Free-range idiots- they are out there

As a result of the recent election, the "localish" city government was denied the bond issues they were pushing to build a new jail and courthouse. A couple of days later one commissioner was quoted in the paper as saying: “Tell us how to do it. If somebody out there in TV land or somebody that comes to the meetings has an idea (we want to hear it).” and “We need the public’s help. As our bosses, what do you want us to do?”

So, I posted the following:

I have my doubts you really want "help and solutions", but you did ask:

#1- Stop enforcing counterfeit "laws" (those which have no specific, individual, victim- "society" can't be a victim). No drug "laws", no gun "laws", no prostitution "laws". If someone commits theft, aggression, or fraud, using these or any other things as an excuse, prosecute the actual wrong acts, not the silly "crimes" that are simply based on emotional/religious ideas of what people "ought not do".

#2- The focus of any real justice system must be restitution, not imprisonment. Jailing a thief doesn't restore the victim to his pre-crime condition (what real "justice" is all about). In most cases, it doesn't help the victim of an attack, either.

#3- Let people defend themselves with the correct, fully-functional tools designed for defense, everywhere they may go without fear of becoming a victim of the "justice system".

Surprisingly, and not in any way usual, my comment only got two replies. One of lukewarm agreement (who only slightly missed what I was saying by stating that "...I do believe certain individuals ... should be jailed for an appropriate time."), and a much more typical response.

That one demonstrated very clearly what people with functioning brains are up against. He said:

"Yes, stop enforcing laws. That'll show em! That'll totally make this place safe and crime free. You're right dullhawk (apt screename), cutting assault and robbery rates is easy when you make assault and robbery legal."

Did the idiot even read what I wrote, or is he just too stupid to comprehend the written word? Pinheads like this are why I sometimes wonder if it's even worth the effort.

*
Donate?

Cops found "not guilty" of fabricating evidence

Cops found "not guilty" of fabricating evidence

Three cops who were accused of fabricating evidence against two suspects in a particularly cruel multiple murder case have been cleared by a jury. The "Torreon cabin murders" happened in December 1995, sixty five miles southeast of Albuquerque.

Of course they were cleared. Juries almost always find cops "not guilty". Yet, the preponderance of evidence shows that cops are more likely to be bad guys than the general population. They are not trustworthy. They have more in common with those in prison for crimes of extreme violence than they have in common with you or me. The job attracts damaged people who like to hurt others, yet are too afraid of doing it without the guns of The State backing them up to go freelance. Cowardly bullies with a cruel streak and a badge are a bad combination. Until police are reined in again, it is inevitable.

There are so many cases where cops fabricated evidence, lied under oath, filed false reports, and tampered with the crime scene for their own purposes that I wouldn't trust a LEO's version of events unless I saw the crime happen and the cop's version matched what I witnessed exactly.

So, did the cops really fabricate the evidence? Probably. But no one but the cops and those they accused will ever know the truth. Did those they tried to trap actually play some role in the murders? There is no way to know for sure.

It is important to know who really commits acts of aggression. Knowing the truth is much more important than getting a conviction or fooling the public into thinking you are "doing something". Real bad guys will eventually pay (sooner than later, if the right to own and to carry firearms were respected) with or without cops lying to catch them.

*
Donate?

New comments on an old post

I would like to draw your attention to some new comments on an old post. I am not being very "pragmatic" in my defense of liberty. Anyway, go here and read the rest of the comments.

The Fifth of November...

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Government's tyrannical Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Government's Treason

Should ever be forgot.

President, Congress, t'was their intent

To violate rights; our money they spent.

Thousands of laws, each a new crime;

Liberty, it seems, had run out of time.

Elections were held to pacify some,

A new batch of scoundrels to Washington come.

Wake up, wake up, your life is your own!

Wake up, wake up, YOU sit on the throne!

And how shall we live? In true liberty!

Property rights: absolute with one limit

Property rights: absolute with one limit

Yes, I said long ago that I had written my last word on the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. Well, it keeps rearing its head, and the more I examine the concepts and counter-arguments, the more sure I am of where I stand. That still doesn't mean I am right.


