience, are a hazard because they distract your attention from control of the vehicle by adding an arbitrary variable that has no bearing on your operational safety or responsibility. At whatever speed you choose to drive, if you cause harm, you are accountable. It's as simple as that... or should be. Instead The State will waylay you for "speeding", aggress against you or steal from you, and add any penalties for harm you do cause, no matter if you are obeying the counterfeit "law" or not. It's quite a lucrative scam when you think about it.
However, as long as the LEOs violate your rights and mine in the name of "the common good", it is good that an enforcer is facing the same fate. It will be interesting to see if his punishment is identical to the punishment that would be dealt to you or me if we had done the same thing. I wouldn't bet the saloon on it.
*
Please help!
Enforcers think they are better than you and me. Need proof? Sandoval County Sheriff John Paul Trujillo was recently caught by state police speeding through a construction zone in Albuquerque and was found to have expired out-of-state license plates on his vehicle. The plates were not even for his vehicle at all, but were borrowed from a friend. How long had he gotten away with this "crime" before getting caught? We may never know. So, now the sheriff is in trouble from another chapter of his own gang.
Of course, The State is wrong to pretend it has the authority to force individuals to pay for, and display, license plates on our private vehicles. If they want to make that requirement for all vehicles "purchased" with our stolen money for "official use only", that is their business.
The State is also wrong to set speed limits. Most people automatically drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, regardless of the speed limit. Speed limits, in my experience, are a hazard because they distract your attention from control of the vehicle by adding an arbitrary variable that has no bearing on your operational safety or responsibility. At whatever speed you choose to drive, if you cause harm, you are accountable. It's as simple as that... or should be. Instead The State will waylay you for "speeding", aggress against you or steal from you, and add any penalties for harm you do cause, no matter if you are obeying the counterfeit "law" or not. It's quite a lucrative scam when you think about it.
However, as long as the LEOs violate your rights and mine in the name of "the common good", it is good that an enforcer is facing the same fate. It will be interesting to see if his punishment is identical to the punishment that would be dealt to you or me if we had done the same thing. I wouldn't bet the saloon on it.
*
Please help!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Reality or politics?
Reality or politics?
I'm glad, in a way, to see that the Albuquerque news has returned to addressing reality, rather than Obamality. The bad thing is, this reality is concerning the suffering of innocent people. Lost balloonists, and dead toddlers, and the loss of local jobs that government policies have made inevitable. In that case I guess it would be better to have no real news to report and keep focusing on the putrid emanations of The Anointed One.
Real, innocent people are what matters in this world, and it is better to be concerned over such things than to care about how to get your piece of the action from the politicians and bureaucrats who are busy stealing it "on your behalf" (while skimming a sizeable cut for themselves and their cronies, of course). What really matters is completely different from what lying politicians believe matters.
Real life. This is just real people concerned about the events that affect their everyday lives. No one wants to be forced to worry about politics. Yet, for our own self defense we must, at times, focus on it. We need to know what new violation of our individual human rights is being dreamed up by the enemies of civilization in government offices and legislatures across America. Sometimes we may be able to nip it in the bud if we know what is going down. Just think what would have happened if Americans in 1776 had been able to stop the Constitutional Conspiracy that stole liberty from them and their descendants. In other cases, it is good to know what normal, voluntary, non-harmful actions you need to be secretive about to avoid being kidnapped by thugs in uniform.
When politics and real life meet, tragedy is the result. There is enough tragedy without adding unnecessarily to the suffering. Coercion against the innocent is never OK, especially not for the purpose of taking advantage of them or violating their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It's time for Statists to grow up.
*
Please help!
I'm glad, in a way, to see that the Albuquerque news has returned to addressing reality, rather than Obamality. The bad thing is, this reality is concerning the suffering of innocent people. Lost balloonists, and dead toddlers, and the loss of local jobs that government policies have made inevitable. In that case I guess it would be better to have no real news to report and keep focusing on the putrid emanations of The Anointed One.
