Cops face a choice in California- and elsewhere

So, the feds are over-stepping their imaginary "authority" once again. This time threatening to shut down California medical marijuana dispensaries.

Some day, sooner or later, this kind of evil/stupidity will be the nail in their coffin (or the dirt on their mass grave). Maybe not this time, but it is inevitable. It will happen.

This is a fight they can not win. Not in the long run. Why do they insist on fighting it? Because they are dumb enough to believe in the permanence of a State. Something that has never been and never will be. A delusion. And they are betting their very lives on it.

Some day this sort of thuggish behavior will bring out the defensive nature of their targeted victims. It is right to defend yourself and your property. No "law" can ever change that fact. When the tipping point is reached it will be a sad day for the families of the enforcers.

But, there is time. Enforcers can either start serving and protecting their masters, rather than victimizing them on behalf of insane control freaks in DC (and locally)... or they can quit their tax-parasite "jobs" and go straight. They have a choice and no one knows for sure when the time to make that choice has expired. It might be tomorrow. It might be the day the thugs move to shut down the first dispensary. Or, it might have been yesterday.

Think, if that is not beyond your ability, Mr. Policeman. I'm only trying to save your hide.

.

Push the button, Frank

Imagine there is a button you could push to immediately make every law enforcement officer in the world instantly drop dead. Or maybe drop dead as soon as he or she wasn't doing something like driving a car, to avoid innocent deaths. I would not push that button.

On the other hand, imagine the button has been reprogrammed so that it will make any cop drop dead the instant he or she initiates force, theft/fraud, or commits that specific-to-enforcers-crime of enforcing a counterfeit "law". Would I push that button? You'd better believe it.

I believe the end result would be identical.

(In case you are bewildered about the headline, it's from MST3K.)

.

"Officer safety"

"Officer safety".

That's one term that gets me riled up.

If the vile, verminous tax parasites known as "law enforcement officers" can murder people on the pretext of "officer safety", then why shouldn't those who hold dangerous jobs be protecting themselves from the consequences of their career choice as well?

Shouldn't fishermen be allowed to drain the oceans using "fisherman safety" as justification?

Shouldn't farmers be refusing to plow, plant, and harvest (and probably salting the earth) in the name of "farmer safety"?

Loggers should start forest fires to get rid of all the trees with the excuse that this increases "logger safety".

Of course those with honest jobs- the fishermen, farmers, and loggers- aren't extorting money from the fish, fields, and forests. If they destroy the things they depend upon they know they have destroyed themselves. Cops aren't smart enough to figure that out.

If a cop is concerned with "officer safety" to the point he feels the need to murder those he depends upon for his career, then he needs a different job.

NO ONE "needs" a cop.

.

Hank Williams Jr's mouth

I'm seeing some "buzz" this morning about Hank Williams Jr. being "disassociated" with Monday Night Football by ESPN over a comment he made. A comment that wasn't a fawning love-fest for Obama.

Who cares?

The comment he made was utterly insignificant. For anyone to get worked up over it they had to be as brittle as a freeze-dried rose petal. "Oh, but he said 'Hitler'!" Once again, if the analogy is true, it is true. If it is not, then it won't stand.

I have absolutely no use for football, or any other team sport. I can't boycott something I never cared about. But this whole thing is just so silly. The NFL's use of the TSA gate-rapists against their customers is a much bigger deal.

What I have seen here is two factions of the Authoritarians pointing fingers and calling names; trying to show the other faction is worse. Guess what: both are anti-liberty and that's all I care about.

Hank Jr. has an absolute right to say anything he wants to say (even to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater)- and accept any and all consequences.

ESPN (and any other business) has the right to fire, or stop using, any individual for any reason at all- or no reason. Freedom of association, and all that.

But to pretend that there is a penny's worth of difference between the statists of the "right" and the statists of the "left" is mind-bogglingly ignorant.

.

Most founders were libertarians

Most founders were libertarians
(At least, the fairly decent ones.)

(My Clovis News Journal column for September, 2, 2011. As written, not as published.)

Some of America's founders were scientists- and were very good ones to the best of their ability, considering the prevailing culture they lived in, and to the extent their understanding, available resources, and equipment would allow. They had some ideas that are very quaint, and wrong, as we can now see clearly because of advances made since then, looking back as we do from the early 21st century. Electromagnetism, DNA, and quantum physics were beyond them. However, no one could reasonably claim they didn't try.

