Libertarians come in various forms

Libertarians come in various forms

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 6, 1012)

I've heard it said that getting libertarians together for any project is as difficult as herding cats*. Perhaps that is why I like most cats better than I like most dogs: I'm not terribly fond of the blindly obedient personality. I will admit I'd appreciate it if my cat would clean up her own gooey hairball messes.

I think one reason it is hard to get libertarians together is the nature of individual liberty. What is important to me may not matter at all to the next libertarian. While I spend a large portion of my life writing about liberty (because it energizes me), other libertarians are busy living their own lives in their own way, focusing on their own priorities, and most are not at all concerned with spreading the philosophy. And that is perfectly fine. I am aware there are areas of my life which would benefit if the writing didn't get so much of my time.

I recently sat down for a chat with another local libertarian and was struck by how different from mine was the path which brought him to this philosophy. Different experiences, backgrounds, and lives, leading to the same basic realization- that liberty matters and is not negotiable. Like every libertarian I have ever met, he was extremely intelligent, common-sensical, and stimulating to talk to. And just plain nice. The main difference I can see is that he isn't as publicly outspoken as I am. But that doesn't mean he isn't doing just as much, or more, to promote liberty in his own way.

Among libertarians, even among those libertarians concerned with spreading a love and understanding of liberty, there are differences of opinion as to which methods work. Some are still convinced they can "vote themselves free", while others see no evidence of this. Some prefer "preaching to the choir", while others enjoy stepping into the lions' den to try to show fans of coercion-based statutory "law" the superiority of voluntary action. Some think that it is a waste of time doing anything other than just living their life as they see fit to the best of their ability, and never try to help those who don't want to be helped. "Just let the wagon go into the ravine if those on board insist on staying the course."

Personally, I think there is a place for all those strategies, and it will take a little of all the above to once more make the world excited, and safe, for liberty. I'm not going to be too hard on anyone who is working toward the same goal.

.

* I actually had a guy comment on the newspaper site that " The herding cats comment was by the inventor of modern Libertarianism to show how easy it was to organize them." Seriously? He thinks that's what it means? Has he ever been around cats OR libertarians? I have my doubts.

.

"But you might HURT someone!"

I think I've discovered something about myself:

I'm not that impressed (or scared) by "might hurt someone", or "dangerous". I suppose that may color a lot of my opinions.

I'm not saying that I don't see people do things I consider to be dangerous and think to myself "That idiot is going to hurt someone, someday". It's just that my "solution" is never to send The State after that person, but instead to watch out for myself and others and do my best to keep them out of the idiots' way.

We all do things that onlookers would probably think are dangerous and that might hurt someone. If you can do those things without ever harming anyone, then why the complaints? If you do hurt someone, then restitution! Are you sure you can afford it? (Oh, wait. I forgot there isn't much danger of you actually having to answer that question in this justice-free society, where The State pretends putting you in a cage will "make it all better". Morons.)

.

Sacrificing the healthy to the sick

Sometimes, some people have a serious problem. That's sad. But it can be made worse when everyone else is expected to have their lives and rights tossed aside for the few with the problem.

One example is a peanut allergy. Yeah, it's tragic and can be fatal. I am sorry, but it is the responsibility of the person with the allergy to make sure they avoid peanuts. It is not my responsibility to protect them. I am not going to walk around chanting "Unclean!" so that those who have to avoid peanuts will stay away from me.

Another example is "gun control". Yep, around guns some people will do the wrong thing. That is NOT my fault and I resent being punished for things I did not do. I am not going to walk around chanting "Forgive me- I own guns!" so that the State and pathetically damaged individuals can attack me for being a responsible person.

Everyone has defects that they might prefer that others cater to- some of these can even be fatal. But it hurts us all to demand we order society around the problems, rather than expect those with the problems to order themselves around healthy individuals.

.

Learn The Way, Grasshopper.

Sometimes the contortions of those who fawn over The State leave me in awe. It's like some kind of mental discipline beyond what I am capable of allows them to justify the unjustifiable, and ignore the obvious. They've discovered "Gov fu- The Way of the Coward".

.

