Egypt- don't stop halfway!

Getting rid of Mubarak is good for Egypt, but just watch as they make the same old mistake yet again, still expecting different results.

The revolution hasn't succeeded yet; they are still accepting a State of some sort, with someone "in charge", as inevitable. Probably without even questioning that bizarre concept.

You can't get rid of a tyrant and replace him with someone else and think you're free. Well, obviously you can, but you've accomplished nothing if you do. Don't stop before the job is done!

Clovis zoo should be private effort

Clovis zoo should be private effort

Like many people in the area I was saddened by the news of Jay the giraffe's unfortunate death. I like Clovis' zoo and the people who work there, while still fully understanding that zoos should be private affairs and not government-run entities.

Most of the negative comments I have read concerning the death were related to the perception that money had been wasted by the city on a giraffe. This cuts to the heart of why government has no business being involved in things of this nature (among others).

It doesn't bother me if a local restaurant spends its profits on a diamond and ruby chandelier to hang above the dining room. After all, I didn't pay for it unless I choose to eat there. The same goes for my neighbor: as long as I am not subsidizing his lifestyle it doesn't hurt me if he drives a Lamborghini. I might think money is being wasted in both examples, but I have no say in how they spend what is theirs to spend; nor should I.

However, anytime you get a government involved you end up forcing people to pay for things they would rather not. Be it giraffes or police or aircraft carriers or a local politician's mistresses. This causes understandable hostility.

I have no problem paying for what I use, including the zoo. However, I believe that people who don't want to subsidize my recreational activities should not be forced to do so. It's that "crazy libertarian" nature in me raising its head again. I could go to a privately-run zoo and feel good knowing that the voluntarily-collected money that could be used for animal care is not being used for bureaucracy instead, and secure in the knowledge that no one is losing their home or business in order to shell out to the local government in order to finance the zoo.

A privately-run zoo could buy all the giraffes it wants and it would be no one's business other than the owner's. It could even receive donations to finance special exhibits just like government-run zoos often do. It could do what it thinks is best for its animals and customers without running the political gauntlet for every decision and without people feeling their money had been wasted. It also wouldn't be used as a "community service" sentence for people who crossed swords with often-arbitrary government rules. Maybe I could even get a job at a private zoo as "designated rat shooter".

De-politicize the zoo; de-politicize life.

Added: It turns out Jay impregnated (that's "knocked-up" to those who didn't progress beyond their government school education) the female giraffe before he died, so I guess the zoo still got a second giraffe out of the deal- about a year later.

Non-solutions

Some problems can't be solved. Don't like that? Tough. Suck it up and move on.

For every problem that can be solved, there is an actual, real, liberty-respecting solution.

If a "solution" violates anyone's individual rights and liberty, then it is not a solution at all, but just another problem. It's like claiming that scalping is a solution to dandruff.

*

Speaking of solving problems, you could buy my book "Problem? Solved!" (or any of my other books) and help me avoid the impending financial doom that seems to be once again bearing down on me. Or you could just donate to help out. But you are not obligated to do so, of course.

Sick societies

The only society in which a person could get away with barbarous acts such as killing an "infidel" who doesn't have the same religious notions as you, or kicking in someone's door over possession of a plant, or prohibition of self defense and the proper tools to carry it out, is a society infected by the cancerous idea of government.

If you do things like any of the above on your own, unsupported by The State, you would rightly be considered a bad guy. Being backed by "The Law" changes nothing, other than making your sociopathic behavior safer for you to commit. For the moment, anyway.

No healthy society would ever even consider such disgusting acts as "normal" or "proper". And I can't see how any person who supports any such acts could ever be considered a "good" person.

*

Donate?

The problem with voting- part 982

One problem with voting is that you can't vote for half a politician. And if you try to create a half politician that you can agree with, you can be punished by enforcers for all sorts of "crimes" related to your unauthorized ninja surgery.

With most other choices in life you can choose the good stuff and reject the bad. In an order of french fries you can eat the good ones and toss the one that looks like it might just be a fried rat's tail. When out with your best friend, you can join him in doing the things you like, but you can let him go on his own way if he wants to whack hornet nests with a tennis racket while wearing only underwear.

The nature of politics is that when you vote for a politician based on his stance on an issue that you agree with, you can also be getting a lot of really bad things in the same package. He might claim to respect the Second Amendment, but he might also support "border security", the War on (some) Drugs, or other Big Government nonsense. You may also find out that his "support" for the issue that got him your vote is little more than an illusion. Maybe he says he supports the Second Amendment, but fills that support with so many holes of "but" ("but holes"?) that his support is meaningless. This is usually the case.

