Does evil "cancel out" in big groups?

I think a big myth that underlies the flawed reasoning of statists, when trying to justify their desire for a State, is that stupidity, evil, and poor character cancel out in big groups. Kind of like multiplying two negative numbers gives a positive result.

I think that is not the case at all. This gem from Larken Rose illustrates that point quite well.

I think The State attracts the worst of the worst- but mostly those who are smart enough to do things "legally" instead of freelance. Plus, on the chance a decent person is attracted to become a part of The State, and succeeds, I think the inherent corruption he finds himself swimming in corrupts him sooner, rather than later. Even if a hypothetical "good politician" existed, he would be too outnumbered to have any real effect. (Still, if you are a good person who feels a need to be political, I think it is better to run for office than to vote.)

I think a "good group" with one bad person is more likely to do evil, and a "bad group" with one good person in it will not do less evil because of the one good person's influence. It's that old "compromise between food and poison" thing Ayn Rand mentioned.

The State is evil because of the types of people who are drawn to power, and the results of The State will always be evil. Even if decent people were the vast majority in government (just as they are in everyday life), mistakes and bad decisions compound problems until evil is the result.

You don't need The State. Grow up.

.

In spite of "law", or in absence of "law"

I think it is a mistake to compare what people do in spite of the "law" to what they do in the absence of "law".

Part of my reasoning is that "law" protects bad guys from real consequences. It is "more illegal" to kill someone who is breaking into your car than it is for him to do the breaking in. This makes bad guys bold.

He breaks into your car in spite of the law, when he might not dare do so in the absence of the law.

I suspect it might be the same in other areas as well.

How do people drive in spite of the law, and how might they drive in the absence of laws regarding driving? I know that I can either drive well, or I can obey the traffic laws. I can NOT do both. How many other problems will be solved once humanity gets over this addiction to statutory "laws"?

.

Truth scares away the statists

Two people flounced off of Claire Wolfe's blog over her pointing out that US government policies were part of the reason the 9/11 terrorists did what they did- in a caption for a picture.

I can't get over people who are so desperate to reject the truth that they become angry when the truth is mentioned.

This isn't in any way saying that the terrorists should be excused- they shouldn't. They are dead anyway so what does it matter?

This isn't blaming any of the innocent victims of the attacks. Their actions did not bring the attacks onto themselves in any way (except for some of those who worked at the Pentagon, obviously).

But to deny that government policies - imposed and followed for decades before the attacks - had nothing to do with the attacks.... it's just crazy.

If I constantly annoy my next-door neighbor- calling the cops on him for every little thing he does, playing loud music at all hours, peeing on his lawn when he isn't looking, picking his flowers, telling him what he is allowed to do in his own home- he might not be justified in coming into my house and trying to beat me to death, but it is still reasonable to mention that my behavior was a contributing factor. It is reasonable to scold me for acting like a jerk all that time.

And, it is also reasonable to suggest that if I don't stop acting like that, it will probably happen again, since I have other neighbors I am treating the same.

Statists apparently don't want to wake up to this simple truth and hate anyone who points it out to them. Sad.

.

U.S. credit downgrade long overdue

U.S. credit downgrade long overdue

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 11, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I heard it reported that Timothy Geithner, the treasury secretary of the US, said that Standard & Poor's made a terrible decision when it downgraded the US government's credit rating. He claimed this showed that S&P didn't understand the math that is used to figure the US government's budget.

Yeah, I don't understand the math that results in "2 + 2 = unicorns pooping rainbows" either, so S&P is in good company.

I also have trouble understanding the arrogance that leads this government official to claim that downgrading the credit rating of an institution, in as much debt as the US government is, qualifies as a "terrible decision". When did deciding to tell the truth about a risky situation become "terrible"? Would it have been "terrible" to warn women they shouldn't date Ted Bundy?

No, Mr. Geithner, S&P made a sensible decision based upon reality and upon an understanding of real math. You expose your agenda by your protests. Instead of complaining, do something constructive. For example, stop damaging the credit of the US government by your official actions.

I think the downgrade was long overdue. As soon as someone shows they have no intention of paying off their debts, and they keep racking up more like they can't stop, it's time to cut up the credit cards. It's also time to warn others that the spendthrift is a bad risk. Then, if creditors choose to keep giving that person credit, it is no one's fault but their own when they get left in the cold. No one else is responsible for bailing out those with poor judgment.

