Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Seems there might be a systemic problem in the "corrections" business.

An Albuquerque corrections officer has been arrested for raping a female inmate and for also allowing another inmate (who just happens to be a former corrections officer who is in jail for raping female inmates) to, once again, rape a female inmate.

It's like the Milgram Experiment being run full-scale with real-life consequences and no one to step in and stop it before it goes too far. Am I the only one who sees the evil of this? Especially considering how many of the inmates are in jail, not for doing anything wrong, but simply as political prisoners.

Once is too many times. Twice is horrible. How many times have not been reported, and how many other rapists are working for corrections [sic] facilities?

*

Please check out all my videos at KentForLiberty.com/videos. And feel free to spread them around.

*
Donate?

State should stay out of private life

State should stay out of private life

As a libertarian, I'm accustomed to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. So many times commenters think they are being clever and have caught an error in libertarianism, only to reveal they didn't read or hear what was being said.

Case in point: a while ago, in a comment posted to an article in the Clovis News Journal about the election day failure of the bond issues for the local punishment industry, I observed that the "justice system" would be much cheaper and better if counterfeit "laws" were not being enforced. These are the "laws" the violation of which have no specific, individual victims; are expressions of self-ownership; or are consensual acts between responsible individuals which are no one's business except those involved.

Drug use, gun possession, most traffic "laws", prostitution, and things of this nature should never have been made into things The State seeks to regulate, prohibit, or control. Things that are actually wrong, such as theft or fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, and murder would still be subject to punishment or, better yet, restitution. No one has a right to control your private life unless you violate the identical rights of others by infringing on their life or property.

However, if your drug use, your religious beliefs, your job, or anything else is used as an excuse for committing harmful acts (such as theft or assault), you are liable for the harm you caused and your rationale is meaningless. Wrong is wrong.

One reply to my comment sarcastically stated something to the effect that of course the "crime rate" would go down if assault and robbery were made legal. That the commenter completely missed my entire point was obvious. This is a source of frustration; not those who read and understand, yet disagree. They may be wrong, but their wrongness is at least based upon their principles and value system (flawed and inconsistent as those may be) rather than upon the belief I am advocating the opposite of what I am.

Often I want to reply that the commenter should have his mom re-read my comment to him, pointing out specifically the main thrust of my argument which pulls the rug out from under his snarky reply. Then I realize I would probably be wasting my time. It's better to just ignore those types. The problem is that they believe government can be the solution, and they vote based on that mistaken conviction. This should scare anyone who has sense.

(This is as I submitted it, not as it was published.)

Concert raided; violations invented

Concert raided; violations invented

The man who organized the concert that was raided by Albuquerque LEOs, who called it a "rave", is being singled out for the wrong thing.

Providing entertainment that is voluntary and initiates no force or fraud against anyone is not wrong. Tricking people into becoming a slave of the federal government is wrong. He organized the concert but he is also a national guard recruiter. Let's get our priorities straight.

I always wonder who alerts the LEOs to events such as this concert. Busybodiness should have consequences.

I see no allegations that anything wrong was going on, or that anyone was harmed. Of course, the "officials" were able to find "code violations". There is no building on earth that would be completely free of these if examined close enough. The "officials" also say that "underage girls" were wearing "very inappropriate outfits". So what? What gives the "officials" the authority to decide what is inappropriate for anyone else?

There exists in authoritarians the perverted desire to make certain that no one has any fun (except for their own guys who get a thrill out of their acts of coercion and control). I'll not excuse their harmful perversion.

*
Donate?

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Albuquerque city officials are furious that someone took matters into their own hands and did a little freelance tree pruning. Practicing on some trees the city planted.

Yes, the pruning job was amateurish and may cause the trees to die (probably not as a direct result of the trimming, but as a result of the city removing the trimmed trees). Added to that, the city is reacting like a spoiled brat and throwing a tantrum over the incident. It's amusing to see.

Yet, government does the exact same thing to people's property all the time. With even less justification (assuming the city is correct about the reason the trees were pruned). They never let themselves be held accountable for the results of their actions. It just goes to show that government employees think they are an elite class; above everyone else. Their wishes and opinions become "law", while ours, if acted upon, are crimes.