Disgusting authoritarians

I have read about a couple of studies that found that those who identify themselves as "conservative" are more easily disgusted. Interesting.

Not sure if the correlation indicates causation. Or, even if there is causation, which causes which. Are people who are easily disgusted drawn to "conservatism", or do "conservatives" become more easily disgusted as a way to justify their politics?

I guess someone needs to do a follow-up and watch young kids as they mature and see what happens to those who are easily disgusted in early childhood, versus those who are not.

The study got one thing glaringly wrong when it claimed "Liberals tend to disagree, and are more likely to base judgments on whether an action or a thing causes actual harm". Um, no, they don't. (I interpret this as bias on the part of the researchers.)

Which makes me wonder, what is the correlating factor that is tied to "liberals"?

I suspect it is "offense". I would like to see a study that looks at people who are easily offended and see what their politics resembles.

However, as we all know, "conservative" and "liberal" (or "progressive" if you prefer) are just silly names for authoritarian. Which makes sense. Disgust and offense are also pretty much just different names for the same feeling.

"Conservatives" may be offended by "gay marriage" while "liberals" are disgusted by gun ownership.

So, authoritarians are those who are easily offended/disgusted. And then use offensive and disgusting coercive behavior to try to force everyone else to go along with their own mental shortcomings.

.

Road monopoly and "their rules"

One place a particularly pathetic defense crops up- for the absurd rules that the government road monopoly imposes- is in discussing driver's licenses.

The government apologist will say "If you don't like the rules the government enforces for using the roads the government built..." Then the apologist will either suggest we stay off the government roads completely, or build our own. Both rather stupid demands considering the reality of the world as it now exists. But, if I have to either live with the rules the government imposes, in order to have the "privilege" of traveling on "its" roads (excuse me, but who paid for them?), or else the poor, beleaguered government will just have to take its toys and go home, building and maintaining no more roads for my "benefit"... well...

My response to the government and its supporters: So stop. We'll adapt. We'll survive. We'll be fine. You are unneeded, unwanted, and totally unwelcome. You don't enrich life; you pollute it. Go away.

.

Government can't "take the 5th"

Just in case puppeticians and their disgusting bureaucratic familiars forget, the 5th Amendment doesn't protect government, nor does it give the government in general an excuse to refuse to answer to you or me..

The entire Bill of Rights only exists to protect individuals from government actions. It does not exist to protect government from curious "citizens" or other interested parties. To attempt to use it in this way is wrong. People should have secrets from government; governments should have no secrets from the people.

What this means is that government secrets are not only wrong, but they are also illegal. Any ignored or rejected Freedom of Information Act request is a clear admission of wrongdoing. Any blacked out document that results from a FOI request is unambiguous evidence of guilt. Any government secret of any kind is illegal and a clear sign that the government is doing something wrong that it feels it needs to hide.

Now, you and I both know that government doesn't even bother looking for something to make its secrecy "legal", but it's good to remember that a government secret is a criminal act.

.

Just when you think you have things figured out...

The paper I write a column for, the Clovis News Journal, has been sold by Freedom Communications, and bought by a new company. I'm not sure what that will mean for my continued writing for them, since Freedom Communications is "editorially libertarian", but the new owners say they will have the paper "remain conservative".

.

Government's "one job"

If you've read my blog for very long, you probably already know how intensely I dislike "pro-lifeism", even though I don't personally like abortion.

I think part of the reason is a difference in how I view government. Government apologists often claim the main justification for government is for it to protect the innocent. (Even though it is so obviously incapable of doing even this one job.) I don't buy it.

I have no use for government. I don't even think government should prohibit murder or punish murderers. I don't want government to say it is protecting my rights. I have a right to own and to carry any type of weapon I see fit. I don't want The State to "protect" that right (even if it could or were inclined to do so); I want it to leave me alone. In fact, I want it to leave alone anyone who would try to violate that right (as if there were any real danger other than from government employees or pathetic monsters who got their original idea from government's prohibitions).

Government doesn't help any situation. The best it can do is stay out of the way and let things resolve themselves. Yet that is something too few demand.

So, even if abortion were murder, I wouldn't want the government declaring its jurisdiction over the matter.

