Merry Christmas- Happy (late) Solstice!

Merry Christmas. Yuletide greetings. Happy Zagmuk. Happy Festivus. Happy (late) winter solstice- which is the real "reason for the season".

Here's my "deep thought" for the day:

The whole Christmas myth of Santa Claus illustrates why central planning is always a failure. For one individual to visit hundreds of millions of homes in one night, even adjusted for a 24 hour night moving around the planet, would be impossible. Yet, it apparently happens.

How? Santa wouldn't work as a "top down program" administered by one person from one spot, but works pretty well as a "bottom up" deal where each family is responsible for their own little corner of the world- IF they choose to participate. No coercion, no rules. Not perfect, but possible.

Just like every other facet of reality.

Now, enjoy this musical interlude:

Two "deep" questions

There are two different quotes that touch on the same question, and they have both been going through my mind a lot recently.

 One is "What would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?" 

The other is "What is it you want the most?"

 And I don't have an answer for either one.  What does it say about me that I can't answer those questions, and that I have never been able to?

Seriously, I want to be able to answer both of those, and I have been trying to as long as I can remember- even long before I had ever seen the questions in front of me.  More than anything else, that is the reason I quit college after 2 years, having never chosen a "major".  Am I trying to keep my options open?  Or, is that just justification to avoid... something?

And, does it even matter?

.

Coercion no way to win support

Coercion no way to win support

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for November 18, 2011)

When you decide your house needs a new roof how do you go about getting it done? Do you either try to use your insurance policy or find a way to pay for it yourself? Or, do you go to your neighbors and demand, at gunpoint, that they pay for all or part of it on your behalf?

Only government can consistently choose the latter option and keep getting away with it.

There are a lot of things I think I really "need". Things that would be good for me and probably be good for everyone in my life, but things that cost more than I can possibly afford on my own. There are also things I think would be good for "the community", which I can't do alone.

However I am not under the impression that just because some things would be good, and would arguably benefit a lot of people, I am justified in forcing you to pay for them, even if I can see no other way. I can describe what I want, and try to convince others to pitch in. I could even whine and plead and cry. As long as I don't use coercion- or delegate someone else to use coercion for the cause- I am doing nothing wrong. Annoying, perhaps, but not wrong.

It is also why I would not impose a libertarian paradise on you without leaving you a simple way to opt out.

Just as soon as I use violence, or even skillfully veiled threats of violence, to get my way, I have crossed the line from right to wrong. It doesn't matter what the money was for, or how many people it might benefit. I have de-legitimized my cause by giving up on convincing others to help voluntarily and lowering myself to the level of the common crook.

So, is there something you think should be done that you can't afford to do by yourself? Then start telling others why you believe it is important and convince them to go along with you. Don't turn to coercion, not even through the enforced opinions of a voting majority, to accomplish your goals. That just shows you couldn't sway enough people to voluntarily help you accomplish your goal, but were only able to convince enough who believe coercion is OK and are willing to use force against people who don't want to participate. It means you failed. Don't fail.

.

Changing the past or embracing it

Yesterday was the 8th anniversary of what was probably the worst day of my life. I won't go into details.

Almost everything about my life today is a direct result of that one day. And the pain is still almost unbearable at times.

But, because of the pain of that day I sought out like-minded individuals and, instead of simply reading what others were saying about individual liberty, I began speaking out about it. I stood to be counted with the good guys. I felt I had nothing more to lose, and that made me "brave".

Would I change anything if I could? My answer is "no" only because of my daughter, who I would have never had almost 4 years later if that day had gone differently. But, everything else I'd trade away in an instant.

This is reality, and reality says the past can't be changed anyway (even while it can be discovered to all be a lie written to support the current Rulers). So, I accept the current conditions that the past made happen. I'm not so sure I'd say I embrace any of it.

Life goes on, and I have discovered that monumental change comes when you least expect it, so never get too comfortable with life. The next monumental change may just be wonderful.


.

"The Political Bible" by Rich Rubino

I've been reading The Political Bible of Little Known Facts in American Politics by Rich Rubino. It is dedicated to "political junkies", one of which I most assuredly am not.

However...It is a very fascinating book. Once I got past my initial bewilderment over why politicians and their oddities are more worthy of a book than are janitors or doctors I found myself enjoying the book.

You can read about things future presidents did before they entered organized crime. Among other things. You can also read about state-level politicians, and congresscritters. And you can read facts about the "founding documents". Seriously, this book is just filled with short snippets that cover the spectrum. Odd things, funny things, sad things.

Since this is a "plotless" book, it is an excellent bathroom book. You can read just a few of the brief entries at a time and never lose your place.

I did enjoy it- in fact, I still am enjoying it. I also know some people I intend to loan it to- but I want it back.

So, thanks, Rich, for allowing me the opportunity to enjoy your obsession.