Property rights are absolute (even if The State acts as if they are not). Property rights have only one limit: they end where the property ends. You can't claim ownership of your neighbor's house just because it is adjacent to your property, even if your property is completely surrounding his property and he must parachute to his house from deep space in order to avoid crossing your land. Your property lines are where your property rights end in this example. Those who own land in the middle of national forests still retain ownership of their own property (even if the feds aren't happy about it and seek to violate those property rights in myriad ways).

The same goes for smaller units of property such as a house or business and an individual allowed to enter that property. If you allow me to come onto your property, my body does not become your property even though it is engulfed by your property. My property "bubble" extends to the outer surface of my clothing because my clothes are still my clothes even if you allow me, and them, on your property. Your property rights end at my surface, and do not penetrate any deeper. So, anything beneath the surface of my clothes, as long as it remains only there, is occupying only my property even if I am surrounded and engulfed by your property at your permission.

You can insist I leave my rights behind if I enter your property, but the demand is no more valid than the demand that I become your unwilling sex slave if I enter your property. Slavery or murder is not OK just because you "only" do it on your own property. Now, obviously, anyone evil enough to make the demand that you relinquish your rights in order to enter their property is someone you should avoid if at all possible. It is better to avoid putting yourself in these situations if you can. You can cooperate or not as you see fit, but I don't consider it noble to kowtow to bad guys.

Added as clarification: It's not so much that I think I have a right to carry a concealed weapon onto other people's property, it is that I don't believe I have a right to forbid such on my own property. If I invite someone, I invite them as a sovereign individual with all their rights fully intact. I have no right to regulate what is in their pockets as long as it stays there in every way.

* * *

A federal jury in Albuquerque has convicted a Rio Rancho man of the "crime" of being a "convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition". They've obviously never heard of FIJA.org.

The man was charged in the case in June 2009 after a cop stopped his car and during an undoubtedly unethical violation of property rights, found a .40-caliber pistol and ammunition in a computer bag.

Why was he stopped? Why did the cop illegally search the car? And why, if the man is still a danger who can't be trusted with a gun, was he running free? Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted. And rights can never be "lost".

On top of this, one of the two "felonies" he was previously convicted for was probably not even wrong. "Aggravated assault on an officer" is one of those false crimes that anyone who doesn't bow to a LEO's puffed-up "authority" quick enough, and is then put in a position of having to defend oneself from an attack by the authority-crazed cop, could be charged with.

*
Donate?

Tribal leaders make bad ruling

Tribal leaders make bad ruling

The leaders of the Jemez Pueblo, northwest of Albuquerque, have banned a newspaper from tribal land because they think it sensationalized a story on a murder.

The tribal leaders claim they are exempt from the First Amendment. I agree, since the Bill of Rights only applies to governments of the US. I'm all in favor of governments not being affiliated or cooperative with that particular criminal organization.

However the tribal leaders are not exempt from the laws of right and wrong, and freedom of speech (and the press) still exists just as fully at the pueblo as anywhere else. Rights are no more subject to tribal "law" than to Federal "law". It doesn't matter if you are talking the right of free speech, the right of freedom of the press, the right of freedom of religion, the right of owning and carrying guns, the right to not testify against yourself, or anything else. "Laws" can never repeal even the most trivial right. A right doesn't cease to exist just because you happen to own (or control) property and you don't like the right.

By trying to violate freedom of the press they are exposing themselves as unworthy of the title of "leader" and are acting as Rulers instead. They are committing evil just as much as any government does when engaging in the same, wrong, acts. Individuals can decide, on an individual basis, whether they want to buy the paper or not. Try to convince them to boycott, don't use coercion.

*
Donate?

Liberty's false friends

Liberty's false friends

You can't get more, or more complete, liberty for yourself by restricting it for others. Liberty is an interconnected web. Pull one thread and the entire structure is damaged.

"Immigration" is a good example. It shows why the Tea Party crowd is not helpful to liberty. You can't claim to be for liberty, but then advocate for government to be more powerful in "just one area"; more government control, but only when you "really want it". It always damages all liberty.

You also can't claim you are for liberty, but be enthusiastic about the government-controlled military. It doesn't work that way. The more powerful and bigger the government's military is, the more exceptions liberty suffers, and the more enemies the military creates to threaten you.