.

Now is best time to do right

Now is best time to do right

(My Clovis News Journal / Portales News-Tribune column for December 30, 2011)

The end of the old year and the beginning of the new gives some people the feeling of a rite of passage. For them it represents a chance to clean the slate; they get to start fresh and try to do better next year than they did last year. Birthdays can provide the same opportunity, but almost everyone shares the same new year, while you share a birthday with fewer than three-tenths of a percent of humanity- if my math and assumptions are correct. That's not enough to get much momentum going.

Whatever excuse you use, the best time to start doing the right thing is always now.

In the coming year will you be responsible for your own actions, for your own safety, and for your own property? Or, will you attempt to delegate that responsibility to someone else? Notice I say "attempt" since you can never truly get away from the responsibility being yours.

In the coming year will you oppose all theft and coercion, unless it is done by people you believe are exempt from Natural Law, particularly if their theft and coercion brings you something you really, really want? Can't you think of a better way to get what you want and need- a way that doesn't violate anyone?

Next year will you be the kind of person who acts as a good neighbor regardless of who's watching, or will you be the kind of person whom others will point to as a reason they believe government is necessary? Someone is always watching, and your actions, even when "legal", speak volumes about your character. You never really "get away with" anything.

Will you be the kind of person in 2012 who sees a need and thinks of voluntary ways that need can be met, or will you instead believe that if something is important it justifies putting government in charge of it? No matter whether government does it well or bungles it beyond hope.

Will you make this the year you help build new tracks, for America and for the world, that actually change course, or will you let society keep being driven over the edge of the cliff by government, while you join in the rather pointless debate over who gets to control the throttle?

You may believe you have a choice, but that's a trap. If you believe you have that choice, and leave the options open depending on how you feel or believe, you have already lost. We are in this together and we can't afford to lose.

.

Why "Why Libertarianism is Wrong" is wrong

How's that for a confusing title?

I was watching the video "Why Libertarianism is Wrong" and since the video's maker has disabled comments and ratings, I thought I would give a little commentary and rating here.

First, the rating. Thumbs down.

We go through the same ridiculous things every time some anti-libertarian decides he just has to find a way to justify theft and attacking the innocent (or the other authoritarian "oomox-inducing" activities). But it's worth it to address this nonsense again.

So here goes:

First off Video Guy says that "what's right and what's wrong" are value judgments and that if people have different values they will never agree. That might be true for minor things like smoking pot, but not for big things like theft and murder. That is a strength of libertarianism. It leaves you alone on the minor points to debate endlessly. Now, you might disagree about what constitutes theft or murder, but not about whether or not they are wrong. Libertarianism takes away your "authority" to use force against people who are doing those minor things, things that you consider to be "wrong", that they do not.

Then, Video Guy claims that libertarians would force him to "submit to the free market for everything". No, we wouldn't. We simply refuse to allow him and those like him to impose his socialism on us without our consent. There is a difference. If he wishes to live in a communist enclave, completely free of market "pressures", we would support his right to do so, but we would not help him force others to be a part of his Socialist Utopia against their will.

Next he goes off about "democratically-elected representatives" spending "public money" on "public projects". There is no such thing as "public money" unless it comes from those "public officials'" pockets (and then it is still tainted by theft since that is how the money ended up in their pockets) and from the pockets of people who donated it voluntarily. Otherwise you are talking about spending stolen money, not "public" money. Which gets right back to those "always wrong" things, that even he would agree were wrong if he didn't try to hide behind the word "taxes".

As a part of this rant he talks about how private enterprise is claimed to be the "most efficient" way to allocate funds, but that asks "what if you don't value efficiency?" Well, then libertarians would once again allow you to go set up your own communist society as long as you leave the rest of us out of it. You don't even have to move to your own island to do it. Baptists and atheists can live side by side in the same neighborhood without forcing each other to participate in each others' group or non-group. Libertarians and communists could do the same- at least from the libertarians more ethical perspective.