Real, innocent people are what matters in this world, and it is better to be concerned over such things than to care about how to get your piece of the action from the politicians and bureaucrats who are busy stealing it "on your behalf" (while skimming a sizeable cut for themselves and their cronies, of course). What really matters is completely different from what lying politicians believe matters.
Real life. This is just real people concerned about the events that affect their everyday lives. No one wants to be forced to worry about politics. Yet, for our own self defense we must, at times, focus on it. We need to know what new violation of our individual human rights is being dreamed up by the enemies of civilization in government offices and legislatures across America. Sometimes we may be able to nip it in the bud if we know what is going down. Just think what would have happened if Americans in 1776 had been able to stop the Constitutional Conspiracy that stole liberty from them and their descendants. In other cases, it is good to know what normal, voluntary, non-harmful actions you need to be secretive about to avoid being kidnapped by thugs in uniform.
When politics and real life meet, tragedy is the result. There is enough tragedy without adding unnecessarily to the suffering. Coercion against the innocent is never OK, especially not for the purpose of taking advantage of them or violating their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It's time for Statists to grow up.
*
Please help!
Libertarians: 'selfish' and 'childish'?
Libertarians: 'selfish' and 'childish'?
The news in Albuquerque is still dominated by the lingering aroma of The Anointed One's visit. Reminiscent of a dead skunk on the highway, the fumes just won't clear. The difference is that I actually enjoy a slight smell of skunk. Anyway, back to The Deceiver in Chief. What he said while in town seems to generate a lot of discussion. I can't understand why since everything he has said in the past turned out to be lies. Just assume the same will be true of his most recent utterances as well, and move on.
So today I'll address two of the favorite retorts that authoritarians seem to keep at the ready in case they encounter a libertarian. That libertarians are "selfish" (usually the opinionizer is a "liberal"), or that they are "childish" (generally this comes from the "conservative" side).
"Progressives", by claiming that libertarians are "selfish", are being selfish. Liberalism is self-centered. They serve their own selfish interests by demanding you give up some of your interests to serve theirs. Liberals worship the defective among us. That is fine as long as they spend their own time and effort catering to these individuals. Yet, they selfishly use the coercive force of government to make you serve that which they worship. They are so addicted to the "Mommy State" that they can't stand to see people who do not need to be mothered to death, and who do not need to be forced to "share". Of course, this category also spills over to "conservatives" from time to time on different issues (issues which usually shouldn't BE issues).
"Conservatives" often claim libertarians are "childish". They can't allow libertarians to prove that voluntary interactions are better than brute force. They threaten to take all their toys and go home when we don't wish to play their coercive "games". They would rather give up the areas that libertarians would be on their side of than to agree to leave people alone to make their own decisions and face their own consequences. They are so addicted to the "Strong Father State" that they can't stand seeing people not getting their spankings when they do something that offends their "morals" (cough-cough). They worship (often literally) the strict, authoritarian Punisher of Deeds, and use the blunt force of The State as the means to mete out retribution for your "offensive" acts. Yet, this category, too, often spills over into the "Progressive" cult where such things as "gun control" are concerned.
Me, I'm strong enough to leave people alone to live their own lives as they see fit; only meddling if I see someone initiating force, fraud, or theft. That isn't "selfish", that is the height of generosity. Nor is it "childish" since it is the core of being an adult living among adults.
*
Please help!
The news in Albuquerque is still dominated by the lingering aroma of The Anointed One's visit. Reminiscent of a dead skunk on the highway, the fumes just won't clear. The difference is that I actually enjoy a slight smell of skunk. Anyway, back to The Deceiver in Chief. What he said while in town seems to generate a lot of discussion. I can't understand why since everything he has said in the past turned out to be lies. Just assume the same will be true of his most recent utterances as well, and move on.