A lot of the Tea Party folk claim that these aspects of government power enhance liberty, after all, their justification goes, you can't be free if your country has been invaded and overrun. Yet, the country has already been invaded (by an ideology- collectivism) and overrun (by statists and authoritarians whose goals are the opposite of liberty). These are a greater
danger to your real, livable liberty than all the "terrorists" in the entire world could ever dream of being.

Add to these travesties the War on (some) Drugs, government-sanctioned or rationed marriage, entitlements, "gun control" that even Tea Partiers say is "reasonable", favoring one primitive and violent religion over another primitive and violent religion, the taxation that Tea Partiers are saying is "enough" rather than admitting it is ALL theft, and all the "required" permits, licenses, red tape, and other government violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... it adds up.

One example of those violations of rights and liberty that Tea Partiers are generally OK with: Two massage parlors in Albuquerque were raided and shut down yesterday by LEOs- for prostitution. Consensual trade, "even" in sexual gratification, between responsible, self-owning people is no one else's business. "Laws" attempting to control, forbid, or regulate
it are counterfeit "laws" and it is wrong to advocate or enforce such "laws". (Any "legitimate" massage provider who tipped off the LEOs to the prostitution should be shunned into bankruptcy. It isn't as if they were actual competitors... or were they?)

I'm certainly not perfect, and I have my preferences and opinions. Yet I recognize that liberty is the closest to "perfect" there is, and I can set aside my petty short-term desires to work toward that which I really want. Liberty for ALL, which includes me and those I love. You can't damage your enemy's liberty without doing damage to your own. This is a textbook example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It is just a simple truth, and it just isn't worth it.

When Tea Partiers, or anyone else who claims to value liberty, supports these enemies of liberty and their anti-liberty agenda it shows they haven't thought it through, or they are lying.

*
Donate?

You've got better things to do than vote

You've got better things to do than vote

And here are a few things to remind yourself of that truth in case you get tempted to play the rigged game:

* * *

"They're quick and slick, they're insincere..."
Yes, I know that line was originally referring to heffalumps and woozles, but it applies at least equally well to Democrats and Republicans (or any politician for that matter). You'll be surprised at how appropriate to politics this little song is. (I'm surprised no one has ever put the song to photos and clips of politicians who fit every description in the song.) Enjoy it and pay attention to the words: Heffalumps and Woozles.

* * *

From the blog of Kevin Wilmeth, the former and greatly missed Anchorage Libertarian Examiner, comes this explanation of how to (bring yourself to) vote on Election Day.

* * *

Feel free to Mock the Vote from wherever you happen to find yourself when the thought crosses your mind. Don't bother going to the polls to do it, or the vote will be mocking YOU.

* * *

For those of you interested in a local angle, here's an article by the amazing Will Grigg on a home-grown Albuquerque thug. An absolutely disgusting excuse for a human, but it's good to be aware that these parasites walk among us. People like this show why voting will never increase your liberty. You will still be forced to resist and break thugs of this sort at some point if liberty is to be rescued. Might as well get used to the idea.

* * *

I think, for my own amusement, I'll print out, on adhesive paper, the "button" I made to illustrate this article and wear it when I go out today. Feel free to use it, too, if you want.

*
Donate?

Election day approaches- Avoid the trap (Don't vote!)

Election day approaches- Avoid the trap

I'm completely serious: Don't vote!

I'm not even saying you shouldn't vote because it lends a false air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Or because it encourages them- the control-freaks- to keep on "governing" as long as people keep consenting to be governed. I won't point out that if non-voting were not a threat to the illegitimate system, they wouldn't keep pressing that idea of "It doesn't matter WHO you vote for, just VOTE!" I won't even tell you you shouldn't vote because it is wrong for a majority to violate the rights of even one person.

Those are all true, of course, but not why I say today "Don't vote".

There are more practical reasons. Such as voting is an utter waste of your time. You could always find something more meaningful to be doing. The system is completely and totally rigged, and you can not improve the quality of your life one iota, in Albuquerque or anywhere else, by voting. Don't vote!

If you have any brains, yet vote anyway, your vote will be drowned out by the vast numbers of voters who are clueless idiots and vote with their feelings. That's how Mr. Hopenchange got elected, you know. And how Mr. "Withus-er-with-the-terrerists" got elected before that. While most people mean well, most people are not smart enough or aware of reality enough that they should be deciding anything for anyone else, even if doing so were not wrong. They feel that new "laws" will actually help people, and they allow themselves to be led down whatever path the Rulers point them toward. Don't be like them. Don't vote.