Still riffing on the free market, he says libertarians claim the free market automatically justifies its outcome. "If a product or service can not be sustained through market forces, then it doesn't deserve to exist". Wrong, again. You are completely free to fund anything you want, no matter how unwanted it is by the market- all your friends and neighbors- as long as you don't steal from those who don't want it in order to finance it. Ask for donations; have a bake sale; start a religion and funnel all the "profits" to your cause. Just. Don't. Steal. Why is that so hard for him to grasp?

He makes a big deal about "intrinsic value" versus "market value". He says libertarians don't believe in intrinsic value. He is, once again, wrong. (How can so much wrongness fit in a 9.5 minute video?) Liberty- the freedom to act within your human rights- has intrinsic value. Without it you can't even choose to be a socialistic slave, as, apparently, he would. The individual's life has intrinsic value. Paving a particular road, on stolen land, with labor and materials paid for through theft from people who will never benefit from that road enough to make it worth their money to voluntarily pay for the road, is NOT of "intrinsic value". Yet this is the kind of things these thieves would "selflessly" support killing you over. How "nice" of them.

Next he makes a big deal over how logical libertarians are, and how others may prefer faith over logic. How cute. He then harps on how libertarians like to bash on anyone who believes in religion. So, are we now getting to the heart of his objections? Maybe not, since he says he is an atheist (he isn't since he fawns over the 21st Century's most popular god).

I know lots and lots of very religious libertarians. I disagree with their claims for the veracity of their beliefs, completely, but I support their right to believe anything they want. Faith and religion have nothing to do with libertarianism. It's like preferring blue over red. It might affect how you explain why you are libertarian, but you can be just as libertarian with or without it.

Logic will show you how the world really is. Faith may give you a mechanism for dealing with that reality. I don't care if you value faith over logic, but what I do object to is if you try to make up rules, based upon your faith, that you will impose on the rest of us who may not share your particular faith. Religion is the same. You can impose Sharia Law on all those who share your faith, but the moment you try to extend your "authority" beyond those who have the same faith, you are being evil. You can prefer faith over logic, or even insanity over sanity, as long as you keep it in your pants. Your personal views are your own, and not my concern until you use them to attack me or steal from me. Or from anyone else. Got it?

I'm so embarrassed for Video Guy. Had to put that in there because he just keeps going off on this tangent about faith, which he is completely wrong about, but doesn't recognize it. I had to look away from his shame.

Now he's blathering that "equality is not high on the list for libertarians...". Depends on your particular type of "equality", doesn't it? All people have exactly the same rights. Exactly. You can't get more equal than that. But socialists like Video Guy don't mean real equality when they use the word. He means that "it isn't fair" that some people get rich while most people stay poor. Boo hoo. Guess what. I am on the poor end of the scale, compared to most Americans, at least. Government meddling and welfare (not for me, personally) has made that more difficult to escape, but the market gives me the opportunity to change that. I don't want government to steal from Bill Gates to "give" me anything. Video Guy's opinion on "what's right", according to his own implicit admission, is to steal from people he deems to have "too much" to give to those he thinks have "too little". Isn't that special.

He says libertarians want to convince you of their rightness and that even their logic depends on having a common starting point. OK. So, he didn't make this video in order to try to convince people that his view was right? Why did he make it then? And there is a common starting point. Wouldn't he probably agree that theft is wrong? It's just that he equivocates when the thieves wear the silly hat of government and claim to be doing "good" with the loot.

He also whines that libertarians make a big deal out of being consistent. So? Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right, but inconsistency does mean you are wrong somewhere. It is a big deal- if the truth matters to you. If it doesn't- if you'd rather operate on faith- then why worry that someone points out that you are being inconsistent? Just smile and go on. Unless you know it shows the holes in your thinking and that bothers you...

Then he gets down to business and issues the first of his "challenges" to libertarianism, with the assertion that "coercion is not wrong". He claims it is not wrong to ensure justice through coercion or to enforce contracts through coercion. Well, now, many libertarians would agree with him. If someone has gone into debt, by initiating force/theft, or by breaking a contract, there are plenty of ways to deal with that, and some could be considered "coercion". However, what he fails to address is that the coercion is only excused by a prior violation of "libertarian principles"- and that's not even the only way to deal with it, or the best way. Just a possible tool. And, of course he whips out the socialist's favorite myth: "The Social Contract". I could at this point say "automatic loss by default", but that might hurt his feelings. I'll address this silliness a little later.

