%$#@&*!!!!

Make my day better, please.

Adaptability

One of my strengths is that I am very adaptable. It isn't that I don't have preferences; just that I can make-do with less than I'd prefer, or in situations that are novel and strange.

Once upon a time, I would never dream of expressing my opinions if they differed from what I supposed were the opinions of those around me. I was afraid people might not like what I had to say. They might say mean things about me. Now, I still don't like it when they do say mean things, but that's not gonna keep me from speaking up.

Once upon a time I would have rather died than speak in front of people, much less sing! Then I got taken to karaoke and fell in love with singing to an audience (even though I don't get to do that anymore). People from my past who found out couldn't believe I would ever do that- it just wasn't me. But, it was.

There have been more adaptations. Some big and some small, some painful and some easy.

Each of these adaptations occurred because of some change in the conditions of my life. My old ways ran against a wall, and something had to change. I can only change me. When things I like get ripped away, my old life ends and I am forced to find a new life. It has happened many times in the past, and probably will happen again. I feel confident that I will adapt, without compromising.

Defense against tyrants is your right

You and I are ethically justified in using deadly force against agents of The State just about anytime we encounter them in their "official capacity". Cops, TSA, IRS, AFT, whatever.

When one of these "people" attempts to enforce some counterfeit "law"- any "law" that is an attempt to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft- against anyone, they become the bad guy and it is your absolute human right to resist them however you see fit, including killing them if they don't cooperate. It is "illegal", and therefore suicidal, of course, but it is still your right. I will never condemn anyone for killing an agent of The State under such a circumstance. I can't even get too worked up over an actual thief/aggressor killing an enforcer. A bad guy killing another bad guy doesn't concern me too much, and it's one less enforcer you and I have to deal with.

Any "traffic stop"; any airport scan or pat-down; any demand to see your permit or license; any official interaction at all is a credible threat to initiate force against you. You're foolish if you don't recognize the danger. You twitch an eyelid at the wrong moment and the agent of The State will kill you in the name of "officer safety". That constitutes a credible threat to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?

Many people don't want to hear this truth. They would rather weasel-word their way around the foundational facts of the matter. They don't want to be seen as "extreme". Those who defend themselves against bad guys are not "extreme"; those who support the bad guys and pretend their actions are legitimate in any way are the ones who are extreme.

No, I am not going to resort to deadly force against an agent of The State unless I feel I have nothing to lose. And, yet, the parasitic vermin of The State seem to be working really hard to make sure that those who love and really understand liberty are backed into a corner, with nothing to lose, as soon as possible. You'd think they are just dying to start a war over liberty. Well... It's their funeral.

To dream the impossible dream...

I'd rather keep fighting than give up. Not fighting against The State, exactly, but fighting to live life as I see fit and resisting those who would molest me for daring to ignore or ridicule their stupidity and meddlesomeness.

Even if it were proven to be impossible to defeat the notion of The State now, or forever, wouldn't it be wrong to just go along? Yes, it would. Because Statism is wrong. Nothing can ever make it right; not popularity, not utility, not preferences, fears, or opinions.

What form that resistance takes will vary between individuals, and even depending on the time that you look at each individual's life. But the resistance will go on.

Obama's lie about congress' collusion

Obama says the last-minute deal between congressional taterheads, to avert a government "shutdown", happened because "Americans of different beliefs came together."

Yeah, right! "Different beliefs"... like disagreeing over whether plutonium or cyanide are the preferred poison; not ever questioning whether they should be poisoning innocent people.

Are ANY and ALL contracts valid?

I ponder this due to, once again, "Bubble Theory".

If a person thinks they have no choice but to agree to something that they know isn't right and that will harm them, is their agreement really consensual? Can a property owner make any demands they want and expect compliance? Can you really consent to being attacked or abdicating (or negotiating away) your rights?

I see parallels in the debate over "intellectual property" and in a post I read about sweatshops.

All Politics is cheating

(Please read the note at the bottom)

Nobody likes a cheater. We prefer that other people live up to their agreements; usually even when we have already broken our end of the deal. But many people don't recognize that using government to get your way is cheating.