Most of the founders of America were also libertarians, although the term hadn't yet been coined. They were libertarians to the best of their ability and to the extent that the world they were immersed in allowed them to understand liberty. Sure, they had some inconsistencies that are pretty obvious to us now. No one is immune to the culture they find themselves a part of. That doesn't mean we discount the huge philosophical leap they undertook, over and beyond their contemporaries, but it also doesn't mean we should be content to remain where they were and not put our better understanding into practice.

For the time in which they lived, those who founded America were probably even more radical about liberty, compared to their neighbors, than I am compared to the average person today. That is pretty incredible.

What bothers me is that too many people today claim to value liberty, but can't seem to move beyond a late-18th century conception of its principles. They still believe some people are exempt, or unqualified for self-ownership. "Liberty is OK for me, but I'm not so sure you can handle it" seems to be a prevailing notion. That may have been fine for most people back when America was founded, but it is antiquated today, plus it invariably leads to egregious violations of basic human rights.

The founders even understood that rights did not depend on where you lived. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you see any claim that the listed rights- actually "non-negotiable prohibitions on government actions" would be a more accurate description- depended upon the citizenship of the person. Rights were rights, and things that were prohibited to government were always prohibited no matter who the government might have been targeting.

That is one thing the founders got dead-on right. Even if those who have governed since then have managed to obscure the truth.

.

Some people just don't get liberty

Like this guy.

So, I tried to educate him (or, at least, anyone who might read the article). This is my response:

If you don't understand why anyone other than a cop needs a gun in a city council meeting (or anywhere else), then you really don't understand why anyone, including a cop, ever needs a gun anywhere. It isn't even about "need". Those "ill-mannered and volatile" golfers you golf with (why associate with that type of people?) would be better behaved if everyone around them were armed. I've seen it in real life, more than once. Bad people straighten up when their boorish behavior could have consequences. Mayors included. Bad people will also NOT obey prohibitions on guns, so a gun ban only gives them free rein. Good people outnumber bad people, so any attempt to create a "gun-free zone" just levels the playing field to the benefit of the bad guys. It gives the predators among us an advantage. Why do this?

I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment issues surrounding speaking to the city council while wearing a hat- it has nothing to do with "the assumption you can’t talk with a bare head". Words are only a part of the right of freedom of speech. The hat is also part of the expression of opinion. The mayor feels he and the other government employees deserve "respect" that is demonstrated by the removal of the hat. Leaving the hat on is making a political statement (the exact kind the 1st Amendment was written to protect) that government employees are the lowly servants, not the exalted masters. That right existed before the 1st Amendment was written, and will continue to exist no matter what "laws" are passed or enforced. Rulers and tyrants (even petty ones) might not like it, but truth remains truth.

.

Monument to idiocy

Thursday, when I first saw these 12 pairs of shoes hanging from the power line at the park where my daughter and I went to feed the ducks and vermin, I thought "Idiots!"

I thought that some parents were probably very unhappy, if they even knew that the shoes had been lost.

That made me think about how many parents "give" things to their kids, yet still feel a sense of ownership over things that are not their own. If the kids own the shoes, even if the parents gave the shoes to them, then the shoes are not the parents' property. Neither are the kids.

Then I wondered if the shoes' owners had tossed them up there, or whether people had done that to other people's shoes as a "joke" or just to be nasty. If you own something, it is yours to use or destroy. If someone "lost" the shoes for someone else, even as a "joke", that is theft and destruction of property.

Then I got to thinking a little more.

If the shoes were thrown there by their owners, then the only real issue is that the owner of the power line has been violated. People have made a mess on someone else's property that will have to be cleaned up. They are not taking responsibility for their actions.

My thoughts had gone full circle back to "Idiots!"

.

Liberty Lines 9-29-2011

(Originally published in the State Line Tribune, September 29,2011. No, I don't want a "government job", nor do I think having a county government is legitimate. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the situation in a way that the statists who might read the column would get.)