Next he tries to quibble over "initiation of force". It is very simple, really, and has nothing to do with "semantics". If you were the first to threaten, delegate, or use physical force- a very simply demonstrated thing- you initiated the force. You started it. You can weasel-word around the truth all you want, and claim "it depends", but you are only lying to yourself. It really has nothing to do with retaliatory force, either. If you are retaliating, you are probably initiating force. If you are using force to protect yourself or your property right now from an imminent threat, you are not initiating force. If you are retaliating, you are on shaky ground and may be seeking revenge. Understandable, but still probably not right.

He also is confused over what constitutes "force". Trespassing and theft aren't necessarily force. He uses the example, loved by statists, of "race" when he says a libertarian would claim that a black man drinking from a privately-owned "whites only" water fountain would be initiating force. No, he wouldn't be. He would be trespassing and stealing. I see no sign of force anywhere in his scenario. The Zero Aggression Principle is essential, but not sufficient. There are wrongs which involve no initiated force. Would I believe a "whites only" water fountain is wrong? Yes. Would I support the owner's right to make that rule? Yes, but I would shun him. Would I rule in arbitration against a "black man" who drank from that fountain? Sure- I'd impose a penalty of one zinc penny (or the market value of the water he drank, whichever was higher), then offer to pay it on his behalf. And I'd do the same if the "race" roles were reversed. And, if the owner of the fountain used force to stop the guy from getting the drink, then I would say the water and trespassing debts were cancelled by the used force- unless the force used happened to be excessive in my view- then the debt would rest on the fountain's owner.

He goes off on the fact that libertarians will use coercion (I thought he just claimed we thought it was always wrong- there's some of that inconsistency in his claims that he wants to make off-limits for us to point out) to uphold our ideas of property, but think it is wrong when others uphold their ideas of "rights and laws [we] don't believe in". So where is the difference this guy claims makes a big deal? If, as he claims, I will use force to protect X (which he doesn't believe in), and he will use force to protect Y (which I don't believe in), why not just leave one another alone? Libertarians are willing. Is he?

Now he gives the "Social Contract" its own special attention. Goody. So he uses a Stefan Molyneux video as an illustration. OK. In it, Stefan gives the example of buying a car on someone's behalf, and forcing them to pay for it, if they live in a place you own. Then Video Guy talks about how libertarians will say if Stefan owns the apartment complex he is free to do whatever he wants (I don't buy into that, since murder and slavery aren't right even if "you only do it on your own property", but we'll pretend for a moment) and people can accept the deal or leave. Sure. In a free world where leaving is a realistic choice, that would work. In the real world, however, the agreement gets altered without your consent on a daily basis (so that you can never know all the rules, and neither can those who will enforce them), and you can only leave if you obtain the apartment owner's permission, and only if you leave a big chunk of your property behind to enrich him. And you are still expected to report all your property to him after you leave so that he can continue to bill you for "services" you no longer can even possibly "benefit" from in any way. His claim is that The State can prove ownership of the land we live on through means any libertarian would accept. No. Sorry. A thief doesn't own what he possesses. And no documentation from the government's own records changes that fact. (Would I be allowed to write up, archive, and interpret all my own documentation for extraordinary claims of this sort that benefited me? If not, why not?) All government "property" was stolen from someone in the past, or was "purchased" with stolen money, and is only maintained by continued theft. That isn't "ownership" and any claim based on that smoke and mirrors is a lie. He "insists there is no difference" between that and private ownership. Fine. Then why "buy" any property if the government can "prove" its ownership of it, and why pay property "taxes" if you don't own it? Let the real owner pay property "taxes" to himself. I agree that no one really owns any real estate as long as The State can steal it back and murder you for not paying your land ransom, but that isn't proof of anything but that the government is numerous and belligerent and has more guns.