No candidate who would actually be a threat to the status quo will ever be allowed to take office, if they even manage to get on the ballot and then get enough votes counted in their favor to win. Never. Democrats and Republicans have the game fixed. Tea Party Republicrats are not serious about smaller government, except on the socially "conservative" (and still completely statist) issues they value, and LP candidates who are on the ballot are not going to be rogue enough to change anything, and may even be statist wolves in libertarian clothing. Even if they are liberty-embracing good guys, they will be powerless while the rest of the establishment politicians and bureaucrats conspire to fight over who gets to control the rudder of the government train while knowing that whoever wins the election, the train will stay on the tracks. If one side [sic] wins, they will advance their own anti-liberty agenda for a while, until the other side [sic] wins, and then an anti-liberty agenda coming from a different direction will be advanced. It's just like being swallowed by a snake. Yet there are some agenda items that remain the same through it all. Such as The War on (some) Drugs and the War on Guns. And theft in the name of entitlements and military spending. Police State USA will never be threatened by those working within the system.

Don't vote!

Even in cases where you feel you are voting in self defense such as against a tax or for "legalization" of marijuana, if the results are unpleasant enough for the government or take away some power, the results will be ignored. "Legalizing" pot, but then "taxing and regulating" it is no real improvement. You are just shifting the enforcement power to a different branch of government. And that power will still be used to steal money, and to kidnap and kill innocent people. Remember that "gun control", such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, wasn't originally a ban on functional firearms and safety equipment, but a "tax" scheme. Look how many people have been destroyed or killed through that.

Don't waste your time voting. Actually do something real, and ignore or violate the results of the election in whatever way you can until the train of The State goes off the cliff. Jump off now while you still can. Don't vote.

Since it is claimed that government exists by the consent of "the governed", remove your consent by refusing to participate in the rigged game that is placed before you. I do NOT consent. I will not be legitimizing those who seek to use you for Soylent Green. I will not be asking that force be used against you just because you are in the "minority". Not on my behalf! I will not be voting.

Join me. Don't vote.

*
Donate?

"The werewolf" (Happy Halloween!)

So, here's the deal: I'm a werewolf.

Of course, being one, I know that a werewolf is no more a "wolf" than a koala bear is a bear, or a guinea pig is a pig. It's just a case of convergent evolution that makes a primate look somewhat wolf-like; similar to the way a marsupial mole, which is more related to wombats than moles, looks very much like a regular garden-variety mole. The similarity goes beyond appearances so that the werewolf exhibits some very wolf-like behaviors. Except for the urge to be a part of a pack. Werewolves are not very social with one another. And those computer-generated "werewolves" seen in recent sappy, love-sick teen movies... those would just be "shape-shifters" turning into wolves, if they were real. Which they aren't! They are really pretty insulting to us. I suppose it's just entertainment; not to be taken too seriously. Not that all this explanation has anything to do with anything. It's just in my nature to ramble on about things no one really cares about. If you encounter one of us these distinctions will not seem important.

I first discovered my "talents" as a teenager when I was surrounded by a pack of feral dogs in the woods where I roamed as a youngster. I have always had a "problem" with dogs. It's not that I don't like them, exactly, but there is some primal rivalry there. And when I see dogs my teeth ache and an almost overwhelming urge to bite them rises up inside of me and settles in my jawbones under my teeth. At least that's the only way I can describe the feeling.

Anyway, back to the feral dogs. They had me treed, without a weapon. But as I sat up there a change began to take place. I can't say for sure that it was a physical change that time, but it was certainly a change. I began to growl deep in my throat, without even intending to. The dogs became unsettled. Instead of looking at me as something to attack, they began backing away from the tree while still watching me. My fear was evaporating as the dogs became more uncomfortable. Suddenly I just got out of the tree and the dogs took one look at me and ran. Fast! They never bothered me again, which was a relief as they had made my wanderings less pleasant than I would have liked.

This part of my nature has saved me from aggressive dogs on several occasions. My lip curls, my teeth are bared, and the growl wells up from inside. The dog backs down.

