Lawsuit at the ABQ corral

Lawsuit at the ABQ corral

The police union is suing the Albuquerque mayor over the issue of "take-home cars" that the LEOs had grown to feel entitled to. The union mouthpiece claims the new policy endangers "officer safety" and "public safety" [sic].

If the cops are scared when driving their own cars, I question their grasp of reality and wonder why cop cars are so much safer than yours or mine. If they feel endangered by this policy, they can always go out and get an actual dangerous job, rather than their cushy tax-suckling gig. The only time "public safety" [sic] is at risk is when those police cars are being used by police.

It's too bad that when government appendages sue one another it is our money that is wasted, because I sure do enjoy seeing the bad guys fight among themselves. It's like seeing two firing squads facing each others' ranks and just enjoying the show; while knowing that I had to buy both side's guns and ammo, uniforms and briefcases, and that I will be billed for the clean-up and the medical care of the survivors.

There is a glimmer of hope: The union says it will drop the lawsuit if the city council comes up with a "better alternative". Well, city council, here it is: fire all the cops and let people take responsibility for their own safety once more, without the "legal" hindrance of The State's anti-self defense "laws" getting in the way. It's the only thing that really works, after all.

*
Donate?

Only you can judge what is right

Only you can judge what is right

(Is it just me, or does the headline which was written for this column seem to say the polar opposite of my main point? I was trying to say that right and wrong are universal regardless of your opinions.)

Last week's column emphasized the need for each of us to do the right thing in order to improve society. Most commenters seemed to agree, but were not necessarily sure what "the right thing" is. Fair enough.

Real right and wrong are pretty easy to grasp as long as you aren't looking for excuses or shortcuts to get around them. They are not dependant upon opinions or the prevailing culture; these substitutes will lead you astray. Circumstances, "laws", or personal beliefs don't change wrong into right. Nor does "majority make right" in the case of believing it is OK for fifty percent, plus one, to be able to dictate, by "law", what others will be prohibited from doing. Most things are not up for a vote.

Avoiding doing the wrong thing is probably even more important than doing the right thing. It is never the right thing to cause harm- economic or physical damage- to someone who is not harming you. Put another way, it is never the right thing to attack someone; it is never the right thing to steal; it is never the right thing to deceive someone who is not harming or threatening you.

Beyond the actual wrongs, there will always be petty disagreements about this or that. If you don't like it, don't participate. If a friend insists on doing something you can't tolerate, and won't change to suit you, find a different friend. Don't cross the line by forcing the friend to do as you wish.

So, what is the right thing? It is the right thing to take responsibility for your actions and deal with the consequences that result. This does mean looking out for your own interests, but not at the expense of doing the wrong thing to others. After all, if you don't look out for yourself and your family, who will? The responsibility can fall on no one else. Your interests do not conflict with the genuine interests of others. It is right to protect your interests from all those who seek to violate them through aggression, theft, and fraud.

In many cases "doing the right thing" means you must learn to mind your own business and deal with being offended by the consensual behavior of those around you. It doesn't mean you have to like it or refrain from expressing your opinion, it just means you have no right to meddle or support "laws" that meddle in the lives of others. It means that you need to recognize that not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs that motivate you, and as long as they are not attacking, stealing, or defrauding anyone you need to leave them alone. After all, even YOU do things that offend someone.

(As submitted, not as published.)

*

And, if you can, Donate?

The future is a toss-up

Will the future be bright or will it be bleak?

Will scientific advances give us incredibly long, healthy, and prosperous lives?

Or will The State reward its elites with those advances while making the lives of the rest of us dreary, hopeless nightmares with the jackboot stomping the human face forever, while our private lives - along with our property and self determination- are a thing of the past. Make no mistake- this nightmare future is the future The State's architects (from the "left" and the "right") dream of subjecting us to, and they will unless stopped.

Right now it's a toss-up as to whether the forces of good or the forces of evil- those who seek to control the private, voluntary and non-aggressive behavior of others- will win.

At least in the short-term. In the long term, history shows that control freaks die violent deaths, in mass events, eventually.

War on America reaps more victims

War on America reaps more victims

Two young men have fallen victim to the thugs in blue. They were stopped and arrested on New Year's Eve for doing something about as "wrong" as walking across a room.

Their "crime"? Smoking marijuana and selling some to someone else. So now they face made-up charges including "conspiracy". Yeah, there's a conspiracy all right, but it is The State who is guilty in this one.

The only thing these young men did wrong was admitting anything to the LEO. Never speak to cops. Never.