*
Donate?

Dependent on the bully?

(This was submitted as my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected, so I am free to post it here instead. The air base is totally off-limits as a topic for me to write about in the paper.)

This area has an addiction and Cannon Air Force Base is the drug. Just look at what happened when the community was threatened with having the drug taken away. The resulting uproar was what you would expect of an addict faced with losing his supply.

As a libertarian I respect the right of an addict to use any substance he wants as long as he harms no one else. That means not stealing to support the habit, and not attacking anyone while using the addiction as an excuse. As long as he harms no one else it is none of my business what he chooses to do with himself, even if it means destroying himself in the process. [Note: I didn't really expect that the majority of CNJ readers would connect the dots that in this case, the government is stealing the money to "pay for" the air base, but I was trying to avoid mentioning, once again, that taxation is theft.]

I will still point out that addictions are not healthy and try to talk the addict out of his self-destructive behavior just because I care, but the final choice is always up to the addict.

Would breaking the addiction really be fatal to this area as so many seem to think? Or, as is usually the case, would it seem much less critical after the withdrawal symptoms had run their course? Wouldn't there be a freedom in not feeling that your survival is tied to someone else's benevolence? I think there would be. Would the community survive? Yes. There would be changes and adjustments, and life would go on. Don't ever let anyone make you think you need to beg them to keep you alive and healthy.

Personally, I think this community has an inferiority complex that is not realistic. There are a lot of good people here, and a lot of opportunities. It's easy for each of us to become a better person and make even more opportunities. Stop letting the few bad guys who do the majority of the bad things be your defining example of the area. Outshine them. Then maybe you won't tie your self worth to something that is really not within your control.

If it is what you want to do, embrace and celebrate the air base, but don't let it hold you hostage and don't let it bully you.

"Covenant of Unanimous Consent" video

*
Donate?

"Bubble of Personal Property" video

Here's my least popular idea, in video form!



Or you can watch the full length version:


*
Donate?

Government 'services'

There are different types of government "services" and different ways of dealing with them.

First off, there are the services that are harmless (other than in how they are financed). Libraries and zoos fall into this category. These things do not intrude upon the lives of those who have no interest in them. Don't like the library? Ignore it and no book police will come to your house and force books upon you. In a free society, let them be run by private individuals and funded voluntarily, rather than how it is usually done today, and there is nothing wrong with them. People could then choose to use them or not, and if not, they aren't forced to pay for that which they don't use.

Those voluntary services I have little problem using, even when government run, though I'd rather have the option of using privately funded alternatives.

Another category is the things that may be necessary but are monopolized by governments, so become a bureaucratic and regulatory burden. Things like roads and water systems. There is no reason to prohibit competition or to have government provide these things at all. If it really is necessary, someone will find a way to do it without coercion and theft.

The last category is less justifiable. This includes all those things that shouldn't be done at all. Things like (modern) police, bureaucrats, tax collectors, meter maids, code enforcement, and other coercive, property rights-violating, "services". These things have no value to individuals (and, by extension, civilization) and should not be done, and wouldn't be done if they didn't rely on theft, "taxation", to fund them.

This last category I would like to see done away with so utterly, completely, and totally that even the memory that they once existed is fuzzy.

*

An Albuquerque man gets to stay in his apartment a little longer due to an impossibility- or at least something statists claim is impossible: the generosity of individuals who were not forced at gun-point to help someone in need. I can't tell you how often statist claim that things like this would never happen without government coercion. Yet they do happen and here is proof.

*
Donate?

"Love it or leave it"- the video

"Love it or Leave it"

Suppose I am the "head of the household", and as such I claim to have certain rules for living under my roof.

Say I reserve the authority (not "the right" as no such right could ever exist) to stop and search any family member at any time. Not just while they were under my roof, but anywhere they might be.

Suppose I make up rules regarding how fast they may walk in the house (even in their own room, and even if no one else is present), what they are allowed to buy with their own money, and how much of their money they must turn over to me- not for rent, which is charged separately, but just for the privilege of existing. Suppose I dictate what color sheets they are allowed to put on their bed, or what they can read while relaxing there. Suppose I make them pay a ransom on each thing they buy with their own money.