Anytime a politician is elected, even if you didn't vote for him or anyone else, you may be forced by "law" to eat the fried rat's tail while being stung by the hornets if that is what he decides he wants you to do "for the good of society".

Even if you could vote for a politician who had zero insane notions, which is highly unlikely, he may still advocate violating the individual rights of someone else in a way you don't notice or care about. It isn't right for your vote to give him this ability.

Be right. Don't vote.

*

Donate?

Accept the truth of the "crazy stuff"

I read where Scott Adams of "Dilbert" was claiming to be "Libertarian, but without the crazy stuff".

Of course what that really means is that he claims to be a libertarian without consistency. That's sad.

It is easy to agree that The State, and specifically the US Federal government, has gotten too big, too powerful, and too corrupt. It seems to be a little harder to admit that this is where externally-imposed government will always, inevitably lead.

Someone sent me a couple of links a while ago that are incredibly good reading, and are wonderful tools for stripping away those inconsistencies. Both are a little long, but I highly recommend you check them out.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

The obviousness of Anarchy

*

Donate?

Arguing with 'The State's' True Believers

The more I experience the truth of liberty- whether you call it anarchism, voluntaryism, libertarianism, sovereign individualism, or whatever- the less need I feel to justify it to others.

It's like wasting my time trying to get people to see that cows don't have 6 legs (generally) while they keep insisting that, yes, they do. Whatever.

The truth is there for anyone to see if they want to look. It doesn't go away because they keep chanting that it doesn't exist. It doesn't care what they believe. It doesn't care what they want or "need" to be true. It just is what it is.

So, yes, I keep inserting my two cents (real copper) where and when I feel inspired to do so, but it really doesn't matter that much to me anymore whether anyone believes me or not.

Property codes violation of rights

Property codes violation of rights

One man's blight is another man's freedom. Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

A big aspect of socialism is placing the supposed benefit to society above the inalienable rights of the individual. This means that all socialism has the myth of "the common good" or "the general welfare" at its heart, and nothing but socialism can come from this myth. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve of it, can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications for it, and even if you benefit from it.

One of the first casualties of socialism is the right to use your private property as you see fit without first getting approval of others.

I oppose, without reservation, all calls for "property codes" to be used as a tool against "blight". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal".

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else or their property is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. Otherwise their property is none of your business, no matter what.

If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, because of breezy conditions or intentional tossing, or if it is causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. If there is a credible danger that a person's junk may catch fire and endanger your property you have the right to seek arbitration and to hold the other property owner accountable in case of damage. Reality indicates that lack of "blight" is no guarantee that no harm will ever come from a neighbor's property.

In a free society, where fire fighting would be a true free market enterprise, fire fighting companies could refuse to contract with those whose property was an unreasonable fire risk, or could charge higher rates to offset the higher risk. In a government monopoly, as long as the taxation is being paid, the fire department can not ethically discriminate. This encourages irresponsible behavior, which is then discouraged through property rights-violating "laws". It's an unhealthy system..

I realize many people are concerned that a neighbor's property could impact the value of their own property. If this is a concern you have the right to live in a neighborhood in which all the residents have voluntarily, and UNANIMOUSLY, agreed to certain conditions and restrictions. You and your other neighbors do not have the right to impose these restrictions on a neighbor who doesn't agree to them.

I don't like "blight" any more than anyone else, but I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

(As originally written; not as published. Yes, this is similar to other things I have written, but I felt it was "safe", considering...)

*

Donate?

Making outlandish claims with no evidence to back them up

I was just reading a comment on The Dilbert Blog where a person made the claim "Government has a significant role to play in a modern, market based economy. Those that think otherwise are badly mistaken."

Yeah, I see nonsense like this all the time, yet the person making the claim never backs it up with anything real. We are supposed to bow to their wisdom and just accept the claim as if it is a given, handed down from above.

You can have a "market", or you can have government playing a "significant role". You can not have both no matter what you believe, and no matter how much time you have spent as a priest for The State in its indoctrination camps.

Added: Yeah, it's "just" The Dilbert Blog, but if any of you out there care to drop by and give me a hand I'd appreciate it.

"Joint Land Use Resolution"

One topic that keeps showing up in the Clovis news, and that I know better than to try to write about in the Clovis paper, is the air force's "Joint Land Use Resolution" that it keeps seeking to impose on local property owners.