If this gets to trial, which I hope it does since no one should ever plead "guilty", this is a good opportunity for a fully-informed jury to nullify the "law" in defense of justice.

The illusion of government efficacy

The State can give the illusion of working to those saddled with the misguided need to look and see someone "in control" and running things, even if that control is not real or is harmful.

For the rest of us, those who look at whether things are really working, we see that when left alone, people self-organize very efficiently. We see government as causing chaos. We see that society works best when meddled with least- and never from a "top-down" direction or through a coercive monopoly. Of course, the phrase "top-down" implies that Rulers are "above" us, which isn't even partially true.

The most pathetic drunk in the gutter is a better person than the most benevolent Ruler. At least the drunk is not telling you how to run your own life, and threatening to kill you if you defy him. Well, unless he is also a politician or a cop, that is.

LEO kills pedestrian

LEO kills pedestrian

The new year begins with death-by-cop in Albuquerque. And, of course, the knee-jerk response by The State is to check the dead man's system for intoxicants rather than checking the cop who was driving. The double standard is once again at work. Just imagine if you or I had run over a cop who was on foot on the street. Would the first reaction have been to check the cop's blood for alcohol, or would the driver have been the automatic suspect? We both know the answer to that.

The cop had spent the night involved in a "DWI checkpoint" and had just left the scene of that offense when he hit the pedestrian. This doesn't mean the cop was "clean", and only a blindly religious devotee of the US police state would make that assumption.

Now, perhaps the pedestrian really was at fault. It's likely that he at least shared responsibility for the accident. However, for the LEOs to get special treatment when an accident occurs only deepens the chasm between the agents of The State and the regular productive people of America.

This should also demonstrate that checkpoints don't make anyone safer, and in this case they tangentially killed someone. That cop had no legitimate excuse to be on the streets at that time, and probably would not have been had he not been leaving the scene of his violations of the rights to travel free from molestation and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Tyranny kills.

*

Donate?

Rationality- not terribly popular these days

I just really don't know how to respond to people anymore when their only justification for thinking a certain course of action is right or wrong is based upon superstition and imaginary beings who they believe are watching them.

I stopped even looking at the comments on one of my Clovis News Journal columns when the commentary devolved into "this is wrong- and must be kept illegal- because God says it is wrong".

I'm sorry, but if you get your notions of right and wrong from a supposedly immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient supreme being who is fine and dandy with, and completely supportive of, slavery, genocide, and other things that are harmful to innocent people (and, yes, I am fully qualified to judge that most victims of these horrors do not deserve them), then you have no principles and no moral compass. You will fall for anything as long as some authority you respect tells you it's OK.

I know who deserves to be defended against. I know who should be left alone. I know who is harming others if I see it happening. I know what actions are causing actual harm and which ones are just offensive to someone. If I can know this, shouldn't your supreme being be able to know this too?

Or, is he (or the narrative of him) trapped by the words and attitudes that were written down by barbarous tribesmen thousands of years ago? Unable to escape a primitive and brutal culture that laid out the rules of the game and claimed that this being was forever completely unchanging, since he was already perfection personified. Good thing for him that his fan club is so good at cherry-picking. Still, craziness is craziness, no matter how popular it remains, and it should not be coddled and encouraged.

Factual or fictional; rational or completely insane. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. It is not within my rights to order you otherwise even if it were possible. But... you have no right to base "laws" upon your silliness. If you try to do so, and you harm other people in the process- people who were simply trying to live their own lives- you are worse than those you seek to stop from doing ... whatever. You are actively committing acts of evil.

Smart - evil = libertarian

I've come to the conclusion that smart people who are not evil are very likely to be libertarian. People who have struck me as highly intelligent have usually turned out to have a very strong libertarian streak when I find out more about them. Often enough that I think it is more than coincidence.

While dumb people may be libertarian, it's probably just because someone told them something that sounded good at the moment and they latched on (there is always the possibility I belong in this group). Dumb people seem to be very attracted to the notion that it is OK to push people around and kill them if they don't cooperate. Some hide behind The State and some do it on their own, but there is no real difference between the two kinds of aggression.

Smart people will think things through for themselves and come to the libertarian position all by themselves without any outside guidance. They are also less likely to abandon their libertarian principles under coercion or distress.

Smart people who cling to the barbaric desire to harm people who do not deserve to be harmed right now will gravitate toward one form of authoritarianism or another. It is the only way they can justify the harm they cause (and usually avoid immediate consequences). They can pretend to be something other than a bad person, but it is a transparent act. Many of these end up joining the world's biggest, most violent gang.

Why "Dull 'Hawk"?