Suppose I tell them I own their body and dictate what they can and can't do with themselves. What they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest.

I will also demand they allow me to photograph them naked or grope their body in an intimate and invasive way before they leave the house, or perhaps even when they try to go from room to room in the house.

I, backed up by the other members of the house who see nothing wrong with this system, say "if you don't like it, move in with another family somewhere." If the unhappy person decides they don't like living in the house, under my rules, they can theoretically move out, but only with my permission and under my conditions. Even if they move out they will still be ordered to hand over a percentage of the money they will earn. Plus, I will demand they give me most of their property before they leave. If they don't want to abandon their property or other loved ones to the abusive "head of household" they are told "then shut up and stop complaining!"

Such a "head of household" would be an abusive, insane, monster who would be subject to self defensive actions by those he abuses.

Welcome to the America of the "Love it or leave it" taterheads.

(See the video version, too!)

*

In Albuquerque news: A "fugitive" is being sought by The Law after slipping out of his ankle monitor. Seems to me he wasn't "a fugitive" until after he got rid of the tracking device.

He has been convicted of nothing yet, but is said to be a "Mexican national" and is facing "federal narcotics trafficking" charges. Neither of those things are wrong, and if he actually committed aggression or theft, why are those things not the crimes he is being charged with? Because the law is a sham.

*

Donate?

Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property

Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property

Albuquerque "authorities" have violated another person's property rights- and more. With the help of neighbors who did the wrong thing, probably because it was easy.

The neighbors called the city complaining about "the house". That involved the authorities who decided it was within their authority to tell the woman she couldn't let her adult sons live with her. So, while checking up to make sure their edicts had been obeyed, LEOs found "drugs" in the home and arrested two of the sons.

Of course, the city claims it has the woman's best interests at heart. Conditions in the home were "terrible". "It's not safe for her," the spokescritter benevolently proclaims. And they also have the common good in mind with their acts of aggression, coercion, and theft, saying "It's not safe for any visitors, and it's certainly not safe for the neighborhood."

Shame on the city and shame on the bad neighbors who instead of seeking to help, bludgeoned this elderly woman with The State.

*

Donate?

"Theft by any other name" video

I thought I'd try my hand at something a little different. What do you think?
*
Donate?

Passed-out drunk cop off the hook

Passed-out drunk cop off the hook

The (now former) Albuquerque cop who was found passed-out drunk in his car on the side of the road has had the charges dropped.

As I have said before, he did the right thing. If you realize you are too drunk to drive you should stop driving. Immediately. "Laws" that would punish you for being responsible and doing the right thing are wrong.

However, the case that the judge cited as the reason he was dropping the cop's case differs in a rather substantial way. That man was passed out in the driver's seat, but the vehicle's keys were on the passenger seat. The state supreme court said there wasn't enough evidence that he had actually been driving. I agree. In this cop's case, he was on the side of the interstate, with the keys in the ignition, with the vehicle running. Any idiot could deduce he had been driving. If he were not an "Only One" I think the case would not have been dropped under these circumstances. I despise double standards.

Suggested by the author:

• Drunk Albuquerque cop gets preferential treatment
• The 'Sleep it off' bill
• Government protects its own
• State Supreme Court does right thing; overturns nonsensical DWI conviction

*
Donate?

Statists following the script

Why is it perfectly OK- normal and natural, in fact- to point out the evils of stealing, kidnapping, or raping when done by freelance thugs, but it becomes "whining" when pointing out the exact same acts by government employees? On top of that ridiculousness, the supporters of those government parasite thugs expect us to thank them for "giving us freedom". What a crock promoted by a bunch of idiots.

It's like a really bad joke where no one even remembers the punchline anymore. And, then, inevitably, they'll whip out the old "Love it or leave it" nonsense- usually mentioning Somalia as a place where we rational people should go and die. (Of course, Somalia is not an anarchy, but a mess of wanna-be governments fighting among themselves- killing scores of innocent people in the process- and where threatened governments of the world try desperately to impose some sort of government on the population, or at least make certain to keep peace from spontaneously occurring, lest it expose the government lie. Somalia is "politics" in its most pure form.)