There have been other times the werewolf has manifested itself as well. I know I have always had a tendency to howl at the moon. People just thought it was a quirk. They had no clue at the compulsion I felt and how I felt if I repressed the urge. It was almost as if I were drowning if I didn't let myself howl. A feeling of becoming something different- something "other"- would then flow through my entire body. It felt good. It was also a relief.

I soon discovered that if I were joking around with people, growling, and generally acting like a wolf, and if I didn't stop soon, it would take over. I would become animalistic and my human side would be submerged and become almost unreachable. It would be very hard to stay tame and to change back. Honestly, it scared me a bit the first few times it happened. I have mostly gotten control of that now. As long as no one backs me into a corner.

I think only one person who knows me has really seen the "werewolf me", and then only once. My first ex-wife was reading once when I entered the room. For some reason I growled and leaped in as I did. She screamed and recoiled so severely, with such an expression of terror on her face, that I panicked and looked behind me, certain from the reaction she gave that an indescribable demon was at my heels about to grab me from behind. Nope. It was just me. I tried apologizing but it wasn't very effective. And I was still terrified, too. I then knew this power I had needed to be controlled and kept hidden. I think I've done fairly well. But it is part of the reason I need large empty spaces to roam. I can't keep the werewolf bottled up all the time, and letting it out around people is a problem. Even at night.

It is still mostly dogs that seem to "know", and who trigger my "toothache" by their presence. You can't be expected to understand the craving to bite them that flows up my body and settles underneath my teeth. It feels as though my teeth will pop out of their sockets if I don't satisfy that urge.

So, the next time that person in line next to you seems to give off a different vibe, or seems a little wild and dangerous, listen to your instincts. Not all werewolves refuse to initiate force. Some may be authoritarians.

Trick or Treated like a criminal

Trick or Treated like a criminal

If a "registered sex offender" once lived at your address, and moved without telling the authorities, or if the address is read wrong, you may get a surprise visit from a real pervert. And if you are not prepared to instantly comply with his aggressive demands to provide ID upon his (illegal and evil) request, expect to be violated in one or more ways.

Federal Marshalls, the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, and the New Mexico Probation and Parole Office will be checking up on those people who appear on the incomplete, inaccurate, and utterly useless "sex offender registry" on Halloween night in Albuquerque and Las Cruces. Be warned.

The standard collectivist/authoritarian lie is being dragged out of its coffin, propped up, and dusted off: "the effort is aimed at making sure children are safe". Sure it is.

* * *

Want to really frighten your mainstream (probably even voting!) neighbors on this spooky and fun day? Dress as Liberty. Not the pitiful, harmless statue that commonly goes by that name, but REAL Liberty. The freedom to exercise your rights. All of them. A real Liberty who has the determination to back it up with justified, righteous force if those rights are violated in any way. Not aggressive; not looking for a fight; but a staunch refusal to be prey. That's what scares so many collectivists out of their droopy, soiled diapers these days.

*
Donate?

Another attack on your right to drive

Another attack on your right to drive

*
Donate?

Pomeranian held hostage by abusers in city shelter

Pomeranian held hostage by abusers in city shelter

Some rules, such as "Don't attack", "Don't steal", or "Keep your (non-coerced) word" always make sense. Most other rules, especially arbitrary government or bureaucratic rules, don't. They are a substitute for thought. Just as "zero tolerance" policies in schools frequently forbid the "authorities" from distinguishing between a butter knife and a switchblade (both have their legitimate uses and neither should be forbidden anywhere), so do the rest of government's rules remove the human element- discernment- from the equation.

Now a family is suffering from bureaucratic mindlessness, as is their dog. Their pomeranian is being held by Albuquerque's Eastside Shelter, and the "law" says the dog can't go home until it has been neutered. But this particular pomeranian is a breeder. To neuter it would devalue the family's property. It's like if every time the city "impounded" (stole) a vehicle, it refused to give back the stolen property until the seats had been removed. And that's in addition to the ransom being paid.

To have a "no exceptions" policy that is based on anything less than an ethical principle is wrong. And there is no ethical principle that demands that you neuter someone else's dog. In fact, the ethical principle is that you shouldn't damage other people's property. But, governments shouldn't steal or lie or attack the innocent either, so their inability to grasp this simple concept isn't surprising. Evil can be found in the most trivial of places and is upheld by the most stupid of people. Why not tell them about it?

