Parenting

I think a lot of parents would be better parents if they would realize one simple fact: Most things kids get in trouble for isn't really wrong, it just pisses off the parent.

.

Kiddie Porn: crime scene photos?

This is just a question that popped into my mind today. It bothers me and will continue to do so until I write it out, so here you go:

Since looking at child pornography is a crime, shouldn't looking at other crime photos also be a crime? I mean, both are photographic records of a crime. Right? I also know of people who get excited by looking at other crime photos, just as a pedophile gets excited by looking at the photos of his particular type of crime scene. Personally, I think both are very sick.

Obviously I don't think looking at any photograph can be a real wrong act, although producing them could very well be.

.

Cleaning up after themselves- Statists "can't"

How many times have you heard a kid say something like "I can't, daddy. It's too heavy" when it is time to pick up the toys? Probably pretty often. The amusing thing is that it is only "too heavy" when it is time to put it back; not when it was being dragged out.

Reminds me of statists with libertarian ideas. It wasn't "too hard" to make the mess by applying statist methods, but the thought of cleaning it up by doing the unpleasant things (such as respecting liberty) that are required is just "too hard" now. Or "too scary". Statists seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid liberty. So be it. I will leave them to their disaster.

.

Easier to change self than state

Easier to change self than state (My CNJ column from June 9, 2011. As written, not as published.)

You can see anything more clearly after taking a step back from it than you can while you are in the middle of it.

If you want the truth about a cult, you ask someone who was once a part of it, but who got out. You can't get a very accurate version of the truth from someone who still is involved. They are too close to, and too invested in, the issue. I think the same goes for the political process. I was once involved and active, but then I took a breath and stepped back and I saw the futility of everything I had worked for. I had been acting on a string of false premises that were actually adding to the problem.

If I really believed a rain dance could make it rain here, I'd gladly do one and ignore the sideways glances of my more normal neighbors. In the same way, if I still believed taking political action could bring liberty back to America, I'd be the most politically active man on Earth. However both beliefs are just that: beliefs. Neither has any basis in objective reality.

When considering politics, too many people ask the wrong questions and make the wrong assumptions. They ask what government can do about an issue instead of asking if government should do anything, and instead of questioning whether previous government actions created the problem in the first place.

The State has a lot of practice at creating a problem, then pretending to be the only possible solution. The economy and crime are two salient examples of this destructive tactic.

If political action is inherently unlikely to produce liberty, what other course of action is available to you? If you value liberty you must start with yourself. Make yourself free, and respect the liberty of all those around you, even those you don't like. This is much more powerful than electing representatives and expecting them to protect your liberty. You must take responsibility for yourself and for those whom you are consensually bound to be responsible for.

So, step back, re-examine your assumptions, and consider if your time and energy could be better spent changing the one person you truly have the power to change rather than begging someone else to make the changes you want.

Taxpayers shouldn't foot hotel bill

Taxpayers shouldn't foot hotel bill (My CNJ column from June 2, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I think it is a noble thing to want to save the Hotel Clovis building from decay or destruction. Personally, I love to see historic buildings preserved and put back to use.

I'm somewhat less enthusiastic over the plan to use it for subsidized housing. If you own the building I think it is yours to use as you see fit as long as you harm no other person, however I believe subsidized housing is harmful to everyone.

Where some people go astray is when they demand that others pay, through taxation, "public funds", or other government coercion, for their own pet projects. Other people do not value the same things you do and it is not very nice to force them to pay for that which you think is important. If I believed in doing that I might demand a huge tax-funded "living history" site, complete with tipis, bison, and gunfights, somewhere around town. It might become a tourist attraction and I'd probably want to live there. But I know it is wrong to get what I want that way, even if 51% of the voters agreed with me.

A majority of 100%, minus one individual, has no real right to force the lone holdout to finance or participate in their project if he'd rather not. As long as he is allowed to opt out, losing neither his time nor his money in the process, he has no authority to stand in the way of the voluntarily organized and financed project he opposes, either.