So today I'll address two of the favorite retorts that authoritarians seem to keep at the ready in case they encounter a libertarian. That libertarians are "selfish" (usually the opinionizer is a "liberal"), or that they are "childish" (generally this comes from the "conservative" side).
"Progressives", by claiming that libertarians are "selfish", are being selfish. Liberalism is self-centered. They serve their own selfish interests by demanding you give up some of your interests to serve theirs. Liberals worship the defective among us. That is fine as long as they spend their own time and effort catering to these individuals. Yet, they selfishly use the coercive force of government to make you serve that which they worship. They are so addicted to the "Mommy State" that they can't stand to see people who do not need to be mothered to death, and who do not need to be forced to "share". Of course, this category also spills over to "conservatives" from time to time on different issues (issues which usually shouldn't BE issues).
"Conservatives" often claim libertarians are "childish". They can't allow libertarians to prove that voluntary interactions are better than brute force. They threaten to take all their toys and go home when we don't wish to play their coercive "games". They would rather give up the areas that libertarians would be on their side of than to agree to leave people alone to make their own decisions and face their own consequences. They are so addicted to the "Strong Father State" that they can't stand seeing people not getting their spankings when they do something that offends their "morals" (cough-cough). They worship (often literally) the strict, authoritarian Punisher of Deeds, and use the blunt force of The State as the means to mete out retribution for your "offensive" acts. Yet, this category, too, often spills over into the "Progressive" cult where such things as "gun control" are concerned.
Me, I'm strong enough to leave people alone to live their own lives as they see fit; only meddling if I see someone initiating force, fraud, or theft. That isn't "selfish", that is the height of generosity. Nor is it "childish" since it is the core of being an adult living among adults.
*
Please help!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Seeking donations
I'm embarrassed to do this, but I am going to have to ask for donations. Not to be used for expensive, trivial things, but for living expenses. Plus the luxury of an internet connection and a phone if there is anything left over.
Others do it, so I guess it is accepted. It just feels dirty, somehow, for me to do so.
Our household income has just gone down by another $350 per month. And that's on top of the $300 per month we lost just a few months ago. That is a significant percentage of our total income. Really significant. In a month or so we will also lose our seasonal income of $150 per month until next spring. Needless to say, it's a critical situation.
I have mentioned my computer problems before. That's the least of my worries. My car broke down a few months ago, and resisted all my efforts to repair it. The car I was borrowing from my parents broke down last week. I do still have my bicycle and trailer (which I use to haul my 3-year-old daughter around town), so I'm not completely stranded, but considering that for most business I have to cross the state line and go 8 to 13 miles down the highway (and then through city traffic), a bike with a kid trailer isn't the best option. Plus, the only grocery store in this town displays a big "no guns allowed" sign, so I hate to give them my business.
This time I have nothing I am auctioning off in exchange for the money, nothing to offer in return, and I'm not simply asking for page views.
Paypal, Gpal, or any method you prefer is welcome. If you can do a recurring donation, that would be wonderful. Help if you can, but please don't put yourself in a bad spot if you can't afford to help me. Thanks.
Others do it, so I guess it is accepted. It just feels dirty, somehow, for me to do so.
Our household income has just gone down by another $350 per month. And that's on top of the $300 per month we lost just a few months ago. That is a significant percentage of our total income. Really significant. In a month or so we will also lose our seasonal income of $150 per month until next spring. Needless to say, it's a critical situation.
I have mentioned my computer problems before. That's the least of my worries. My car broke down a few months ago, and resisted all my efforts to repair it. The car I was borrowing from my parents broke down last week. I do still have my bicycle and trailer (which I use to haul my 3-year-old daughter around town), so I'm not completely stranded, but considering that for most business I have to cross the state line and go 8 to 13 miles down the highway (and then through city traffic), a bike with a kid trailer isn't the best option. Plus, the only grocery store in this town displays a big "no guns allowed" sign, so I hate to give them my business.
This time I have nothing I am auctioning off in exchange for the money, nothing to offer in return, and I'm not simply asking for page views.