.

Buck Knives- Thumbs up!

I just wanted to say something nice about a company that made me very satisfied: Buck knives.

Recently in my wanderings, I found a Buck knife buried under some gravel. (Not a clue why I decided to dig right there...) It was in rough shape and the tip of the blade was broken off.

I looked online when I got home and discovered that it wasn't a cheap knife by any means, so I emailed Buck an inquiry about their repair services.

I was told that I could send the knife and $10 to them and it would be repaired. Good deal!

Since one of my everyday carry knives is also a buck, and also had its tip broken off when it was very new (over 20 years ago) by (probably) the first person I handed it to (grrr!), I decided I would send it in as well.

Well, I got the knives back and ... WOW! The found knife looked almost new. They had not only replaced the broken blade with a new, and fairly sharp, blade, but they had also polished the handle very nicely. The wood still has some deep scratches, but everything is smooth and feels nice in the hand. It was more than I expected and I was thrilled.

My everyday knife looked new. It was in pretty good shape anyway (I had long ago reshaped the blade so the broken tip wasn't even noticeable to anyone but me), but it is in practically perfect shape now. Once again, they hit the bullseye!

Just a bit of sharpening and the knives were up to my sharpness standards (which are ridiculously high).

No, Buck isn't paying or otherwise rewarding me to say any of this. I tried to send Buck an email to tell them how happy I was with their repair service as soon as I got the knives back, but the email wouldn't go through. So I hope they will someday see this and know they got my respect. $20 for two like-new knives is a deal that just can't be beat.

.

"Freedom: Time to Take it Back!" by Ron Fontaine

Here is something good to read today. I didn't write it, but it seems like something that could have come out of my brain. It has been around a while, but I just now ran across it.

Freedom: Time to Take it Back! by Ron Fontaine

My own opinion is that "we" don't need to take anything back. I intend to exercise my liberty regardless of what anyone else does. It would be nice if I had enough company that The State was afraid to move against me in the knowledge that to do so would result in its immediate destruction. But, either way, I withdraw consent.

.

Facts, right or wrong, vs Opinions

Do all solutions create more problems? Yes. You may not like that fact, but it will remain a fact in spite of your displeasure. And, regardless of the statement made by a commenter on the above-linked column.

But, let's pretend for a moment I am wrong. Is the above statement about solutions and problems a "fact" or an "opinion"?

Even if it is wrong, it is an erroneous fact, not an opinion.

An opinion is saying "chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream" or "They Might be Giants is the best musical group". Saying "The Unicorn is the most massive of the cetaceans" is wrong, but it is not an opinion.

.

The Golden Rule

I have mentioned before that The Zero Aggression Principle says about the same thing as The Golden Rule. Turns out I was a little off- well, maybe.

A new friend and I were talking the other night and he mentioned something I'm not sure I've ever heard before (well, more than one thing, but that may be the subject of more posts).

He said The Golden Rule should be (and may actually have originally been) "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

From a "negative rights" perspective, that makes perfect sense to me.

Added:  I also wonder if a better way to say it might be: "Don't do unto others as they would not have you do unto them."  That makes allowances to people who might enjoy being caused pain.

.

"Sharia law is coming!"

I just saw another person post a warning that "Sharia law is coming!"

No, it's already here. You just don't see it because it's based upon a religion you happen to be a part of.

Kinda scary to think you might lose your privileged position and be subject to someone else's nonsensical "laws" and draconian punishments for doing things you have an absolute, eternal human right to do, isn't it. Maybe you shoulda thought about that before doing unto others.

.

Adventures in Amarillo

I went to the big city today. Spent some time in a mall. Yeah, believe it or not I do enjoy malls and the opportunity they provide for people watching. And going to the knife store.

Anyway, I was sitting in the play area watching my daughter play with the other kids when she suddenly commented about the baby running off. She was pointing past the exit. I turned and looked and, yep, there was a little kid (probably not much over a year old) toddling for the mall's exit. I quickly scanned to see if any adults seemed to be going after him, and seeing no one, I took off.

The path he chose was not crowded so I didn't exactly run or anything, but just walked with purpose after him. (with my 40" inseam, I cover ground quickly) About halfway there a woman asked if that was my kid. I said "No. He just left the play area and no one went after him, so I thought I should bring him back." About this time (I never stopped walking) he reached the exit and started trying to get past the Salvation Army bell ringer, who was trying to keep him from wiggling through. I got to the kid and offered him my hand. He quite happily took it and I began leading him back to the play area. He traveled just as fast back as he did in his escape attempt.

The bystander was still standing there staring at the scene. She once again asked about his parents. I said that no one seemed to be watching him or noticing that he was gone. I said I just figured I'd get him back in the play area and see who claimed him.

I took him in and was met by my daughter's mom, who loudly asked a chatting woman if this was her kid. She answered "Well, if I have to claim him..."