*
Donate?

ABQ couple had chemicals, guns, and books in home

ABQ couple had chemicals, guns, and books in home

An Albuquerque couple is in trouble for the chemicals they had in their home. Also, if the story is true, the male half of the couple initiated force against an innocent man. It gave the authorities a good excuse to whip up a dramatic overreaction so they could be seen to be "doing something". However, if his bombs don't work any better than he shoots, probably no one was in much danger.

I have to shake my head when I hear some authority get breathless over "dangerous chemicals". Every home is full of dangerous chemicals. It is the way they are stored and used that can be the problem. I see no indication this was the case. With this couple it is the fact that The State is scared (or wants to make people believe) that the chemicals might have been intended to be used against its assets that is the issue.

Other non-issues are also being brought up. Specifically that the home contained firearms, "biohazard materials", and books. Every home on the planet should contain several firearms. I would bet that many homes also have books that contain information about making explosives. And every home also contains "biohazard material" if you listen to The State and mainstream health authorities.

I see nothing other than the attack on the innocent man that requires any response from any third party. And that's assuming the innocent man really is innocent.

*
Donate?

How is your hoard of lead?

With the approaching elections comes the possibility of unhappy voters. While I doubt anything too serious will come of their unhappiness (voters are too easily placated), it is never a bad idea to use this as an excuse to check up on your stocks and supplies. Any excuse to do what you should do anyway, right?

One thing I like to inventory (and re-stock) from time to time is my supply of ammo. Like most other emergency supplies, even if you don't "need" it, you can always use it. And you can never have enough of it. It's just fun to go out and shoot up a few boxes for relaxation, and it is useful fun that keeps your skills honed.

Plus, it makes a great gift in my opinion- I have never gotten ammo from someone and wished I had gotten something else. (hint, hint- if any of my family is reading)


I also look at my stock of ammo as a bank account of sorts; even calibers you don't use in your own guns make good trade goods- and, with the Fed's vigorous counterfeiting operation, it will hold its value better than FRNs. So, check out your stocks, and refill any gaps.



Disclaimer: I did get paid for this endorsement. However, I have been a customer of theirs for years and have always gotten great service and have always been more than satisfied. I wouldn't have agreed to this had it been otherwise.

Bernalillo County bans bullying

Bernalillo County bans bullying

Cool! Bernalillo County (that's Albuquerque) says it now has "zero tolerance" for bullying. Now, normally I equate "zero tolerance" with zero brains since it doesn't allow for actual thought or discernment to go into the process, but maybe in this case it's a good thing. Bullying is always an initiation of force or coercion; something I have no tolerance for either.

So no more enforcement of counterfeit "laws"! No more innocent people being bullied for smoking a plant, or for carrying a gun, or for refusing to hand over their own property to those who would like to steal it! Right? So let's watch the news about the announcement together.

Oh, wait, it seems some bullying is still OK with the authorities, just not freelance bullying by young people. I knew it was too good to be true. It's those statist double standards again.

*
Donate?

Is libertarianism an 'ivory tower'?

Is libertarianism an 'ivory tower'?

I was told yesterday that I live in an Ivory Tower. Nice! But it doesn't seem to lift me beyond the height of the ground around me, and it's made out of reddish-brown sandy dirt instead of ivory.

The assertion of my ivory-tower dwelling was made because I claim that voluntary charity is better than coerced welfare, and that instead of government protecting "the weak" from "the strong", it has become "the strong" that preys on "the weak" and it therefore attracts the very worst of "the strong" who wish to prey on others with impunity.

I assure you I would qualify for all sorts of government "benefits" due to my income and situation. I could also "benefit" by using government against people who have harmed me. Many people don't understand why I refuse to take advantage of the government's offers of "help". It's because the cost of "free" is too high for me to afford.

It is pure delusion to claim that The State is in any way good or beneficial. The real problems of real life can not be solved with coercion; only shifted, rearranged, or delayed. They accrue compound interest as well while you move them around to avoid dealing with them. That's the reality, no matter what some might wish.

Respecting liberty and the rights of others always works, in real life, every single time it is applied. That isn't "ivory tower", that's the real world.