Paypal, Gpal, or any method you prefer is welcome. If you can do a recurring donation, that would be wonderful. Help if you can, but please don't put yourself in a bad spot if you can't afford to help me. Thanks.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Obama in Albuquerque: a stranger to reality
Obama in Albuquerque: a stranger to reality
Obama was in Albuquerque, telling lies and demonstrating how completely out of touch with reality he truly is. His worshipers didn't seem to notice, which reflects more poorly on them than on him. I generally ignore him, and was shocked by the gross ignorance his comments illustrated. I'll loan you my shovel before the fertilizer buries you.
First of all, he calls for a "long-term plan" for the economy; completely ignorant (?) of the fact that planned economies always fail. The farther away from the free market (completely unplanned, unregulated trade between individuals with no government oversight or red tape) we get, the worse our economy gets. And we are far from a free market now, and have been for the past century or so. The recent problems were not caused by too little government and too few "laws" but by too much of both. Anyone who tries to tell you different is lying to you. Want to fix the economy? Stop trying to plan it!
He compounded his lie by encouraging small businesses to take advantage of "breaks" the government allows. Small businesses don't need breaks, they need to be left alone. Their owners need to keep ALL the money they bring in- to be re-invested in the business, or spent by its rightful owner, to the benefit of society; not stolen by parasites in government to the detriment of human civilization.
After making a fool of himself by talking about one thing he has no understanding of (the economy), he moved along to another subject that is apparently just as mysterious to him: education. Yes, Obama, education is critical. But that is why your "solution"- helping "public schools"- is the opposite of what should be done. Education is much too important to let imbeciles and tyrants like yourself anywhere near children. If you can't bring yourself to call for closing the "public schools", releasing their prisoners (the children and tax slaves alike), and bulldozing those shameful indoctrination camps to the ground, at least sell off the buildings and let them find a more honorable use in the next life.
Now he's gone from Albuquerque, I suppose, so I will go back to ignoring him. At least Obama's verbal flatulence and its lingering stench do have one useful side-effect: it reminds me what is at the putrid core of statism. And it isn't pretty.
Obama was in Albuquerque, telling lies and demonstrating how completely out of touch with reality he truly is. His worshipers didn't seem to notice, which reflects more poorly on them than on him. I generally ignore him, and was shocked by the gross ignorance his comments illustrated. I'll loan you my shovel before the fertilizer buries you.
First of all, he calls for a "long-term plan" for the economy; completely ignorant (?) of the fact that planned economies always fail. The farther away from the free market (completely unplanned, unregulated trade between individuals with no government oversight or red tape) we get, the worse our economy gets. And we are far from a free market now, and have been for the past century or so. The recent problems were not caused by too little government and too few "laws" but by too much of both. Anyone who tries to tell you different is lying to you. Want to fix the economy? Stop trying to plan it!
He compounded his lie by encouraging small businesses to take advantage of "breaks" the government allows. Small businesses don't need breaks, they need to be left alone. Their owners need to keep ALL the money they bring in- to be re-invested in the business, or spent by its rightful owner, to the benefit of society; not stolen by parasites in government to the detriment of human civilization.
After making a fool of himself by talking about one thing he has no understanding of (the economy), he moved along to another subject that is apparently just as mysterious to him: education. Yes, Obama, education is critical. But that is why your "solution"- helping "public schools"- is the opposite of what should be done. Education is much too important to let imbeciles and tyrants like yourself anywhere near children. If you can't bring yourself to call for closing the "public schools", releasing their prisoners (the children and tax slaves alike), and bulldozing those shameful indoctrination camps to the ground, at least sell off the buildings and let them find a more honorable use in the next life.
Now he's gone from Albuquerque, I suppose, so I will go back to ignoring him. At least Obama's verbal flatulence and its lingering stench do have one useful side-effect: it reminds me what is at the putrid core of statism. And it isn't pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)