Then he explains that "redistribution of wealth is not wrong" in his eyes. He says it is not wrong to take property from the rich and give it to the poor. If that were true, then it would also not be wrong to take the property of the poor and give it to the rich. You can't have it one way without having it the other as well. No one has any rights that others don't also have- identically. Why would "rich" or "poor" have any bearing on this at all? It would have to be OK to take the property of any random person and give it to any other random person without regard for what each of them had before you "redistributed" their property. Sorry, dude. That's theft and theft is wrong. Now, if someone obtained that property by theft or fraud (no difference really), then giving it back to the rightful owner is wonderful (that's is what Robin Hood really did, not the modern "rob from the rich to give to the poor" nonsense), but it is NOT "redistribution of wealth" in that case. And, once again, the relative wealth of the concerned parties has nothing to do with the situation. Except to people like Video Guy, there.

His "reason" for this is that The State has an obligation to make sure no one is starving, homeless, or naked, and that stealing from some to give to others is how to solve this problem. How about removing the "laws" that create the situation in the first place? Let people make money without burdening them with licenses, permits, regulations, "taxes", zoning, "laws", and every other "Act of State" that makes it harder for people to earn money. And, then get out of the way of private charity to take care of those who still can't make it. Deflate the excuse of "I don't have to help; that's the government's job". Once again he appeals to "fairness". (I love the quote by Scott Adams: ‎"[F]airness... is a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments.")

Next he asserts: "You cannot keep everything you earn". Well, duh. You must spend money in order to earn it, in most cases. And you will be spending it to buy things you need to stay alive, and for things to make you more comfortable and happy. Keeping your money would be pointless, but if you want to keep it all and starve to death, that is no one else's business but your own. Why does Video Guy have such a problem with this? Because it isn't "fair". LOL.

"If you own a company, you have benefited from the education of your workforce". Yeah, and your workforce has benefited from you paying them for their work. Why is this such a difficult concept for socialists to see? No one is claiming that one gets rich in isolation. It is a web- all parts benefit all other parts, until you allow a State into the mix.

He says he thinks it is reasonable to be made to pay for things the government "provides"- things like firefighters, reavers, courts, roads, etc. Yes, that is reasonable. What is not reasonable is maintaining a monopoly where I am forced to pay for things I don't want, from people I don't want to do business with. Let me hire who I want to provide the services I want. That, my dear Video Guy, is reasonable.

Then he ends by pointing out the obvious: The State is not perfect. He makes the bizarre statement that if he "chooses" to live in a State-run society... wait... you had a choice? Where was I when that choice was offered? Oh well, back to reality. If he "chooses" to live in a State-run society it doesn't mean he believes everything the State does to be right or justified. No one ever said he did. After all, he is apparently intelligent enough to put food and water into himself, and to believe The State is perfect would indicate a fatal disconnect from reality. And, libertarians also never claim that everything The State does is completely evil or unjustified. We just claim there is a better way. One that scares the panties off socialists.

He says his personal preference is still for such a system, and that there is no debate on this; that it is his personal choice. He's right. But his choice ends where someone else's choice begins. He admits that if one of us wants a stateless society and the other wants a state-run society, one of us is going to be disappointed. But that's only true on his side of the equation. I would let him form a State and live next door to me, as long as he kept his little club exclusive and didn't make non-members contribute or support it. I wouldn't prevent him from doing his own thing. But, he gloats at the end that the disappointed one isn't going to be him. Nice. I guess in his eyes, might makes right.

What it comes down to is that libertarians would allow this guy to live however he saw fit, only drawing the line at his ability to use coercion and deceit to make others go along, while he would not extend to others the same courtesy.

Watching videos like this is difficult. Painful, even. It's embarrassing to watch someone saying the things that Video Guy was saying. I want to protect him from himself. But that would require coercion since he obviously has been corrected so many times that he turned off the comments so he could ignore the truth. He is satisfied in his ignorance. And, as a libertarian I respect his choice while insisting that he not force his brand of ignorance on others.