I see that Parmer County is being forced, by legislative fiat, to hire a new employee who is neither wanted nor needed. Governmental "wisdom" (cough-cough) handed down (or up) from Austin dictates that there must be a county auditor. Being the problem solving, libertarian individual I am, I have an obvious answer in the form of a two-step compromise (my first choice being the abolition of the county government).

Step 1- Appoint me Parmer County auditor, and then completely ignore me.

Step 2- Let the CPA firm who is currently doing the job continue to do so, and direct any and all official inquiries to them. Nothing would change.

I am willing to focus my energies on doing the best thing any government employee can ever do: absolutely nothing. At the only proper pay rate: zero. Being opposed to all taxation on principle, I would obviously refuse any pay or benefits. No salary, no office, no business cards or letterhead. Nothing. For once you would actually get your money's worth.

Perhaps in this way I would set an example for all government employees to follow. Who knows, it might even catch on while there is still a choice. Ignore my offer and you run the high risk of appointing someone with "a vision". Ambition to rule, thus to interfere in the lives of others, is one of the scariest traits any government employee can have. Isn't it time to try the alternative?

.

Getting back on track and being "prickly"

There will always be obstacles. You just gotta bulldoze your way through them. And don't let yourself be the biggest obstacle in your life. Knowing and doing are two different things, though.

I hate the fact that I allow emotions get me down, as has been the case recently.

In my head I think that if I had either money or love I'd be able to weather times of stress better. Maybe that is just wishful thinking. The other little voice in my head says I should have the strength to weather rough times inside myself. The truth may lie somewhere in between.

I was a little taken aback by Aretae's comment "...what with you being a bit more prickly than me". I'm not complaining at all about that comment, so if you are reading this, Aretae, don't think I am. It made me think. Am I "prickly"?

I guess that depends. My writings are not the place for compromise. That comes in my real-life interactions with the people I am around. So, yes, in my blog I probably am "prickly". In real life I am much harder on myself than I am on anyone else. These are my principles, after all. I may choose to shun the worst tools of State that I am aware of, but I make a lot of allowances for people who are just trying to get through life the best they can, even when their path makes them do the wrong thing according to my understanding of right and wrong. In fact, I find that I am more forgiving than the statists I am around. If asked my opinion, I give it; no holds barred. But I don't go around screaming "Repent!" at those who don't ask for it. I even go along with a lot of the religious practices of my family, and keep my opinions to myself when they start saying religious things; even though it causes me pain and stress. Just to "be nice".

But I admit there are some things I refuse to do because I know in my head, and in my "heart", that they are wrong. I don't want to set a bad example for my kids or for anyone else who may be watching. I don't want to be forced to avert my eyes and mumble excuses about being pragmatic or "just following orders/doing my job" when caught doing the wrong thing. In the short term life might be easier if I waffled; in the long term... I guess we'll see. At least my conscience has never nagged me after I did the "libertarian thing".

.

Don't read this

As I have mentioned before, I spent many years working in pet shops. Back when I got my first pet shop job I was pretty clueless about the governmental barriers to success that had been erected. I was already not a fan of government, but I just wasn't aware of how badly government had mangled the marketplace. That awareness came soon enough.

Over the years I saw more and more licenses "required" in order to keep the business open. I saw more and more things (and animals) criminalized. I saw more and more effective pet medications taken off the market due to governmental fears that they might be "abused". I saw more and more ridiculous hoops and rituals that were "required" in order to not be in violation of some "law" added every year.

There were "laws" regulating signs, fire extinguishers, parking, advertising, etc. That was above and beyond the "pet shop specific" stuff saying how you were required to house certain animals, what you could sell in the state and what you couldn't, and all that sort of thing. There were probably "laws" regarding keeping the animals fed and their quarters clean, but I never ran into any of that stuff. Although "health department" goons did come snooping a few times, but they never said anything.

And I knowingly and willingly violated many of those "laws" each and every day. I had to. To follow them all "to the letter" would have resulted in paralysis. Every working minute would have been wasted on some bureaucratic nonsense that had nothing to do with the welfare of the animals in my care or the customers who also depended upon me.

I lied on forms. I told customers that if they lied on the forms that were "required" when they bought certain animals (like those dangerous parakeets and iguanas!) that there would be no way for any enforcers to know. I even stared down bureaucrats who showed up to make sure I was following all their edicts and examine all the paperwork.