The government's debt isn't my debt, and it isn't your debt. It is the responsibility of those who made (and signed) the promises to pay. The debt and the credit rating have only been maintained for this long because other governments understand that the US government intends to keep milking you and your descendants, for as much as they can coercively take, into the foreseeable future and beyond. That's giving credit to an extortionist based upon your belief that he will continue to extort money successfully due to past performance. People like that deserve to lose their investment.

It's time to force responsibility on those who refuse to accept it of their own free will. It is time to withdraw consent and leave them to the vultures.

.

Do immigration "laws" only hurt "illegals"?

It bothers me deeply when people say that all the "laws" and policies enacted to crack down on "illegal immigrants" only affect the "illegal immigrants".

No they don't.

Let's say a "law" was passed that made glued-on fake beards illegal. You have a beard, but for some reason someone thinks it might look fake. How would it feel to be harassed constantly by enforcers trying to score by kidnapping you for having a fake beard? Even if they had to let you go after pulling at your whiskers- wouldn't you feel like a second-class human? What if you resisted? Or the lying cop claimed you resisted after he killed you for not bowing low enough, quickly enough?

Statists might claim you could just shave it off to avoid the hassle. Sure, but what if you had some terrible scarring you wished to cover up, and since you liked the beard anyway, it was a natural solution?

Statists will say, as they always do, that it isn't beards they have a problem with, but "illegal" beards. What's the difference if it results in your constantly being targeted by enforcers?

Do NOT enforce immigration "laws" on my behalf! I do NOT consent!

.

"Blowback Day" again... September 11th

Some statists try to call this day "Patriot Day", but Patriot's Day is April 19.

September 11th would more accurately be known as "Blowback Day" if the raging statists had any clue that actions and policies have consequences.

I doubt they'll ever get that.

Remember the victims and remember ALL who are guilty. And mourn those yet to be victimized since this train is being driven full-speed toward the ravine by the delusional pinheads who are holding the controls hostage.

And NEVER forget that government causes terrorism just as surely as a virus causes rabies.

.

Liberty Lines 9-8-2011

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Farwell Texas)

I notice some people were annoyed by "Concerned Citizen" getting involved and upsetting the status quo regarding the landfill. I admit I felt the same annoyance when I read of the situation. I suppose, being a libertarian, I am not surprised by this sort of behavior anymore. In fact, I see it happen everywhere, constantly. It's just that most people don't notice such things as long as they approve of the outcome, or at least dislike the target.

Anytime some "Concerned Citizen" runs to government because of a bee in their bonnet, it hurts us all. I even oppose using one government against other governments, as happened with the landfill, except in cases where individual rights are in jeopardy and the offending government could be thwarted by involving another government to muddle the processes. Even then it is probably not the best solution. The danger of unintended consequences is just too great.

The "Concerned Citizen" effect is what burdens us with excess government such as these counterproductive environmental regulations, police departments, gun "laws", code enforcement, and all the other nanny-state nonsense that nibbles away at liberty. It is a large part of the reason that America now has a federal government (not to mention all the innumerable and entangled local manifestations of The State) which directly violates its Constitution with at least 99% of its actions and programs.

Whatever happened to people minding their own business and leaving others alone unless approached? What ever happened to people who would work out problems between themselves without being tattle-tales? That species of human will never be extinct as long as I draw breath. How about you?

.

Taxation enslaves in both directions

Just because I want to remove tax funding from certain things doesn't mean I necessarily want those things to go away.

Sometimes it means I appreciate them enough to want to remove their chains.

I love zoos, libraries, space travel, and many other things that need to be freed from the restraints of The State. Getting off the dole would be a good first step.

Of course I do want some completely reprehensible things to die a fast and painful death. Police departments and government schools, being a couple of good examples of things that are too harmful to be allowed to exist.

.

No hypocrisy in using public utilities

No hypocrisy in using public utilities

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 4, 2011. As originally written, not as published!)

I've noticed non-libertarians will frequently make the claim that liberty-lovers are hypocritical if they use things that are paid for with taxation. What an odd notion.

As long as The State exists, and continues to fund things through coercive taxation, you and I will be paying for a lot of things we didn't have any choice about funding. We are forced to pay for public schools, libraries, museums, and "public" roads whether we use them or not. In some instances, such as roads, it is impossible to avoid them, so there is no hypocrisy in using what you pay for. If you are paying for something you may as well use it- if you want to. How could anyone have an objection to people using what they are paying for?

This is not the same situation as welfare, which involves people using things not they, but others, were forced to pay for.

With government programs you are forced to pay even when you are allowed to use a private alternative. In this case you end up paying twice- once for the government service you are opting out of, and once for the private alternative you are choosing. Yet, people still make the choice to pay twice, on a daily basis, in order to get what they really want and need.