If something really should be done, there will be volunteers to do it, or a market for it to be done "for profit". A fund drive for the Hotel Clovis building might be the proper way to put your money where your mouth is. I'll even pledge the first dollar. The campaign to "Keep Cannon" got the community organized and energized; why not devote the same energy to the campaign to "Save the Hotel"? If it doesn't gain momentum, perhaps the desire is not really there. If that is the case, a private group could still be organized to purchase the hotel with their own money and save it in their own way. Once again, I'm willing to help.

To those who want to save the hotel, I ask: What is stopping you? My follow-up question is: Why do you let that stop you?

.

Missing person! (Found safe)

William R. Stone, possibly between KC area Missouri and Redfield/Des Moines area, Iowa.

And get the latest HERE

Update: He is safe. Good to know!

.

"Would you like brains with that?"

Yes, Unfortunate Truth #1 is "People are idiots". But it's still amusing (sometimes) to see it in action.

I was at the mall and saw, at the generic food vendor, their nacho setup. The chips were in a "warming bin". The light bulb responsible for keeping the chips warm had been replaced with a compact fluorescent bulb! Ha ha!

.

Poking gods makes one unpopular

I have to admit, I am tired of being unpopular. But I'm going to tread into that territory once again. Just because it is important to get some things out there even when it will make people angry. And this will.

To be popular I would have to either shut up or lie. Or I can continue to speak out and be unpopular (or as my cousin recently said, be "a dickhead".)

From my interactions with Christians I know that people don't like it when you expose their god as imaginary or as a fraud. (And, as far as the "God of the Bible" goes, he has been completely disproved*. Maybe, just maybe, there might be something out in the Universe that, because of technology or evolution, the word "god" might seem to be the only description available, but it won't be the "God of the Bible", and that is absolutely certain. Sorry.)

Which brings me to today's main point: The State is today's most popular god. I will repeat that: Statism, the belief in the legitimacy of The State, what most people mean when they say "government", is nothing but a religion where The State is the god. A person can believe in the god of The State alone, or in conjunction with supernatural god(s), or neither.

A little explanation is in order. People who worship, or at least believe in, a supernatural god have their own concept of that god in their mind that really doesn't mesh very well with anyone else's concept of god. The only reason they don't notice this fact is that they haven't examined it too closely (or in the right way) and they only see the god they personally imagine (or interpret through writings they read) and they assume that's the god everyone they worship with sees as well. If they could actually get inside the head of the person sitting in the pew next to them they'd be shocked at the god that person is worshiping- and vice versa. The reason I know this is that I asked a lot of people over a long period of time to describe "God" in detail to me. And I kept digging deeper into their concept. Beyond the most superficial description there was no similarity from one person to the next, even when they believed they worshiped the same god in the same church. Even the descriptions, personality traits, and characteristics of the "Biblical God" are completely different in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. But people try not to notice. It is as if many different objects- rocks, turtles, watermelons, books, ice cubes, televisions, and pillows- are painted the same color and given the same surface texture and said to be the same thing.

The statist's god is the opposite. The god of The State comes in many forms that are all much more similar than they are different, except on the surface. Unlike supernatural gods, with the god of The State only the minor details differ. Like how the people who control the State are selected or take power. The deeper you dig, the more identical the States are. They all share the characteristics of supporting themselves through theft, a monopoly of "legalized" force, and very few people questioning the legitimacy of this god, even when they oppose the particular form they happen to dislike. In this case it is like taking a bunch of watermelons and painting them differently, or gluing a bunch of different things to the surface and claiming that they are all completely different from one another. More than believe in any particular version of a supernatural god. Tragically, most people still believe some form of State is inevitable and necessary.