Because it is painful to expose myself to crap such as this, why not just let examples like this video go unanswered? Because I care too much about people, and the truth, to just ignore things of this sort. Truth matters. Why does it matter? Because, if someone believes the right way to clean a gun is to look down the barrel while pulling the trigger, I'm going to try to correct him before he hurts himself or anyone else. He can believe it with all his heart. He might have been told this from the day he was born. He may think anyone who tells him otherwise isn't being "fair" to his beliefs, values, and feelings. He would still be dead wrong. And, if I see him telling others that his way is the right way to clean a gun, I am going to speak out, even at the risk of hurting his feelings, to try to limit the damage he does. The truth matters- reality matters.

Added- A day has passed since I wrote all of the above. And I now have a slightly different perspective. The agony of wading through that sludge has worn off and has been replaced with elation. I would sincerely like to thank Video Guy for posting that video. It reminds me how weak the arguments of the anti-liberty people really are. And that makes me really happy. Like Malcolm Reynolds, I'd rather be right than on the side that appears, at the moment, to be winning.

.

Reavers everywhere!

Reavers = cops.

Recently I've taken to calling all "law enforcement" goons reavers. That keeps me from calling them things I'd rather my daughter not repeat. And the term is completely appropriate.

"Reave" is from Old/Middle English and means to forcibly rob, which is what "law enforcement" spends most of its time and energy doing. So, by definition, they are reavers.

That brings up a bit of historicity. The word "sheriff" comes from the Old/Middle English for "shire reeve" or "reeve of the shire". The dictionary claims that "reeve" and "reave" are not related words, but I have my suspicions that they are wrong.

I can just imagine some townsfolk, many years ago, saying "Great, here comes the Shire Reave of Nottingham!" He overhears this and gets pissed at them. So they wink at one another and say "Oh, no! We would never call you a reaver; we were calling you the 'reeve', which is totally different! Trust us."

.

Libertarian TV?

Recently I've been watching a few old "black and white" television shows, mostly westerns, on Netflix before I go to bed at night.

One thing that has struck me about them is how libertarian a lot of them are. People doing the right thing- not initiating force or stealing- sometimes at a high personal cost. I never really thought about the fact that our "recent" history was so different from what we see today. I knew that the early history of America was (imperfectly) libertarian, but somehow assumed things had changed before the memory of anyone alive today.

I was wrong. It makes me sad that people who grew up watching the shows like that could have forgotten these latter day campfire stories. I guess The State was more attractive to them.

.

Throwing stones in glass houses

People who work for The State shouldn't throw stones at anyone else's choice of a career. A pole dancer is more ethical, by far, than a school teacher who prostitutes herself/himself for The State and receives a salary financed by theft.

My daughter was playing on the pole which is attached to our porch. My dad, a school teacher for The State (in more ways than one), asked if she was going to be a firefighter. I said "...or a pole dancer". He said "I hope not!" I hesitated a moment before I said "She'd probably earn more money pole dancing."

Considering that I have never heard anything from my parents other than the suggestion that a career's worth is to be judged by the paycheck, it seemed reasonable to me to point this out. But then I got to thinking a little deeper and thought of the above observation.

.

Respect, or fear?

The State believes it has respect. Maybe in some ignorant corners that might be true. It is more likely that what it really has- where it thinks it sees respect- is fear.

Fear is not respect. Fear, if controlled, leads a person to watch for the enemy to lose focus for a split second, which provides an opportunity to blow him away. Fear often looks like respect to the bad guy. He would be wrong but he won't realize it until it's too late.

And once the fearful begin to strike back, those who have no fear, but have been waiting for the time to be right, will join.

.

"Anti-drunk driving" hypocrites

I consider most of those who claim to hate "drunk driving" to be hypocrites. And I'll tell you why (as if you had any doubt).

If "drunk driving" is so horrible to your mind, and you claim you'd do anything humanly possible to prevent it from happening, then you must support ending the risk of any legal and civil penalties for driving "drunk" right up until actual harm to another occurs. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

A person must be able to be driving and realize "Hey, I shouldn't be doing this" and stop and ask for help without the risk of punishment. Otherwise they realize they're (legally) better off to make the attempt to get where they are going without getting stopped by a reaver. It's a matter of weighing the risks.

There's a 100% risk of being molested by "the law" if you admit you need help after starting to drive (or probably even entering your car), even though you haven't hurt anyone yet, and a much smaller risk of being hurt, molested, and/or hurting someone else by driving "drunk". Which risk seems riskier to someone who might be judgement-impaired? Or, even to those who are not?