There is nothing carved in stone saying that using public schools, for example, is against any purported Libertarian Commandment. I do not think public schools are the best choice for educating your children, and in many (or most) cases I think they are actually harmful. However, as long as you are being forced, ultimately at gunpoint, to pay for these schools, you may use them with a clear conscience. If you feel any guilt, it is between you and your children for handing them over to The State for the majority of their formative years.

The same goes for any other service provided by The State. Everyone should have the choice of what to fund and what to use. No one should have to fund the things I choose to use unless they want to.

The hypocrisy is in pretending that it is OK to have a government monopoly, or to force people to pay for something twice if they wish to use an available private option. Opting out of the government "option", including not paying for it if you choose to not use it, must always be allowed.

.

Labor (Unions) Day

On a gut level, I don't like labor unions. They seem to me to be socialistic and coercive.

On the other hand, I have never been in one, and I can see how they could be useful in cases of a business that takes advantage of its employees. What I don't get is why people would form/join a union rather than finding a different way to make money if they are being abused.

My distaste for unions isn't based upon insider knowledge like it is in cases of things I have seen and been a part of from all angles- inside and out. I am looking at unions strictly from the perspective of an outsider looking in. I have never even been around anyone who was in a union, as far as I know.

I have read all the justifications for labor unions, and how the benefits they extracted from employers now grace us all, union or not. But would none of those things have come about anyway, given time and innovation? And what good things will never come about (and never be missed) due to the actions of labor unions? It's like those who claim that since "the government invented the internet" (no, it didn't, but that's another issue), anyone who uses the internet to criticize government is a hypocrite. Diseases can have beneficial side-effects, that doesn't mean you try to get infected.

So, I guess my feelings on Labor Day are pretty typical. Relax and ignore the original excuse to close some government offices.

Enjoy.

.

"I won't"

I just finished reading the story "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. Nice story!

In this story a military ship is thwarted, and loses many of its men, because people simply say "I won't". The commanders of the ship are powerless to do anything about it because their rule book forbids them to use force against people who are not attacking them- which the inhabitants of the planet are not doing.

Unfortunately for us, today, the Rulers who claim to rule us do not obey the rules which apply to their actions anymore. They don't bother even looking at the rule book to see if their actions are allowed, but make it up as they go along.

Politicians, bureaucrats, and especially those disgusting vermin the cops, routinely murder people for simply saying "no". Sure, copsuckers will claim that no one is murdered by an enforcer for simply saying "no", but that is a lie. It happens frequently- probably every day now. The enemy has no ethics. That means saying "no" will not be enough. You and I will also need to back that refusal with self-defensive force.

.

Natural Law and Bubble Theory

Once again, the book The Law of the Somalis (by Michael van Notten) has spoken to me about the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. (Here is the previous observation.)

Now, on page 212 I find:

"[Natural law] permits all activities that do not infringe upon the person or property of another. It takes priority over all other principles and rules that shape human society, including rules legislated by parliaments or established by contract."

Forbidding a person from simply possessing anything on his person (such as, perhaps a gun) on your property as a condition of him entering your property infringes on his person and violates Natural Law. His personal property, as long as it remains out of sight and is unused (makes no appearance outside his "bubble of personal property", does not infringe on your person or real estate in any tangible way. It may "offend" your sensibilities, but you have no right to not be offended. And any contract that attempts to negate Natural Law to suit the real estate owner's wishes is null and void since it violates Natural Law. It is exactly like the fact that slavery is not "OK, as long as you only do it on your own property".

At least, it seems clear enough to me.

.

Terms of use?

This always makes me laugh:

"Use of the ___ service and this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

Nobody but your lawyer believes that. Nobody. Sorry.

.

"Fascist!" "Libertine!"

There's a psychological glitch I have noticed that it seems all humans are subject to. Just as every driver who is going faster or slower than you are is an "idiot", every person who wants more or less liberty than you do is either a "fascist" or a "libertine"*.

I suppose I am probably guilty of that as well- although you probably won't find anyone who wants more liberty- for myself and for YOU- than me. So, to me, almost everyone seems to reside on the "fascist" end of the spectrum.

The thing is, I don't care how much or how little liberty you want for yourself as long as you don't try to impose your wishes on any other person. That is where the "fascists" expose themselves as the bad guys- most of them can't be content controlling themselves, but feel the urge to control you as well.