Even worse than opposing the god of State, in the eyes of the Believers, is exposing it as a fraud. And it IS a fraud. It is imaginary insofar as it doesn't exist as a monolithic real thing; it is made up of individual people who have the same flaws as those the State Worshipers pretend The State will protect us from. It is a fraud because it doesn't protect any innocent person from anything, it simply takes the place of the freelance thief and aggressor and claims its actions are good, where the same actions would be bad if you or I committed them without working for The State. So we must be protected from those bad guys by others doing the same thing? Ridiculous!

What got me thinking on this was a comment I made on an "atheist's" video, which caused her to comment back to me "you're an idiot". Among other things. It comes down to the fact that I simply got her to expose the fact that she still believes in a god, but her god is The State. I pity her for that.

* Before someone starts harping on the common belief that "you can't prove a negative"- yes you can. I can prove that my hip pocket does not contain a 25-ton, fluorescent orange, living, breathing, flying Tyrannosaurus rex. But suppose I made the claim that such a creature was in my hip pocket. You could prove that my hip pocket doesn't contain that creature in spite of my claims, probably without even coming to me and examining the inside of my pocket. You can use logic, and the laws of the Universe, to disprove my preposterous claim. You can prove a negative.

Added: I have modified somewhat my contention that The State is analogous to god. Read my newer thoughts here.

.

Driver's Licenses for "Illegal" Humans

Driver's licenses for "illegal [sic] immigrants" is a non-issue that won't go away because inconsistent (and unethical) people keep focusing on the wrong question.

Recently I commented on a letter to the editor about that very issue. Nothing I haven't said before, and still true.

Here is my comment:

There is no one, no not even YOU, who can get through a day without violating several "laws". It is estimated that we each commit an average of 3 federal felonies every day. Usually without even knowing it. With the millions of laws on the books, federal, state, and local- as well as all the ordinances that are not actual laws but are imposed upon us as though they were, there is no telling just how "illegal" you and I truly are. We are all "illegal" in some (and probably many) ways. To single out people who migrate from land illegitimately claimed by one government to land illegitimately claimed by another, without getting permission from those governments, as "worse illegals" than other people is hypocritical.

Don't steal from anyone; don't attack anyone; don't damage private property- and I don't care where you were born. You are less a danger to me than people born next door who send The State after others and who live off of government (stolen) money.

Then to clarify, I added:

And, just in case anyone gets the idea I think independent migrants should be forced to have drivers licenses, think again: http://blog.kentforliberty​.com/2011/06/no-more-drive​rs-licenses-for-illegals.h​tml Driving is a basic human right, not a government-granted privilege.

And then replied to another comment equating not getting a "driver's license" with stealing and lying:

If there is stealing and lying going on it is not being committed by the people who don't have "driver's licenses", but by those who claim to have the authority to demand such. No one has an obligation to obey an unethical or immoral order.

It really does matter. When anyone's rights are violated for the pretense of "law" it harms me, too. Why can't the statists get that inside their miniscule skulls?

.

Nancy Grace and a verdict she hates

I am a deeply flawed human being. I am thrilled that Nancy Grace is infuriated.

In Libertopia, there is the Case of the dead little girl.

.

The State: A "Lose/Lose Propostion"

The State is a lose/lose proposition. Plus, the more powerful the government, the worse the situation for all.

The regular people lose immediately by being stolen from to pay for the government and its projects. They lose when their liberties are violated along with their "inalienable" rights. They lose when they are killed for breaking some counterfeit "law".

And eventually those in government, and those Useful Idiots who have supported and advocated a powerful government, lose when the "chickens", which they have so carefully bred and raised, come home to roost. It may even be a law of the Universe.

.

Happy Secession Day 2011

Happy "Tell The State to Go ____ Itself" Day!

Isn't it pathetic that governments pretend to have authority to forbid the use of explosives in celebrating a day which enshrines the right of the people to ignore tyrannical governments and to kill government employees who won't back off?