I told her that he made it all the way to the exit and would have made it outside had the bell ringer not held him back. (Of course, he wouldn't have gotten through the second set of doors, as by that point I was right there.) She just kinda shrugged and led him back to where she was sitting. Then resumed chatting to someone sitting a few feet from her as the kid started playing again.

The bystander came up to me and made some comments about the mother's lack of attention and seemed completely bewildered how anyone could just let their kid wander off that way, and seem so unconcerned after it had happened.

I did notice he was watched a little more carefully after that, since his subsequent escape attempts were thwarted by his mother before he could leave the area.

Just another day...

.

Libertarians aren't angry people

Libertarians aren't angry people (...in general) If that link doesn't work, try this one.

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 11, 2011.)

One accusation I have seen repeatedly leveled at libertarians, by people who see themselves as being in the mainstream, is that libertarians must be "angry". Just because we speak out against the use of coercion, and don't fall for exceptions based upon- well, anything, we must be "angry"?

Now, I won't deny I have known a couple of angry libertarians. And angry conservatives and angry liberals too, for that matter. Considering human nature, and with all else being equal, you might imagine the percentages are comparable.

On the other hand, a philosophy that rejects aggression seems ill-suited to angry people. Angry people are drawn to revenge and punishment. If a libertarian is consistent, revenge and punishment (beyond restitution to the individuals directly harmed by an act of aggression or theft) are impossible to justify.

To assume a person must be angry just because he speaks out when he see things wrong with the world makes no sense. Are you angry when you say the house needs fresh paint, or when you mention to someone that your car needs gas? Neither am I angry when I point out that coercion is wrong, and that I do not want any individual, or any group, using it against others on my behalf. It is just the way it is.

Now, I might be angry if I know my house needs to be painted, but someone uses coercion or theft to prevent me from painting it. Or if I see someone forcing others to paint his house against their will. And, knowing that liberty would solve most of the real and imagined problems in society, I get more than a little frustrated when popular pundits and powerful puppeticians (* note to editor: Yes, I made up a word to describe politicians who are controlled by something other than Principle. You can change it back to "politician" if you must) propose the opposite- and then pretend to be surprised when the problems inevitably get worse.

Perhaps the "angry" label is applied because libertarians are not ashamed to speak out. Silence changes nothing, and it gives an illusion of consent where none exists. I prefer to give fair warning and point out the lines in the sand. No one seems too shocked that liberals/conservatives speak out; only that those who don't buy into that false dichotomy speak up.

I feel bad for those who have hitched their wagon to the twin horses of coercion and theft. The choice was theirs to make, and I wonder if the accusation is an attempt to put libertarians on the defensive.

.

Arguing is so tiresome

You know, I'm getting tired of arguing.

I feel like it might just be easier to let people wallow in happy ignorance than to try to show them a little light of truth.

But, the problem is that I care about people and I think operating from faulty premises hurts them.

It's like if I see someone in a survival situation trying to make a fire without matches. I've started thousands of fires that way. If I see someone trying in a way that I see isn't going to work I want to at least give pointers. People generally hate that. I know because I've done that, too.

I've also been on the other side. I was once the guy who had tried to make a fire with a bow/drill... and failed- probably hundreds of times. I had read every description ever written of the making of the kit, and the techniques, and failed time and time again. Then, one day high in the Rockies, I heard a guy was going to do a demonstration on bow/drill firemaking. I swallowed my pride and showed up- an ignorant pilgrim in need of help. I watched him make a fire- and saw him correct the one fatal error in every single description I had ever read- and I had a fire in minutes the very next time I tried. Which was just as fast as I could gather the materials.

But, perhaps I had to be at the point where I was ready for help. (I think I was ready for help years earlier; I just couldn't find it.)

So, the best thing might be to clear a spot and build my own fire without uttering a word. Or, just let objections go unanswered while just living it. That makes me feel a little like I am ignoring my duty, though.

.

Concentration camps, and those who support them.

Prison.

Is my life one iota better because there are prisons? No!

Oh, but you might claim I am "safer" when the bad guys are locked up where they can't hurt me. And I would scoff.

Prisons are nothing but concentration camps that enrich and empower the real bad guys.

Not all are as bad as this example, but none are good. And those who work in them should examine the evil they are supporting and enabling.

Prison, and the looming threat of prison, is used to silence legitimate dissent. A large percentage who are imprisoned are political prisoners- caged and controlled for violating drug "laws", gun "laws", and other counterfeit "laws". Some are caged and controlled for being uppity enough to do the right thing and defend their own life or property instead of standing aside while testosterone-jacked thugs who work for the State do the job (poorly and randomly) for them.

"Society", meaning individuals like you and me, would be safer if there were no prisons, and those who decide to attack or steal had to face targets who didn't have to worry that the legitimate act of self defense- of life or property- would result in a potential prison sentence.