There are only two ways to get something done between two or more people. You can convince the other person to go along and cooperate for your mutual benefit. This is referred to as the "economic method". Or you can force them to go along against their will, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest. This is called the "political method". If others agree in going along with you, there is no excuse to govern them; if they do not, many people think it's OK to skip straight to the "forcing them" step rather than continuing the attempt to convince them.

"Forcing them" can be a legitimate action IF the other person is attacking the innocent or stealing. A libertarian recognizes this as a legitimate use of force since force was already initiated by the other person. If the other person is neither attacking nor stealing, then resorting to force makes you the one in the wrong. Even worse, if your actions consist of aggression or theft, while their actions are merely intended to resist your abuse, then you are doubly wrong.

Bringing this down to the local level, what is the solution to this area's water issues? Does it involve working together in a consensual manner to work out a solution? Or does it involve using confiscated money (and other property) and imposed laws, with their inevitable enforcement, to force everyone into a "one size fits all and everyone pays, regardless" box? If no one is allowed to opt out, it is not consensual. Stirring up another hornet's nest, what about "blight"? Do you try to convince or do you simply violate the other person's property rights because you don't like the way they choose to use their own property? If you think you must resort to the government solution in either case, you are cheating.

Not every problem has a solution. That is just reality. Of those problems which can be solved, some have a solution that isn't implemented because of the eager willingness to resort to the political method instead of doing the hard work of thinking and finding a consensual solution. After all, if you believe you can simply grab the magic wand of "the law" at the first sign of an impasse, you are less likely to keep thinking and working toward a real solution. Sure you can "get things done" by cheating, but at what cost?

*****

(This was to have been my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected by the publisher because he says not all politics is cheating. In saying this, he gave me the idea for my headline.

This difficulty I keep having prompted me to ask the editor for some clarification. I asked if my columns are supposed to represent my opinion, or the editorial opinion of the Clovis News Journal. If my column is representing the editorial opinion of the paper, then I can totally understand why I have so many problems getting published (and I probably should be paid more), but if it is supposed to represent my personal opinion, then I don't get it. Surely the other columns that get published express opinions that are not in line with the paper's editorial positions- at least it seems that is the case to me when I read them. In any case, the editor answered that the columns are supposed to represent my opinion only. So how do they justify rejecting my columns on that basis?

Since this means I am out my pay for this week, please donate to help me make up the shortfall, or buy some stuff from me.)

Time's Up flags available!

(I'm pinning this post to the top for a little while, so scroll down to see new stuff.)

Once again I have some Time's Up flags to sell. See details here: Dull 'Hawk's Shop

Update: Check out this idea

Fast forward to the past?

Some days I am ready to chuck all the electronic technology and writing efforts and just go back to being a simple mountainman.

I am a libertarian and an anarchist because it is the right thing to do. I have never chosen a path because it is popular. I'll continue to be who I am. But I swear, some days...

Stayed tuned.

Time's Up flag - Liberty in the breeze

Looks good, doesn't it! Order yours today!

"People of the Gun" site

Why not put your face out there as supporting the basic individual right to own and to carry whatever weapon you want, in any way you see fit, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone, ever?

Join the People of the Gun. You might as well. You're already on "The List".

"Bubble Theory" roundup

Thanks to Thomas Knapp and his objections to this theory, I continue to be challenged to hone the way I attempt to explain it. That is a good thing. I am not being sarcastic here. Kn@ppster has always been a decent guy and a thoughtful ally on the road to liberty. He is just keeping me on my toes. Some day he may convince me yet.

For background and an explanation of what I am talking about when I mention "the bubble theory of personal property rights", see here and here and here and here and (most recently) here.

Because I believe this is a self-evident truth, yet I recognize that many people don't agree, I have to act in the only way I think is right as I try to spread the idea.

This means that I will always try to respect the wishes of property owners who do not agree with me. This means I will consider an "invitation" that puts conditions on what is inside my pockets as a non-invitation. (I will, however, assume liberty unless informed otherwise beforehand.)

But mainly, it means that I will continue to act as I always have and not try to make it my business to fret about what is inside your pockets. It has never occurred to me to think about it in the past, even before I "took the red pill", and I see no reason to begin worrying about it now or in the future. The change, if one is to occur, has to start somewhere, and I have started with myself. Why not join me?