I suppose the real pathetic thing is that governments do this without consequence.

So, since it has all been said so many times already, how about some links to my comments from years past:

The Declaration of Independence vs. the Declaration of Dependence

Independence means secession- then and now

The perversion of Independence Day

Confession: I Don't Really Like Fireworks

Enjoy the day and exercise any freedoms you still can.

.

A very different "Libertopia"

I was doing a web search on my other blog, Dispatches From Libertopia, and came across a very different blog entry by that same name. Once again I am stunned and saddened by a person's ignorance.

Wait, not "ignorance"; by that person's stupidity. Sorry, but "ignorance" isn't intentional, and to say things like "Wherever government is meant to be of by and for the people, to be anti-government always means to be against the people.", and to believe it, is willfully stupid, not ignorant. I found 4 major problems with that sentence, not including punctuation. And that was just the first stink-nugget. It goes even further off-course from there. I didn't waste my time reading all of them.

It would be simple, though time-consuming, to answer each of the 46 (Roman-numbered) points and utterly destroy them. But they aren't even worth the effort.

The blogger clearly confuses (or conflates) "libertarian" with "conservative" (and that isn't the only error in facts, logic, and thinking the author makes) and builds a glorious strawman upon that mistake, reveling in his "progressive" political hatefest as he pathetically attempts to tear down his own failed creation. In some cases even his strawman kicks his butt even as he pretends not to notice. It's sad, really.

If you wish to be stunned, click on the link, but you have been warned. Your mind will reel as you see and mentally refute each point error by error- on several levels if it is more than a couple of words long. Just- WOW!

.

National debt

The US government is bankrupt (financially as well as ethically and morally). Everyone knows this and has known it for a very long time. There is an obvious solution.

Close the government; let the employees go find honest jobs, turn off the lights, take down the signs, lock the doors, and divide the assets among the creditors.

Since governments, anywhere of any sort, are not legitimate, no assets go to them (sorry, Chinese government) but only to individuals.

The US government has been stealing from you your entire life- promising "services" today and a future payoff in exchange for your cooperation. You are being lied to.

It's your money and you need it NOW (stealing a line from the TV commercial). The only reasonable solution is to stop the irresponsible governing and take away the option to re-offend. And to make the government make good on its debts. Does the government owe you a few machine guns and HumVees? Yes, it does.

.

Patriots not deserving of criticism

Patriots not deserving of criticism (My Clovis News Journal from 5-29-2011, about a local group, the High Plains Patriots. As written, not as [briefly] published)

I'm sure the High Plains Patriots would consider themselves "conservative", rather than libertarian, but I'll bet I'd agree with them on about half of their opinions; those that promote and respect liberty for ALL.

I think about this because I have to admit that, although I am not a fan of using the political method for getting things done, greatly preferring the economic method instead, I admire the spunk of the High Plains Patriots and the way they frustrate the plans of local politicians by forcing their tax and spend schemes to a vote. Anything that irritates those who would rule by fiat amuses me.

I certainly don't agree with the criticisms that the High Plains Patriots are wasting tax money by insisting that the plans of those in government not be imposed unilaterally upon those who will be forced to pay for them. If you are that worried about saving tax money, then stop proposing ways to spend it that the High Plains Patriots and others will insist be voted on. Not that a vote to take and spend your neighbor's money has any validity anyway. Donate your own money, but keep your hand out of the other guy's pocket.

If you have a system in place you use against people to get your own way, you can't be surprised when people use that same system against you, or at least use it in ways you don't like. That includes playing by the rules when those rules are inconvenient, expensive, or when you are scared of the possible outcome. No one is forced to enter politics and risk having their schemes thwarted. Politicians could simply enter the market and gamble with their own money.

It is part of the price of entering politics that the system politicians decided to become a part of is set up with certain rules- rules that really only apply to those who voluntarily join the game- and those rules are not supposed to make life easier for politicians, but to bind them so that it isn't too easy for them to violate the liberty of those they claim to represent (and those they don't).