Concentration camps are disgusting, and all associated with them would be ashamed if they had any ethics or principles.

.

New excuse to keep long hair

I just read this little article: Hair Is An Extension Of The Nervous System, Why Indians Keep Their Hair Long. Read it. It isn't very long.

No, I don't buy it either.

Hair is dead, and it made of keratin, not nerve tissue. However, I'll take whatever silly justifications I can when told I "should" cut my hair.

I know I feel better when my hair is long. That's enough for me.

.

Anti-Christmas Christians

I don't remember ever seeing as much anti-Christmas whining as I'm seeing this year. By Christians.

A lot of it is based around this video which keeps cropping up on Facebook. My thoughts are "so what?" You try to co-opt an ancient holiday, and then moan and complain because the original bits of it won't go away peacefully and let you have it all your way? OK, so it was your ancestors, not you, who tried that sneaky little trick. Still... Why not just enjoy the holiday?

So, here's a compromise: you Christians who aren't happy about the pagan aspects of a pagan holiday which you tried to claim for yourselves, why not find out with absolute certainty if/when Jesus was born and then go celebrate that date as your holiday and leave Christmas- by whatever name- to the rest of us. You are perfectly welcome to continue to celebrate with us, of course. Just stop trying to poop on the fun. OK?

.

Offensive materials online

I keep seeing different governments and moralizers trying to forbid or regulate "offensive material" on the internet.

Offensive to whom?

Pro-cop drivel is extremely offensive to me, so why should I be exposed to it?

Anti-gun nonsense also offends me. As does pro-military stuff and anti-sex hand-wringing. Yet no one seems bothered that I am routinely exposed to this crap. For that matter, I have never sought to have anyone protect me from it. I need to be aware that it is out there so it doesn't catch me unaware. I can pretty much control what I am exposed to by avoiding certain sites. I am not a baby to be coddled. Can't say the same about the statists and moralizers.

.

Some people just don't get it- firefighting edition

Another entry in "Some people just don't get it".

Someone, or a site, calling himself/itself "Needlenose" has latched onto a symptom of The State and declared it to be a consequence of "Libertopia". He is gloating over the "libertarian" Tennessee firefi... firewatchers who refused to put out a fire until they got paid.

So, I posted the following comment (over a day ago, but it is still languishing in Moderation):

"You kinda miss the point, since things like this would probably not happen in Libertopia, yet this event did happen in a coercive, non-libertopian society."

.

Defeating "confirmation bias"

How can you be sure that libertarianism- respect for the liberty of each individual- is the right path?

Confirmation bias means that we will ignore counter evidence and play up the importance of evidence that supports our case.

However, I didn't always support the whole "liberty package". In fact, there are aspects of libertarianism I used to hate. However, when presented with evidence that showed that respecting individual liberty was better- made my life and the lives of those around me safer, wealthier, and more consistent- I switched sides on those issues. I didn't allow confirmation bias to obscure the evidence for liberty.

Perhaps that means something.

.

Liberty Lines- December 8, 2011

(The State Line Tribune, December 8, 2011)

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Freedom of speech is meaningless until you want to say something that those with power- be they a dictator or a voting majority- don't want you to say. And property rights are likewise meaningless until you want to use your property in a way those with power don't like.

With the Esparza property rights case in Texico, a property owner's rights are being trampled, apparently with universal approval, and that's sad.

This doesn't mean I appreciate junk and litter. On the contrary, I hate them with a passion. However my right to do something about it ends at my property lines. I have every right to take action to stop anyone from damaging my property, but only until I try to control someone else's property. Requests and privacy fences; not invasion and theft.

Ah, but some will claim that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so property rights don't mean you can use your property in a way that might devalue your neighbors' property or cause a "health hazard".

You have the right to shout whatever you wish to shout, wherever you wish to shout it, but you are accountable for any actual harm that occurs from your doing so. Offending or frightening someone is not harming them; they are still fully responsible for how they react to your shout.

Accordingly, you have a right to use your property however you wish and then you have a responsibility to pay any real damages your usage causes your neighbors. Resorting to "legal coercion" when negotiation fails means you are cheating to get what you want.

That includes billing property owners for work they did not consent to having done on their property.

The individuals actually harmed, not any government entity, are within their rights to demand restitution for the harm, and they are also within their rights to fence their property, shoot or poison any pests coming from the problem property (regardless of "laws" to the contrary), and to completely shun the owner- refuse to have any dealings or do business with him in any way even if it means he starves in the dark and cold. No one is within their rights to take ownership of someone's property by controlling how they use it just because the person isn't cooperative.

If I had the money I'd even help the property owner pay any lien that is placed on his property so that it won't be stolen, "legally" or not, from him. Because it's the right thing to do.

.