It's like a script that government worshipers follow anytime their sacred cow is poked. And it fails because it is all one huge lie. It's pathetic that they can't think independently enough to come up with new excuses and a new script, but if they could think independently, they wouldn't be copsuckers and government enthusiasts, would they.

No obligation to stick with job

No obligation to stick with job

Curry County employees really want a pay raise. Is there anyone who doesn’t?

Even libertarian opinionizing isn’t as profitable as you might imagine (and yes, I’m being silly).

There is no reason to feel an obligation to continue to work in a job that doesn’t pay what you think you are worth if you can find something better. Weigh the pros and cons. If you can’t find something better, maybe you need to come to grips with what your skills are really worth.

Remembering that government jobs pay substantially more on average than private, market-based jobs makes me suspect I know why those who work for the county don’t get out of the government job and find honest work somewhere; adding value to the economy rather than being a drain on it.

I suppose some would claim a sense of being a part of “something important” as their justification. This is misguided.

It isn’t noble or selfless to work for government. Civilization will keep going just fine without government keeping a watchful eye on every little detail.

It has been noted there are only two ways to get money: by economic means and by political means. By giving people that which they are willing to pay for, or by saying to them “your money or your life.”

If the job is really necessary, someone will find a way to do it without financing it with money coercively taken from its rightful owners. If the job can’t be done without forcing people to pay for it, it shouldn’t be done at all.

Most people in the private sector can get more money by helping their bosses make more profit — by making customers happy, by cutting overhead, by being more productive or efficient. Some might even do so by dishonest means, which often get exposed and can cause economic disaster to the boss and the business as a whole.

Most jobs must produce something of value in exchange for the money those doing the jobs are paid.

Only government increases its profit by stealing more from those who produce to give to those who regulate, meddle, file, fold, staple and mutilate. Government jobs produce only bureaucracy.

This isn’t a very nice way to earn money, even when you can get people to vote that their neighbors can’t be looted to pay for it. Nothing is stopping you from donating your own money to the county government, if that’s what you really want to do. It is wrong to decide your neighbor must pay more, too.

Noting that county employees must get permission for a second job should raise an alarm. If this is necessary it means that in their job as a county employee they have too much power, which could be abused or influenced.

The State acts like a psychotic parent

Government is like a psychotic parent who can't let go. If you ask permission, for anything that would indicate a level of "adult" responsibility for you to do, it will say no. Why, if you are responsible, would you ask permission?

Just do it yourself without asking, when you reach the level of maturity where you want to and can. The government will still be angry that you didn't ask and didn't need its permission, but it is the one with the problem, not you.

Subway robbed, employees shot

Subway robbed, employees shot

Is it worth your life to work in a place which doesn't allow you to be prepared to defend your life (and the lives of your customers) properly?

Two employees of a Subway sandwich shop were shot and locked in the cooler by a robber early this morning (Monday) in Albuquerque. They are expected to recover.

I have no idea whether Subway respects the rights of its employees (I could find no information on the subject at their website), but based upon my observations of most, if not all, corporations (which are a government-created entity with no real rights) I would bet the employees are forbidden to carry the tools of effective self defense. This time, they were lucky to survive.

If Subway does forbid employees to carry firearms on the job, those injured in this robbery should expect the corporation to attempt to compensate them for their injuries and suffering. Prevent self defense and you are responsible for any harm that comes to anyone while on your property. No exceptions.

*
Donate?

Death memorial equity

Curry County is wanting names to add to its "DWI Memorial" at the courthouse. Statist propaganda that feeds off of emotionalism!

Why not have a memorial to all those murdered by government in the past hundred years or so? Too many to be realistically manageable for a memorial? What about the past quarter century then? Probably still too big and too embarrassing to the supporters of The State.

Revolution!

Everyone has the right to act in self defense- with violence, if necessary. If enough people exercise that right at the same time, against their attackers who all work for the same gang, and that gang happens to be The State, this becomes a revolution.