For those who believe in politics to say that once a politician has been elected, whatever he does is "the voters' will", is dangerous. There must be a "safety switch". One of the least offensive, to most, has been the "safety switch" of putting things to a vote when the politicians would rather you simply go along with their grand designs. Demonize this rather innocuous safety switch too much and more people may decide the whole thing is a scam and join those like me in working toward real liberty.

**************************

PS note: I feel I sometimes send the paper a peacock, and they publish a turkey. Yeah, a newspaper probably isn't the place to get too hung up on the nuances of language, but I take a lot of care in choosing the words I use. I am very unhappy about the way this one was edited, and I mentioned one particular change to the copy editor (not THE editor), but he wouldn't change it back. Oh well, in a month I will post the undamaged original version.

UPDATE: It seems the article has disappeared from the paper's website. I'm not sure if this is a glitch or something more.

.

Your "freedom" is not good enough for me

I see it time after time after time. Some person or group declaring themselves to be "for freedom and liberty" denouncing freedom or liberty when the concepts apply to someone the "freedom lovers" dislike.

It could be "illegal immigrants", or Muslims, or homosexuals, or gun owners, or "drug" users, or business owners, or home schoolers, or whistle-blowers, or licensing refusers, or myriad others.

It is hypocrisy of the most cancerous kind.

If you are not for "liberty and justice for ALL", you are NOT for liberty and justice. If you don't respect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property, you are not a friend of liberty. Grow up and take responsibility for your hypocrisy and admit your inconsistency. Admit you are nothing but an authoritarian monster. You might as well, because I see through your mask.

.

The Good, The Bad, and The Better

A good person is never made better by associating with government but a bad person is usually made even worse. Maybe the occasional bad person will be made slightly better by association with government, but a lateral shift isn't really an improvement. For people who really have no "good" or "bad" compass, I would guess they will always be made worse by association with government.

I think the only refutations that could be seriously attempted would be based upon disagreements over the definitions of "good", "bad", and "better".

A good person who becomes associated with government and gets a government paycheck, for example, is now benefiting from theft. That is no improvement. A good person who becomes associated with government can't help but violate the rights of other people in some way. That is not an improvement.

A bad person might stop stealing or aggressing on his own, but through his association with government he will now be doing those things with official sanction. The only possibility of "better" is if he is now doing those evil acts less frequently than before.

All in all, it seems clear that the best course of action is to steer clear of associating yourself with The State in any way.

.

Love, Money, or Accomplishment

In my life I seek love, money, or accomplishment.

I think love and money are clearly out of reach, so what about "accomplishment"?

What is "accomplishment" to me? Not the end of The State. That would be nice, but if that's what it takes for me to feel accomplished I might as well quit now.

I suppose staying true to my principles is a part of it. As well as spreading the love and understanding of liberty to anyone who is interested. Being able to solve problems through the application of libertarian/anarchist ideals feels pretty good, too. Living life without throwing The State at anyone and without using coercion just feels right.

I'm still mulling this one over.

.

Pro-life or anti-sex?

I would expect that if my "Staci's Abortion" post gets much traffic it may well serve to expose the anti-sex people who have been masquerading as "pro-life". Since pro-life people should welcome such a development, but anti-sex people will not. Just a guess.

.

"Bubble Theory" in Science News?

In the June 18, 2011 issue of Science News, on page 17, (Here's the online link) I read something that bolsters my idea of the Bubble Theory of personal property rights.

"Rather than being learned from parents, a concept of property rights may automatically grow out of 2- to 3-year-olds' ideas about bodily rights, such as assuming that another person can't touch or control one's body for no reason, Friedman proposed." (Emphasis mine)

Yes, it does say "may", but I think it is clear, and not only from this, that property rights grow out of bodily rights and therefore can't be superior to bodily rights.

.