________

*This isn't to say there is anything at all wrong with being a libertine, as long as you don't aggress or steal- it's just what most people think of anyone who is more liberty-oriented than themselves. I'd probably be considered a libertine by the majority of the people, even though in reality I'm pretty boring- unless opportunities arise.

Libertarians embrace all values

Libertarians embrace all values

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 29, 2011. As originally written, not as published.)

Liberty is primary a libertarian concept, in fact, you could say it is THE libertarian concept, but a it is concept that is often borrowed and used by others.

Just as you are not a chess player if you make up your own rules for playing the game, regardless of whether or not you use the proper board and pieces, you are not a libertarian unless you advocate maximum liberty and minimum government. For the vast majority of libertarians that means living by the Zero Aggression Principle as well as you can, and accepting that you have violated your principles if you fail on occasion.

Yet, there will aways be quibbles about the meaning of "maximum liberty and minimum government". It is generally a matter of degree, but there are limits to how far you can stretch the concept without it tearing.

Personally I see maximum liberty to be the freedom to do anything that does not cause physical harm to anyone else or their private property, and does not use deception, theft, or coercion to separate others from their property. I see minimum government to be self government, also called self control. I see the existence of a statutory institution (a "State") as far above and beyond the preferable minimum government.

If someone or some group claims to be libertarian, but is advocating less than maximum liberty, or is excluding some people from those it considers worthy of maximum liberty, then that individual or group is not living up to its libertarian principles.

If an individual or group self-identifies as libertarian, but is advocating some amount of government in excess of the minimum, whatever that may be, then they are also falling short of their libertarian principles.

If some "libertarian" is excusing theft, coercion, or the rationing of inalienable human rights, for any reason, by rogue individuals or by duly-elected governments, then they are betraying their true nature and giving the lie to their professed principles.

Not everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is, nor do all those who give lip-service to "liberty" or "freedom" understand the concepts, or practice what they preach. In fact, some of those who cry "Freedom!" the loudest are its worst enemies.

.

Stealing isn't sharing

Sharing is nice. "Sharing" other people's property is theft.

This is a difference I am trying to teach my daughter. It makes me unpopular sometimes when people think I need to make her "share". If I make her do it, it is not sharing.

I don't want her to grow up as one of those idiots (such as the president, congress, and other various puppeticians and bureaucraps) who think it is nice to give welfare to poor people. Charity, with your own money- great. "Giving" money that was never yours to give, which you supported being stolen under threat of death- not such a "good thing".

I do encourage my daughter to share, and ask her to put herself in the place of the other kid. But if she chooses not to share I will not force her to hand over her toy.

And, I never let her get away with forcing other kids to share with her, either. If the other kid's parent tries to force their kid to share I ask that they not do so.

Voluntaryism makes all the difference.

.

The State as Church

I was just talking to someone about my contention that The State is today's most popular god. He disagreed that The State is analogous to a god, saying it is more like the church.

Fair enough. In fact, thinking more on it, I agree.

So the idea that it is OK for some people to rule over other people is the god, government is the religion that the god spawns, and The State is the church (the people, not the buildings) that results from that religion being put into practice.

It is still based upon a harmful delusion.

.

Dishonesty?

The only people who have known me in person and claimed I was dishonest are those I caught trying to defraud me, and I stopped them from completing their plan.

When caught, they turned the blame on me. It hasn't happened too many times, but enough that I have noticed the pattern.

I can live with that.

.

Bad words

I really don't believe there are any such things as "bad words".

However, I'd prefer my daughter not be taught to use certain words. At least not yet.

A lot of words have social consequences. I use words that have social consequences all the time- words like "libertarian", "anarchy", "liberty", and "guns"- but I am prepared for the way the words may be received by others.

The words that some other people use might have different consequences, but the consequences are still there and should be recognized. Even if they are silly.

I have never punished my kids for saying any word, even if my personal preference would be that they not use it. I'm not going to start now.

.

"Stone Soup"

My daughter has a book based on the little tale of "stone soup". It's a cute enough book, but it illustrates that most people don't understand the market.

In the book two travelers (who happen to be pigs) come to a village ("peopled" by various, occasionally cannibalistic, animals) where the residents don't want to share their food and lodging. Nowhere does the story mention that trading value for value works better than expecting a handout. The shop owners hide their wares and the banker hides all the money. No one even seems to expect that the travelers will offer to pay. I mention this glaring oversight to my daughter every time I read her this book.

In the end, the pigs do find a way to trade something for food- I suppose you could say they trade party planning skills and a bit of entertainment for food and lodging. As long as everyone is happy, it all works out.

.