It got bad enough that I don't want to work in a pet store ever again. Not until The State dies.

Anytime I look into any other business venture I might enjoy, I run into more of the same. And that's the problem. There is nothing I can do to make money "legally" anymore that is worth the trouble. At least nothing I am comfortable/competent doing. I'm too tired to work to avoid the traps. I don't feel like being subjected to molestation in order to get a job. I don't feel like giving out some governmentally-mandated number (either my own or Elvis' orphaned number) in order to be hired. My family would not support my decision to do things "extra-legally" (even though I would not do anything dishonest or aggressive to get money).

The things I have done that I thought might make money have not worked out that well. Most ended up costing more than they brought in. I know that means I should keep trying and experimenting, but I am having a dry spell for ideas and a lack of any money to pursue anything anyway. I am also not getting any emotional support here at home, but instead am being drained of any positivity and ambition. The past performance of my attempts is used against me.

I hate to admit it, but right now I feel like giving up. I know you don't come here to read that. That's why posting has been sparse here and basically non-existent on Dispatches from Libertopia. I hope this passes soon.

.

Libertarianism starts with respect

Libertarianism starts with respect

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 25, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I sometimes hear people make the claim that libertarianism is "Utopian", just like communism, because "it sounds good on paper, but it will never work in the real world". Ridiculous! Communism requires the impossible- omniscient central planners- in order to "work". Libertarianism only needs YOU to not steal or attack; it places no obligation on others. Are you claiming that is beyond your ability?

Clovis is not perfect, but it is good, and can be better. There is no Utopia, but you can prevent a place from becoming a dystopia. Allow people to opt out of anything they don't want, never put your neighbor's inalienable rights or liberty to a vote, don't enforce laws that have no ethical foundation, embrace "live and let live", and respect the property and person of others.

As a corollary to that don't support, defend, nor turn a blind eye toward those who do steal and attack. No justification makes those things OK.

There wouldn't be any more arguing over which faction is allowed to make decisions concerning how to take your money and spend it on things you don't want. No one would be allowed authority to violate your property rights any longer for any reason. The silly youth gangs would face the reality of straightening up or being weeded out of the population quickly. I'm willing to bet this change would even improve the local economy. Why wait for someone else to go first?

Even if everyone in this area suddenly adopted libertarian principles, no place will ever be perfect. The weather would still be the same; like it or not. The same will be true of the people. People will always be people. If you don't like your neighbors now, that would probably not change. Some people can't seem to stop meddling and I don't expect that personality flaw to go away. However, respecting the rights and liberty of others, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, takes away the meddlers' power to ruin other people's lives.

Clovis has potential. It isn't up to any new "laws" being passed, old "laws" being enforced, or anyone else taking the initiative. It is, as it always has been and always will be, up to you. I'm excited about the possibilities. Are you up to it?

.

Santorum: "Funny" isn't always nice

I think Rick Santorum is authoritarian scum. Yet, I don't think what has been done to his name is very nice. Yes, people have a right to make any word take on any meaning they want. You shouldn't always do everything you have a right to do, though. I'm sure there are some innocent Santorums ("Santori"?) out there who don't deserve this humiliation.

On the other hand, I think santorum is made up of a sloppy mix of rickperry and obama. And sometimes a naughty dog will dig a pelosi out of the trash can and chew it up! I'll let you interpret for yourself.

.

Consequences of The State... and being flawed

Here is my normal "around town" transportation.

My daughter and groceries ride in the trailer. I provide the power.

I certainly don't mind riding this, but I resent- with a growing hatred- the Acts of State that make this more and more necessary. Taxation and regulation that inflates prices along with fiat "money" that evaporates before your eyes. Plus the proliferation of "laws" that make it hard for a person to earn money without violating principles.

It's partly my fault that I can't afford gasoline, nor to do some rather pressing car maintenance. But, without the interference of The State I would have more opportunities to make money and things would most likely cost much less. Most days I simply don't have the ambition to do what is necessary under The State to improve my financial situation.

In a way, this is good. I avoid most taxation. In other ways, it makes me grumpy. Add this to the fact that I just haven't been feeling great recently- it puts me in a bad mood. Sorry.

.