Take back your republic?

The company that is producing the flags for me is also making some "Time's Up" T-shirts with the Tea Party motto "Take Back Your Republic" added across the top. I don't really care for that motto very much, but I had an idea.

I will sell those shirts with one "minor" alteration. I will use red fabric paint to cross out "republic" and add "Liberty!"

Since it will be done by hand the final look will vary somewhat from shirt to shirt.

They will cost $20 each, with $3.00 shipping and handling. Or one half ounce of silver for the shirt and shipping.

Let me know if you want one of these shirts, and what size you need, and I will place an order. Obviously, it will take a little longer to get the shirts to you since I will need to order and paint them.

These are now added to my "shop".

Update: I've added a couple pics of the results of my modification of a couple shirts. Hand scrawled, so no two will be exactly alike. I like the graffiti effect anyway.

Government's April Fool Joke

Government can't prevent the random psychopath by treating us all like potential psychopaths.

Yet that's a common justification for all sorts of liberty-crushing "laws" given by the government extremists. "April Fool!" if you buy it!

DWI excuse snares another non-driver

Since I stopped writing for Examiner I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the ABQ news, even though I am still subscribed to the sites. But this story just jumped out at me and begged for a comment.

The Bernalillo county law abuser/district attorney has decided it is OK to charge a woman with DWI for allowing another person who was drunk to drive.

According to the story- “This is a ‘this can happen to me’ story for anybody who’s ever decided, I’m going to have a designated driver who’s not quite as drunk as I am,” said district attorney spokesman Pat Davis.

OK, so the woman was drunk too. And she is expected to have the ability to judge whether the other guy was drunk and whether it was a good idea to let him drive?

The ratchet keeps going in the only direction it can move. And it will continue until the ratchet is destroyed completely in an act of self defense.

Four Stages

I have noticed that a lot of things go through 4 stages.

1- First they are (or are believed to be) necessary.

2- Then some do-gooder decides since they are necessary, they must be made mandatory.

3- Then after a time they become unnecessary due to changes.

4- After being unnecessary for a time, they become actually detrimental.

In other words, progress or society gets damaged all because someone decided to add an extra stage to the natural procession. This could be avoided by skipping the mandate; by doing this you'll probably avoid the "detrimental" stage altogether.

Proposal to taxaholics

When people make the bizarre claim that my use of government-monopolized roads or other "services" means I consent to the taxation being taken to pay for them, it makes no sense to me. Obviously. In many cases, what choice do I have? To pay and then choose to not use that which my money paid for? Or to refuse to pay and be murdered by goons of The State?

But, here's a proposal: I will stop using any government-provided service that I am not willing to pay for. In fact, I will show my seriousness by not using the "service" for a year FIRST. I will pay for that which I use, whether provided by the market or by The State. (Of course, I'd like to see the government monopoly broken and replaced by the market so I have a choice of whom I give my business to. But I'll not demand that happen before I act.) After that I want to hear no more prattling from the statists about it. Is it a deal?

"I'll know it if I see it..."

Is this statue "child pornography", and if it isn't, why not? Because it is old? Or famous? Or because it is "only nudity" but not "sexual"? Or...??

Could you use current artistic methods to produce a similar image today without running afoul of "the Law" and it's rabid supporters?

What about those "artistic" creations that depict no actual children (cartoons) yet end up with the "artist" being arrested? Yes, it happens.

I think that coercively exploiting children, in any way- not just sexually- is disgusting and evil. Yet I also am able to recognize that "the Law" has gotten completely perverted over the witch-hunt (no offense to actual witches) to catch child pornographers.

It's a puzzle to me.

(No actual children, or humans of any age, were harmed or exploited in the creation of this post.)

Think about it.

The only thing necessary for tyranny to triumph is for good people to pretend government is a legitimate human endeavor.

My Country, My ...

Here's a nice little song from John Ringer: link

He also has a Facebook group you can join, and he asks if you would request his song from your local radio stations.

I think those are reasonable requests, don't you? Many tactics coming from many directions. It's a good thing.