People seem to really enjoy using my "Dull 'Hawk" moniker (often shortened to "dullhawk" online) as an insult. The "dull" part, anyway. I'm sure I've explained this before, but I can't find it, so I suppose it's appropriate to post it here.

Dull 'Hawk is my "mountainman name", and is short for "Dull Tomahawk". (We mountainmen usually call our tomahawks "'hawks" among ourselves.)

So, why is my 'hawk dull? Actually, it isn't. Back in 1992 I was at a mountainman rendezvous and was competing in the tomahawk-throwing competition. My tomahawk would hit the target every time... and fall off. In practice it stuck every single time, but in the contest it simply refused. Performance anxiety, I suppose.

Anyway, people gave me the name "Dull 'Hawk" at that rendezvous and I kept it.

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State is a failure. Need proof?

An Albuquerque police detective has been placed on "administrative duty" while his arrest for punching his girlfriend is sorted out. They were fighting over her taxes. Fail, fail, and fail again. So the police department is quickly distancing themselves by emphasizing he is just a "part-time" Only One. Just in case their "thin blue line" fails to protect one of their Brothers.

The girlfriend should not be forced, by The State, to experience the stress of cooperating with and enabling the theft of her property. There should be no special elite class who are given special treatment when accused of serious offenses. If he really punched her, should he be doing anything "official" for the APD, or might this give a dangerous man opportunity to harm more people with impunity? In a free society this entire situation evaporates and would probably never have happened in the first place.

Then, to add failure on top of multiple failures highlighted above, the "career criminal" who has become a prime example of the failure of The State to do what its supporters claim is its number one job has been arrested for the 128th time. In a free society he would have been shot and stopped long ago by one of his intended victims, rather than being protected by "laws" against defense of self and property.

Enough is enough.

Politicians / thieves

I, and others, have frequently called politicians "thieves", which is an accurate statement. However, I think a much more accurate way to look at it is that all thieves are politicians.

There are only two ways to get something- either you earn it through consensual trade, or you steal it. This act of stealing what you want is known as "the political method". That means in order to be more accurate and honest when we speak of those who are committing theft, we should always refer to them by the name "politicians", since that is truly what they are. They have chosen the political method over consensual trade.

So, I will try to remember this and use the term appropriately whenever a theft occurs, for example "Two politicians held up a bank today..." or "A man was robbed in a parking lot by a politician..." Who knows, freelance thieves, oops- politicians might just be insulted enough to want to change.

Zero Aggression Principle video

And check out all the videos in this series here: link

Reader feedback from CNJ

I got an email this morning from a reader of the local paper. In it the person questioned my parentage, complained about my appearance in the picture beside my columns (included here for your amusement), and then began to complain that I never say anything good about Clovis.

Really? Did the person actually read any of my columns or just make an assumption? Because I thought I was very positive this week about the people who live here. I don't think I have ever been unkind to the regular people in the area in my columns; only to the parasites who prey on the productive people. Plus I always try to point out that the bad people are a tiny, if visible, minority everywhere. Good people outnumber the bad by a huge margin everywhere- as long as you don't only look inside criminal mobs.

She (?) did say one truthful thing when she said "you cannot say one nice thing about our city, state or,how our country is run" (all spelling and punctuation left as it was in the original). Right. Because they shouldn't be "run" at all. Top-down control is a bad idea no matter how you dress it up or how much you want to avoid taking responsibility for yourself. That has nothing to do with Clovis or America, but with the faulty notion of government. As I have said about America (that the USA is not America, but the biggest danger to America) I say about Clovis: the city government should not ever be confused with the city!

Also, I find I am corrupting our youth: "Do you not no [sic], that high school kids read our paper?" And...? They should be led to believe they are not responsible for themselves, but that Daddy Government should be worshiped and He will then take care of all their little troubles? Is that what she is saying? Young people are smarter than that, especially if shown the ethical alternatives to the statist lies. The bad ones will probably continue to be bad and seek either freelance criminal careers or State-sanctioned ones. Maybe if I can reach a few of the good ones I can help them avoid slavery- either as the slave master or the slave.

She goes on to say "And, your comments just rips apart,everything,our forfathers,have started?" Obviously a product of government schooling. History from the warped and wrong perspective of the Rulers. History turned upside-down and inside-out in order to support a revisionist agenda of collectivism and authoritarianism. Pathetic, but all too common.

Then, after being told to move away "from my paper" and from the area, she ends with this final comment (before signing off with another personal insult), which I found hilarious: "Dont upset us,with your crude Ideas," Hehe. Sorry, but that one made me smile. It's just packed full of comic goodness.