I have no problem with two people working out a mutually-voluntary agreement so they can both use real estate they both own- like a time share arrangement.

But this "joint land use" topic that keeps coming up is no different than me driving out to some place I think looks like a useful area (useful to me) and telling the property owners that we are going to work out an arrangement wherein I will shoot my deer rifle across their land and over their homes, and they must accommodate me. They will not be allowed to interfere nor build anything new that sticks up that I might hit. Maybe I'll even get an airplane and buzz their property. What's the difference?

This is just another bit of proof that the US military is a force for evil, not a protector of liberty.

*

Donate?

Human Failings and Libertarians

We are all human and have all-too-human failings and shortcomings. However, when considering libertarians, those failings fall short of our principles.

There is no room for revenge, or nationalism, or aggression, or racism, or thievery in libertarianism. You can still be a libertarian and harbor those things deep inside, of course, but those things are not libertarian. And if you don't get rid of them, they may come out at the worst possible moment of weakness and cause you to act in ways that violate your foundational stated principles.

If that happens and you are not bothered by it, or don't recognize the inconsistency in it, you may not really be libertarian.

Mother Nature, Bring it on!

I hate to admit it, but I love a good crisis (or potential crisis). Not in the "never let a good crisis go to waste" way the thugs of the fe(de)ral government love a crisis, though. They love a crisis because it gives them an excuse to violate the liberty and the rights of others. They love the harm it does to others and the panic that it causes and the power they are able to grab in the wake of the crisis.

I love a crisis because it makes me feel more alive and challenges me in a way I find invigorating. The crisis can be a purely personal thing that doesn't even involve other people at all. I wish no damage on anyone. Well, no one who is innocent, anyway.

I was thinking about this tonight in relation to the huge winter storm that is supposedly bearing down on a big chunk of North America. Even though I am on the southern edge of the storm path and not expecting anything very crisis-like in this area it is fun to think about.

The thought of a big storm with impassible roads and power outages is very exciting for me. Mostly because I feel prepared to handle it, and have lived through similar things before with no problem. I even enjoy the slight "inconveniences". It's an adventure!

There is an exception, though. I hate financial crises. This is because I feel inadequate and unable to handle those. Money hears me coming and runs away. I guess it all depends on how well you are able to weather a particular storm as to whether it is a fearful thing or an adventure.

*

Donate or buy my books to help me through my ongoing financial crisis.

"Pro-life" people alienate me

I get really tired of running into "pro-life" people who refuse to discuss anything relating to liberty until the "question" of abortion is resolved the way they want it.

To balk at any move toward liberty simply because we can't agree on abortion is insane. Let's get rid of all the liberty-crushing counterfeit "laws" first, and then we can work out the details on abortion.

The "pro-lifers" won't even discuss anything without the ridiculous insistence that everything, all good and all evil, flows from- and revolves around- the issue of abortion.

I am against abortion, especially as a form of birth control, but am also against government getting involved. If that's the way the "pro-lifers" want it they might just make me change sides. They may just make me decide I must be for abortion if the alternative is to be on the same side, even philosophically, as people who are so ignorant and bullheaded.

OK, so I don't really base my principles on other people, but it really is very tiresome. Work with me to get The State out of all areas of our lives and then we can settle the rest. OK?

Hosni Mubarack Obama

Has anyone else noticed the little game that can be played with the names of Egypt's and America's tyrants? Hosni Mubarak + Barack Obama = Hosni Mubarack Obama.

If I were superstitious I might think there's a message there. Maybe Obama is seeing his own near future in the current troubles of his soul mate in Egypt. Is one tyrant really that different from another tyrant? Should we pay attention to Mubarak to see what may happen to Obama? Interesting times.

Heretics and nonbelievers

Most of the systematic torture in the world has been done to preserve superstition of one sort or another from being exposed as superstition.

Both of the Big Superstitions, religion and government, have shared in the guilt. Sure there have been cruel freelance torturers, but their offenses have been a drop in the bucket, barely even measurable, compared to the vast scale of the cruelty committed by goons trying to enforce adherence to the notions of The State or religion.

I think it is because a substantial percentage of people really, deep down, know better. They see through the scam, so obedience and the appearance of agreement must be enforced in both cases. Either through torture or the threat of torture.

Of course, in both cases there are also "True Believers" who will continue to believe what they want to believe no matter how overpowering the preponderance of evidence may be.