Get rid of the one needless risk, if you are serious about saving lives, or admit you just "don't like it" and don't care about the consequences of your advocacy.

.

"I don't like it!"

Going back to my previous post about the pleasure haters; I see them as suffering from the same mental lapse that many other people suffer from when they want to ban something, or claim "There oughta be a law..."

You can show them fact after fact that destroys their position, and they will keep coming up with justification after flimsy justification. But the truth of the matter is that whatever it is they want to punish or prohibit is just something they personally don't like.

And any justification beyond "I don't like it" is a lie.

It reminds me of the debates I have had with Creationists. Science and facts don't matter to them. In fact, usually they eventually wind up saying "I don't care what the facts are; I'm going to believe what I want to believe". That's fine as long as you don't impose your beliefs on anyone else, through "law" or through any other form of coercion.

.

Keep government out of holidays

Keep government out of holidays

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 23, 2011. I notice the paper bizarrely hyphenated Christmas as "Christ-mas" once in the article. Not my doing- and I double-checked to make sure.)

Merry Christmas! I hope you can take some time to appreciate all you have, and that you can spend the holiday however it brings you the most joy. I also hope you'll allow others the same liberty.

The winter solstice probably gave our prehistoric ancestors hope because the days which had been growing shorter finally stabilized. They knew from past observations that soon the days would begin to grow longer once again. It gave them reason to celebrate that spring would eventually arrive. The winter solstice was their light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout history different cultures stitched
their own celebrations, especially their own versions of "the light at the end of the tunnel" celebration, on this time of the year. The earliest recorded version of this holiday, from around 4- or 5000 years ago, was called "Zagmuk".

At this time in history "Christmas" is the name most commonly given to the holiday celebrated near the winter solstice. That's why most people use the word no matter what their personal beliefs may happen to be. Unless they have a specific reason to prefer a different celebration, or just want to be contentious.

Personally, I love Christmas. I don't care what words people use when they express good wishes for the holiday. Just as long as they are happy and friendly when they say it. I enjoy the interpersonal warmth around the holidays. I love the songs, the stories, and the decorations. I love the feeling of specialness. I love the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think celebrations are important, especially in the face of the encroaching winter.

That doesn't mean I think governments should sponsor Christmas displays, nor displays of any kind- religious or secular, since any money governments spend was taken by force from people who were given no choice, and it shouldn't be frittered away on things that some people don't consent to. Let the people celebrate unhindered; keep government dark and silent on the subject- neither endorsing nor obstructing any religion.

You have to make a real effort to be disagreeable at this time of year. Don't be twitchy if people say "Merry Christmas", or if they fail to do so and wish you "Happy Holidays" (or "Happy Zagmuk") instead. Just take it in the spirit in which it's offered and smile while you offer the greeting of your choice in return.

.

Pleasure haters

I saw a quote in an issue of Reason Magazine that just kept coming back to my mind. It was in reference to Prohibition (both the old one and the current one):

"The eternal temptation to ban things that give people pleasure"

I think it could also be expressed as "The eternal temptation to get pleasure from preventing the pleasure of others".

Either way, there are an awful lot of awful people who seem determined to try to make sure no one is having any fun. That's fine if they stick to being annoying pains in the rear. Unfortunately, the illegitimate institution of The State gives these perverts a way to exert power over others. What a messed up shame.

.

Respect for the law

Is "respect for the law" important for civilization? If so, then civilization is doomed. And it isn't our fault.

You can't have respect for something which is absurd. For me to have respect for the law, the law has to follow Natural Law. It can't be arbitrary and bizarre. It can't be counterfeit. But that is just about all it is anymore. The "law" is fake. No one with a lick of sense or any ethics at all could have any respect for it anymore.

So, if "respect for the law" is necessary in order for civilization to survive, 99.9999% or so of the "laws" on the books (the statutory "laws") must- absolutely MUST- be tossed into the garbage heap. Before it is too late. Otherwise no reasonable person can possibly have any respect for the "law". None.

.