So, the CNJ reader feedback score stands at 1:1 for now. As always, I did write back and even refrained from taking advantage of the ample opportunities for ridicule which the email provided.

Do the right thing, law or no law

Do the right thing, law or no law

You know the right thing to do. I know you do. So don't wait for someone else to do it first and don't wait for a "law" to tell you to. Do it now.

I'm reminded of the Hobby Lobby shoppers who tackled a recent shoplifter. Instead of watching the thief and thinking to themselves "That's awful! Someone should do something about that" they took action and did the right thing. Thieves don't fear the law as much as they fear being stopped in their tracks by the only people who can be counted on to be right there when they attempt to carry out their attack. That is you and me, folks. If we once again make up our minds to always do the right thing we will be an insurmountable wall holding back the few bad guys living among us. The risk of being an attacker or a thief must be raised back up where it belongs.

The same need for personal accountability is reflected in the recent letter to the editor concerning speeding. Do the right thing yourself and, one person at a time, things get better. Most people drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, and consequently the speed at which they are the safest (ignoring for a moment the "speed limits" which are not based on anything but arbitrary ideas of what's best for everyone). Those who actually drive faster than they should will not be made responsible by "laws". In fact they may get a double thrill by not only driving faster than they should, but also in feeling they are rebels as long as they don't get caught. The answer is not more enforcement but more responsibility. Don't let a rude driver on your bumper force you to go faster (or slower) than you think you should, and don't feel guilty for blocking his path. And for goodness sake, teach your children to stay alert, aware, and out of the streets.

Need more ways to take action? If you think it is right for people to pay more taxes, don't wait for the tax rate on your neighbors to be increased by "law"; write a check out of your own bank account payable to the government right now.

The responsibility to govern yourself and to be accountable in all your actions reaches into every corner of your life. If you know someone who is in need, step in yourself to help. If you can't help, find those who can. Don't lay the burden on the "taxpayers" by handing that needy person over to some government agency. Getting a person caught up in the welfare and entitlement web is not helping them, but harming them and destroying the future of their children as well.

Reaching out to the government and expecting them to take care of things through more "laws, tougher enforcement, or welfare is the opposite of being responsible. You have the ability within yourself to make things better. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

(As submitted, not as published.)

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

One story that keeps cropping up in the Albuquerque news is whether the current governor will grant a pardon to Billy the Kid.

The issue centers on whether the then-governor, Lew Wallace, promised a pardon in exchange for the Kid's testimony, or whether a pardon was simply hinted at to get Billy to cooperate- in effect tricking him.

Either way I would say it seems to show that politicians weren't any more honest back then than they are now.

Many people might complain that this is a silly thing for a governor to be concerning himself with. Everyone actually connected with the case has been dead for a very long time, and the real truth of what was promised or lied about, as well as whether Billy the Kid was really a bad guy or not, is obscured by the time that has passed.

Maybe it is silly for this to be a government concern. Everything government does is silly at best and harmful at worst. However, as long as The State wastes time worrying about long-dead politicians and their broken promises to long-dead outlaws, The State isn't worrying about, and planning, new ways to molest the rest of us. This can only be good. It's like when all the cops are snarfing down donuts at the donut shop instead of harassing drivers. Let's encourage them to engage in useless, but harmless, exercises! At least until we can fire them all.

Along similar lines, I'd like to get the ball rolling on a pardon for John Wilkes Booth for his freelance trial, sentencing, and justified execution of that murderous tyrant Abraham Lincoln.
*
Donate?

Societal Cancer

Cancer is a hideous, deadly disease. It kills way too many people long before "their time". Yet, there is a form of cancer that is often not recognized, and sometimes is even intentionally encouraged. It is Societal Cancer, also known as "The State", or simply "government".

Societal Cancer has killed more people than all other forms of cancer combined. Often after warning signs which are discounted and ridiculed by other sufferers who are in denial. Whereas other forms of cancer are recognized universally as something to be eradicated, Societal Cancer is frequently praised and people are intentionally given the disease against their will- usually at birth.

The good news is that there is a proven cure that is available to every person. It is self responsibility and self control. It is as simple as minding your own business and leaving non-aggressive people alone. And a withdrawal of consent to cooperate with your own destruction by the cancer.

Join in the campaign to stomp out all forms of cancer, including Societal Cancer.

*

Donate?

Bubble Theory vs the ZAP etc.

I've been thinking a lot about my so-called "Bubble Theory of Property Rights" recently. Part of the reason is probably because of the video I made to try to explain my views on it. The rest of the reason is simply because it seems so completely self-evident to me, even in the face of the arguments against it.