Revolution can not be made "illegal" by the organization that employs the attackers anymore than freelance murderers or robbers could band together and form a fraternity that declares that it is "illegal" to resist them. If the attackers don't wish to be resisted and perhaps killed, they should stop attacking and stealing. They should repudiate the fraternity of aggression and stop supporting those who still work for it. Or they should shut up when the chickens come home to roost.

Response to CNJ letter to editor- UPDATED

(I was not allowed to respond in the paper, due to a policy of letting the readers have the last word, so I am posting this here instead. My original column is here, and the letter I am responding to is here.)

I was quite excited to see the response by Karl D. Spence to my most recent column. I was slightly disappointed, however, to find he missed my point. Perhaps it gives me an opportunity to clarify some things.

My stance is not so much "anti-government" as it is pro-liberty. Other individuals and groups of individuals can threaten liberty just as much as The State, but those other threats are not usually protected from the consequences of their actions by quite as large a gang, and are not protected by the illusion of legitimacy that has been draped around The State and its actions. However, if someone considers it "anti-government" to be pro-liberty, I will wear that label with honor.

I'd like to address the main points in the letter. Is the city actually keeping the hotel "from continued deterioration" or does it continue to deteriorate? Why is there "no other entity" that could do the same (does it have anything to do with any of the consequences of government action I mentioned?), and why, if it is true that the city has both kept the hotel from continued deterioration AND that no one but the city could have done so, is that goal more important than keeping government out of the real estate business and from using stolen money?

But, I see Mr. Spence has an issue with me calling a spade a spade. Taxation IS theft. Anytime property, such as money, is taken from its owner when that owner would prefer to keep it for his own use, it is theft. If you trade the hours of your life for money, you own that money just as surely as you owned the hours you traded for it. Once they are gone they can never be regained. If the owners of that money did not prefer to keep their own property there would be no need to threaten or penalize people in order to get them to pay "taxes". An act doesn't change its nature simply because the perpetrator has a badge or a government job.

If taxes must be taken to pay for something, it is not necessary. There is no good reason roads must be government-owned. Do you think you use roads "for free" now? You don't. Parks suffer from "the tragedy of the commons". (Have you not been to a city park recently? I have.) Cities which have eliminated traffic lights and all other traffic signals have seen a dramatic reduction in accidents and an increase in courteous driving. What is the benefit in not following suit? I don't need police patrols, and neither do you. It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself (and those around you if you see them being harmed). You can no more delegate that responsibility to anyone else than you can delegate another to eat, drink, or reproduce for you. Fire protection can be, and frequently has been, provided by independent fire departments which use member fees or donations for financing. I have written extensively on such excuses for keeping government around. Government, once again, is completely unnecessary.

Yes, I'm sure cities are happy to get the federal handouts, but receiving stolen property, when you know it is stolen, is just as wrong as doing the stealing yourself. Where does that "federal grant money" come from? Some comes from Clovis residents and some comes from people who have never heard of Clovis. Do you think Clovis gets more than was taken from its residents, or less? Does that make a difference in how you view it? Just because a thief promises to only use the money he takes from you to feed widows and orphans (after keeping a percentage for "expenses", of course) does not excuse or justify his act.

Like Mr. Spence, I also hope a productive use can be found for Hotel Clovis, but "productive" necessarily means without government intervention.

Update: I got a comment on that letter that can be found here and which I wanted to reply to. The main points are that my "ramblings" here make no sense, and that taxation can't be theft because no governments could exist without it, and the world couldn't function without taxation.

For some reason the site is not allowing me to comment, so until I can add the comment there, I'll post it here.

The thieves have convinced a majority of people to believe otherwise, but taxation is still theft.

As for the restaurant analogy, there is no comparison. Are you forced to eat at the restaurant? Are you required to eat at any restaurant and not allowed to prepare your own food instead? If you choose to eat at the restaurant are you not allowed to eat only what you can afford? Are you required to pay for other people's meals too? Restaurants must compete for your business and if you would rather not do business with them they don't send armed thugs to your house to make you pay up anyway.

Why do you believe governments ("city, state or country") are necessary? Rules based upon not harming the innocent are good, but these don't come from government, and all governments violate these foundational rules by their very existence.

Instead of taking money from people, let people pay for the services they want, from the provider they prefer. End the monopoly that is government.