Liberty or Security - Good news on the horizon?

Liberty or Security? Which have people been writing about more (in books)? Here's the link. Notice the trend, but especially there at the very end. Could this signify storm clouds on the way for The State? Maybe more people are realizing time's up.

.

The Fire Ant Parable

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants.

While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be.

All the while, west of you, is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice).

If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it.

*

Unless things are perfect, there are always improvements that can be made. It doesn't diminish the good that you already have in any way. Don't "Love it or leave it", but "Love it and keep working to improve it".

(Originally posted here.)

Reality is Radical

Sometimes my family members are "treated" to people recognizing our odd last name and connecting them with me. This happened to a relative of mine today. Fortunately, most people who say something actually mostly agree with the things of mine they have read. Perhaps most people would rather avoid conflict.

Today, my relative told the person who commented that she thinks I am "pretty radical on some things".

Radical. Yes, I am, and for a good reason. The truth is radical. Sticking to the truth is radical. Accepting nothing less than the truth is radical. Reality is radical.

Don't believe me?

Look at gravity. Gravity is radical. It is "extremist" by nature. It makes no exceptions, no matter who you are, and no matter how you might beg or complain. It cares nothing about how good your reasons might be to make an exception "just this one time". It operates according to the same rules everywhere at all times (as far as science has been able to determine). Even when you think gravity is being defeated, it really isn't. Flight depends upon gravity, as does space travel and navigation, and even the "weightlessness" of orbit. You might as well learn to use gravity to your ends rather than fighting it.

So it is with liberty. To be consistent, you must be radical. Anything less is ... well, less.

.

Libertarians lead invisible life

Libertarians lead invisible life

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 18, 2011. As written, not as published.)

In day-to-day life, being a libertarian really doesn't attract any attention. We are pretty much invisible.

We are the neighbors who mind our own business. We probably don't have noisy parties but won't call the cops about yours. We are the people who pick up the dropped keys for the person struggling with grocery bags. We are the person who picks up, and returns without comment, the baggie of marijuana that inadvertently fell out of the pocket of the guy in front of us in the checkout line. We are the ones who will hold the door open for you, or give you a ride if you run out of gas. We are remarkable only in our unremarkable behavior.

In day-to-day life we aren't out there shouting our philosophy. Libertarians are not screaming in your face, demanding that you worship our symbols or historical figures. We are not threatening to cage you if your lifestyle differs from ours. We are simply going about our business without attacking or stealing. This illustrates how "libertarian" most people are in their daily lives. People behaving decently are indistinguishable from libertarians.

It is only when confronted with acts of aggression or theft that we find it difficult to remain silent. In the face of wrongdoing we speak up and rise to the challenge. And we will defend ourselves. We refuse to equivocate and make excuses, but will call a spade "a spade". This is when we are noticed. And, strangely, this is when we are vilified and ridiculed.

Those who oppose libertarians at this point seem to do so because they to wish to keep open the option to attack someone, somewhere, for some reason. They want to be able to do things "as a society" that they know to be wrong on a personal level. You can't give anyone, nor any group of people, a right that you don't individually possess. If it is wrong to steal, you can't authorize government to steal, under any euphemism, on your behalf. If it is wrong to kick in your neighbor's door, you can't authorize The State to kick in your neighbor's door for you.

This consistency distinguishes libertarians from those who are not. Fortunately, except in unusual circumstances, it doesn't show up much in daily life. Which is why libertarians are mostly invisible.

.

"Right" and "Left" = Despicable!

I despise both the "left" and the "right". Not necessarily the people who claim those perverted perspectives, but the "ideological" positions themselves.

The only people of the "right" or the "left" that I despise are those who use their ideology as an excuse to attack and steal. Either in person or by proxy.

Those things are not right, no matter what justification you attempt to use. Aggression and theft wouldn't even be right if you used liberty as an excuse, which is why I am not big on pragmatarianism or utilitarianism. The ends do not justify the means. Sure, you can work "for liberty" by violating the rights of others, but in the long run you do more harm than good.

The "right" and the "left" are both equally evil, differing only in the way that evil is put into motion. It all comes down to slavery vs. liberty, theft vs. honest possession, and truth vs. deception. Which do you support?

.

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"?

.