Using the concealed weapon example is easiest for me because that's where the discussion began, but it applies just as well to anything you could carry or wear privately on (or in) your body.

It applies to the TSA abuses. It is what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect (although it was then thoroughly compromised with weasel-words telling how government could violate it "legally"). It is at the heart of self-ownership and individual sovereignty, since it means making choices for yourself and accepting the consequences of those choices rather than being responsible for other people's choices.

But I began to wonder how it held up against the Zero Aggression Principle. After studying it, I realized it passes with flying colors.

I completely agree with those who disagree with my Bubble theory of property rights on one particular point: Forbidding weapons from being carried concealed by visitors to private property does not initiate force.

However, the reverse is also true. Bubble theory does not initiate force in any way. You are not using physical force on another person by exercising your bodily property rights even when surrounded by their property.

Is being ZAP-compliant enough? I maintain that the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient, for ethical behavior. You must also not initiate deceit nor commit non-aggressive theft (fraud).

How does Bubble Theory stack up here? It does not deceive any innocent person, nor does it steal any object from anyone. It "steals" no part of the other property owner's rights from him, since his rights end where his property ends, and therefore does not penetrate the bubble of property traveling around with other people's bodies.

The only time it would initiate fraud is if you explicitly agreed to not carry anything the property owner forbade, and then did so anyway. Otherwise, while it might be nicer to acknowledge the prohibition and agree to abide by it, you are not harming anyone in any real way, neither physically nor economically, if you ignore their unreasonable demands. You are not violating the ZAP, nor are you harming anyone, but are taking responsibility for yourself and expressing your individual sovereignty.

That leaves only trespassing as a possible wrong you have committed. Is the property open to "the public", or did you receive an invitation? Then you are not trespassing if you are there. What about your "forbidden object"? An object can not trespass; only a person can. (If you go onto the other person's property and drop your "forbidden object", then you are littering. This is about as close to trespassing as an object can come, but the offense is yours, not the object's.)

No one is obligated to open their property to the presence of others. "Hermit" is a legitimate lifestyle choice. However, if you want to have it both ways: to not be a hermit, but also try to violate the personal rights of those who come to your property, you are not being a good person. I don't think you are even being rational.

As I say, I will still do my best to respect the wishes of other property owners, but I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I respect the property and liberty of others, as I claim to, then I can not pretend to have any control over what is inside their personal property bubbles. If I don't trust you with your liberty, then I don't trust you and have no business inviting you onto my property in the first place. You do what you feel is right, just as I will.

Added: I think claiming that real estate property rights can exist without "the bubble" of personal property rights existing is like claiming that you can exist without your grandparents ever having existed. Just my view on the matter...

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

A former student of Sandia High School in Albuquerque is suing a teacher and the school district because he claims the teacher made racial jokes at his expense. Yet, the only supposedly "racial" comment the news report singles out is that the teacher called him a "black hole".

I hate to tell the little genius, but "black hole" is not a racial comment at all. That is simply the name of a physical phenomenon that he somehow reminded the teacher of. It is no more racist than would calling him a "black sheep" be (something I readily admit to being). It is not racist to mention "the pot calling the kettle 'black'". It is not racist to fear black cats as bad luck. Stupid, yes, but not racist.

I have known a bunch of people who could have been called "black holes". Any information you gave them got sucked in by their intense density and was utterly destroyed. No information or intelligence ever shone from them in any way.

Sorry, but someone who dwells on things of this nature, looking for a "racist angle" to claim victimhood with, is themselves a racist and needs to grow up. Fast; before you have made such a fool of yourself you can never recover.

None of this in any way excuses the inexcusable existence of "public schools". This could just as easily happen in any other education setting- except that teachers and learners could be matched more efficiently, and no one who qualified as a "black hole" would face compulsory attendance "laws" if they were a waste of time, and your stolen money would not be used to pay for the resulting legal battle- in a free society that had rid itself of the government indoctrination camps we euphemistically call "schools".

Forgive my whine

I have to admit, I don't feel like writing anything recently. I'm tired. I feel it is pointless to write words that will be lost on those who are only too happy to bend over for The State as long as The State is killing and harming "those people" on their behalf. And the decent people (like you) already know what I'm going to write most of the time anyway.

I need to write my column for the CNJ in the next day or two and I have no clue what I might write on. I don't feel like starting a fight this week.

Examiner.... who knows. I desperately need to write for them or I won't be able to afford my phone (which is about the only social life I have). Sigh.

I'm drained and I need to be recharged. Yet, I am still draining instead.

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?