In Albuquerque news: Some robbers in Albuquerque may have learned the lesson that if you are going to rob people, you should make certain your get-away car isn't visible to your victims, and that your tank has enough gas to actually get away. They probably should have taken the safer course for thieves and gotten cushy government jobs instead.

*
Donate?

Opposites, but both still wrong

Opposites, but both still wrong

The two "mainstream" politicians who are trying to fool you into consenting to one of them being appointed governor of New Mexico express their opinions on "social issues" in this article from Albuquerque's KOB.com: link

I could go down point-by-point to show where they are both completely, pathetically wrong, even when one seemingly "supports" the correct side (usually Denish, on these issues). I'll assume you are smart enough to do that on your own if you care about the opinions of a couple of authoritarian sociopaths. (But feel free to discuss specifics in the comments below if you feel I am being too harsh, or can't see where one is wrong.)

There is really only one "social issue"- the right to live without being molested. Everything derives from that. Voting for a politician only ensures that someone, somewhere, will be molested in the name of "The Greater Good".

That molestation may be a consequence of a "drug law". It may result from some violation of property rights, such as a "property code" or a license plate "requirement", or a property "tax". That molestation may come when a reasonable, self-responsible person is kidnapped for keeping and "bearing" (which means carrying) a firearm. It may come from double standards which make the same act "legal" in some situations for some people, and "illegal" in similar situations for other people.

There is no real way to separate "social issues" from "economic issues". It is only about liberty. Liberty is completely entangled and inseparable. It is a tapestry that is damaged by trying to pull out any one thread as an exception. Violations of your "social rights" are also violations of your "economic rights", and vice versa. To pretend there is a dichotomy is dishonest and is only of benefit to those who with to rule and enslave others. Don't fall for it. Don't vote.

*
Donate?

Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?

Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?

(And this is one of those times I actually have the meat of the post after the obligatory ABQ stuff.)

State Senator Mary Jane Garcia was mugged and robbed September 16 outside of a hotel in Albuquerque. So, although she seems to be recovering, she now considers herself a victim who is entitled to sue the hotel because they didn't have security guards patrolling around the hotel that day. Never mind that her safety is first and foremost her own responsibility.

She has said that as a result of the mugging she is more aware of the affects of criminal violence, and that she intends to be much more active in promoting "support for victims". She says she wants "women to be more aware of what they can do to protect themselves". Good. I expect to see her become very active in fighting the repeal of "laws" that make it harder for people to own and to carry weapons with them everywhere they go. If she does anything else, she is a liar and a hypocrite. And a typical statist.

Speaking of statists:

Some people can't tell the difference between being coerced and having someone else refuse to be coerced. It seems strange, but it's true.

My young daughter gets mad when she wants me to do something that I am not willing to do at the moment. I wanted to eat lunch today and she had a fit because she didn't want me to stop playing to eat. I told her she could keep playing but I needed to eat. My choice didn't really affect her in any way other than the fact that for a while she'd need to play alone. I had to assert my right to act for myself.

I have also had other people in my life whose attitudes were no more mature than that. As an example: one woman I was involved with insisted on going to karaoke with me, even though she hated going and did nothing but cry, complain, and whine (except when she was trying to start fights) while there. Obviously, I would have preferred she not go. In other circumstances, when she wanted to force me to go somewhere I didn't want to go or do something I was not willing to do, she would say "But you force me to go to karaoke with you and I HATE it!" No, I simply was going and she insisted on going along to make sure I didn't enjoy myself too much. Her choice. When I mentioned that there was a big difference between forcing someone to do something, and refusing to let someone force me to not do it, she would sulk.

The same is true of so many other people in "society". They hate guns so they try to claim it is an imposition on them if I carry one. They support the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs and claim it imposes on them if someone destroys themselves by abusing some substance. They claim that since they are forced to get government permits for certain activities, everyone else should have their liberty violated in the same way. It is a very childish attitude, to be sure.

*
Donate?

'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?

'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?

A man was shot multiple times and killed in what authorities are calling a suspected "drug deal-gone-bad" in Albuquerque.

I have worked in businesses where deals are made all the time. Mostly I worked in pet stores. I don't remember any neon tetra deals that "went bad". Why did none of those deals go bad and result in murders? Why do only "drug deals" seem to precipitate this kind of aggression? Oh, yeah: prohibition.

*
Donate?