From these ranks come the ones who cheer on the torturers and try to prevent the truth from having an impact. These are the useful idiots.

There are also some "True Believers" who don't contribute to the evil, but too few of these actively oppose it. By their silence they betray humanity.

There are also a few, very few, who remain "True Believers" while supporting the right of others to disagree with their superstition, and who openly oppose inquisitions and torture. These are the good, though still deluded, "True Believers".

"My"

The word "my" can mean ownership, such as "my gun", "my clothes", or "my hair".

It can also mean a relationship, such as "my daughter", "my friend", or "my family". Maybe even "my shadow". This is why saying "my child" is not a claim of ownership over that child, but is an acknowledgement of the relationship I have with that child.

"Good"- the definition

To me "good" is anything that voluntarily helps someone who deserves to be helped. That would be what I consider "actively good".

It can also be anything that avoids harming those who do not deserve to be harmed, although many people would probably just think of this as an ethically neutral act. I think of this as being "passively good".

There is no obligation to be actively good, while there is an obligation to be at least passively good.

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Never, ever call the police. And never speak to reporters.

A couple of Albuquerque teens are facing possible legal trouble after catching a thief and then beating him up.

Did they go too far? Maybe. It depends on what the truth is, and that may never be known. However, the burglar admitted being a burglar. And he was caught trespassing. The teens had every right to track him down to recover stolen property. If the thief then attacked them with a knife as they claim, they did the right thing by defending themselves.

In all cases I think it is right to give the benefit of the doubt to those who did not initiate force, fraud, or theft. The burglar committed theft, and doesn't deny it.

The cops do not wish to be seen as unnecessary. It is hard to justify living on stolen money, taken by coercion, if people can handle situations themselves. Yet, we can and they are unnecessary, and even promote crime by their very existence through the very mechanism displayed here. The "cooperate with the bad guys and just call the professionals" mantra. That is a recipe for defeatism.

It is a lesson the authorities hope we all learn. No thanks.

*
Donate?

The evil of "The Other" is sometimes real

I read a lot of warnings about thinking of "the other" as evil and yourself as good. It applies accurately to the silly "Democrat vs Republican" thing. It also applies very well to the "America vs AnyOtherCountry" thinking.

Where it utterly breaks down is in the "Liberty vs Tyranny" or the "Attacker vs Victim" realms.

There, any pretense that one choice is just as valid as the other is simply denial. The denial that the bad guy is bad serves no useful purpose for you. Tyranny, the systematic denial and violation of individual liberty in favor of power for The State, is completely wrong. It has no good side, even if it results in superficially "good" results. Liberty, even if it seems scary and dangerous, is the only ethical choice. Liberty is right, and tyranny is wrong. Completely, and without any equivocation.

If you are being attacked, your attacker is completely wrong (at that moment), while you are in the right if you choose to fight back with all you have. The one who "started it" bears all the blame if he is killed in the ensuing conflict. Yet, if you harm someone else during your defensive actions (perhaps the attacker's family member who wasn't involved), YOU become the attacker, subject to the laws of consequences.

Of course, this evil can be seen with your own eyes rather than being preached by the priests of The State to unquestioning believers who have witnessed nothing but what those priests have chosen to show (or stage) for their own ends. In other words, if someone has to convince you that someone is out to get you, with no evidence that can be seen, you would be better to laugh it off. And, conversely, if you see evil being committed don't buy the justifications that those supporters of the bad guys will try to bury you under.

You are being delusional if you think there is not real right and real wrong. If you are being attacked by a thug who wants to steal your property or rape and kill you, it is insane to think he might have a valid point of view as you stare down the barrel of his gun. He is the bad guy.

So many inconsistencies...

I've written about unlibertarian libertarians before. Several times, in fact. It still gets me how someone who is libertarian can be so blind in some areas.

I'm not saying they aren't libertarian, just that they hold on to inconsistencies that are not libertarian. How many inconsistencies can a person hold and still be what they claim to be? How many statist beliefs can a person support before others laugh at their insistence that they put liberty first?

In mild cases it would be like someone claiming to be a Christian, but worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the first Tuesday of each month. (Substitute the belief systems of your choice.)

In the worst cases it would be like someone claiming to be Christian, but instead worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster all the time, with occasional nods to the God they claim to worship- as long as it's convenient and doesn't get in the way of their normal worshiping routine or threaten their belief in FSM.

It is certainly bewildering.

*

Donate?