Ouch! That hurt!

I just turned down an offer of $100 to place a link in my blog.

I said I would be glad to do it as long as I could disclose that I was paid for the link. I was told that no one else insists on doing that, and that it would be a deal-breaker.

So, I wrote back and said "sorry, but thanks for the offer".

I have to admit, for the tiniest moment, a hesitation before I hit "send" on that reply. Dang my ethics!

.

Zippo- an outlaw company (good for them!)

About a week ago, I had an experience that showed me, again, that even the most innocuous of government monopolies is still a bad thing.

Out wandering the wastelands on the edge of town with my daughter I found an old Zippo lighter. Being obsessed with fire starting methods/tools, I kept it. The cap was missing and the "wheel" was rusted in place, but I know Zippo repairs or replaces their lighters for free, "forever".

When I got home I went online and found the address for the Zippo Repair Clinic, packed up the old lighter, and headed off to the local post office.

The clerk took the package and asked the standard "anything hazardous, fragile, or flammable?" question, to which I replied "no".

She held it carefully, looked at it suspiciously, and said "It says 'Zippo', what's in here?"

I said it is a broken lighter.

She looked shocked and said "You can't mail lighters!"

I said that I followed the packaging instructions on the Zippo site (and why would they even have a mailing address at all if you couldn't mail anything to them?), and I had mailed lighter to them before.

"They might still have residue!"

"No, this one was very, very dry. I've mailed them before."

"You just didn't get caught that time" (paraphrased- my attention was slipping)

She pulled out a full-color, government brochure detailing all the things the government has arbitrarily declared to be "dangerous" to mail (which UPS and FedEx can still mail, I suppose).

By this time I wasn't really listening anymore, but was trying to figure out how I was getting this to UPS or FedEx. But she kept lecturing for a bit anyway.

So, I left the post office with my package, and as the "proud" owner of a full color, government brochure (slightly used)... had an idea, and went a few blocks, across the state line, and mailed my package without incident from New Mexico.

Zippo emailed me to confirm receipt of the lighter, so I emailed them back to inform them that according to this officious postal clerk, mailing their lighters, under any circumstances, is a serious crime.

I guess it's a good thing I'm already an outlaw.

.

Is that the feeling of my head swelling just a bit?

One of the nicest things I have ever seen said about anything I have ever written showed up a while back on another blog, in the comments.

It was in response to this comment I had made a bit earlier:

The way I see it, if something offends you but does not "break your leg or pick your pocket" (not my words, look it up), speak out. Ridicule it. Say loudly why it offends you. March alongside quoting the Bible (or book of your choice) calling them whatever name you can think of. Shun them, totally and completely and try to get others to do so, also. But the second you use force- in person or by proxy- against someone who hasn't used force against you or stolen from you, you have become a bad guy too.

Anyway, "Jim Klein" wrote:

For the record, I completely concur with what Kent wrote...word for word, idea for idea. In fact, it's so good that it easily does as well as any words of wisdom that were written 240 years ago.

What's liberty in the American tradition? What defines a rational society? There it is.

Wow. Thanks!

.

"Based on actual events"

Here's a situation for exercising your thinking skills. This in't about me, and I have my own thoughts on how to deal with the situation, which I'll keep to myself in order to get uncontaminated input.

I suspect this is a case of two people with the same personality "quirks" running head-on into one another. Like two anger-crazed rams or something.

In any case, Person A is a low-level manager at a "major retail chain" who is having trouble with Person B who is directly above her. I'll assume for the moment that Person A is giving an accurate account of events.

Person A says Person B is sabotaging her at work. Person B spreads rumors among the people in Person A's department- those she is supposed to manage- and acts rudely to "A" in front of them. "B" has gone back to Person A's department after "A" has left for the day, and un-done everything "A" did that day, and then pointed out to higher management that the department's work is unfinished. She made threatening gestures at Person A one time, in front of another manager, and nothing was done.

It has gotten to the point that "A" acts just as nasty to "B" as "B" acted to her from the beginning. "A" is not a particularly pleasant individual to begin with.

Person A is about ready to quit her job, even without anything else lined up. Person A has gone to every other manager who is above "B" without any results whatsoever, other than a couple of times having them run directly to "B" to report what was said. Person A has even gone to regional management with about the same results. She was told "respect is a two-way street".

What would you do in such a situation?

.

Earned or wasted on the undeserving?

What if someone honestly believed it was good to do "---", but instead "---" was a horrible thing to do? Would you "honor" them anyway, based upon their erroneous belief that what they were doing was a good thing?

Do their beliefs make a difference? Their intentions? Or do results and the reality matter?

Do you honor people who believe they are doing the right thing when they are really not doing the right thing at all?

I just can't. And it creates a divide between me and some others that I'd rather not be at odds with. So, I generally just keep my mouth shut as long as no one beats me over the head with it.

.

"Eliminate private property"?

I frequently see socialists say something to the effect, in the course of their "debates", of: "...eliminate private property and everything will be great".

You can't. That would be like me saying that everything could be perfect if we could just eliminate theft and aggression.

Private property is a feature of life. You can't eliminate it just because you want to. All you can do is eliminate "legal" recognition of private property- which all governments do to a great degree (generally in violation of their charters). But private property still exists in spite of that.

Just like the right to own and to carry, whatever kind of weapon you want, wherever you go, in any manner you see fit, openly or concealed, without asking anyone's permission, ever, is a fundamental feature of being human, regardless of "laws" that governments may write and enforce to the contrary. The right still exists; it is just being violated.

So it is with private property.

.

No justice in Florida teen’s slaying

No justice in Florida teen’s slaying

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 20, 2012)

One recent "big national news" story where I seem to differ with a lot of libertarians is the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.

I have seen the prevailing voices shift support behind whichever of the two the latest reports seem to vindicate. I continue to support both, and neither. Which is to say I support truth and liberty, wherever that may lead.

None of us were there, and even if there are any witnesses who are brought forward to testify, they will all have an agenda and be trying to push a certain perspective. It's human nature and inevitable. All any of us will ever know for sure is that two people encountered one another, and now one of them is dead.

I believe- and I admit it is nothing more than a belief- that this is a case of two troublemakers out looking for trouble and succeeding in finding it when they encountered one another. Both seem to have a history that points in that direction. I don't believe I would have been friends with either man, since both seem to have been fans of intimidation and coercion and cultural divisiveness. Of course, in both cases, all any of us knows about the individual involved has been filtered through others who want us to see the events from a particular perspective, and any truth is incidental.

Regardless of what had happened in the past, or even earlier that fateful hour, at the instant the trigger was pulled one of the two was innocent- not deserving to be harmed at that particular moment. You and I will never know which one of them was the innocent party. A trial won't alter that.

If Trayvon Martin was innocent there can never be any justice for him. Certainly not through the courts. If George Zimmerman was innocent, his prosecution is the opposite of justice and is heaping injury on top of injury. In either case making a criminal case out of this, and, in case of a conviction, allowing the prison system to swallow yet another person, isn't helping anyone other than those who profit from the excessive, abusive use of the justice system for the benefit of the imprisonment industry, and those who profit- economically or politically- from driving a wedge through society.

As in so many other cases, the best thing to do is to take Zimmerman at his word that he was being attacked and acted in self defense, but watch him carefully for any hint of aggression or "enforcer-type" behavior from this moment forward.

.

Condescension in responses

Yes, I can be condescending. A commenter has called my attention to it once again.

This happens when I get frustrated. When a person keeps saying the same thing over and over (and over) again; grasping for any justification for The State. It becomes hard to take that person seriously, since they are not taking the pro-liberty evidence seriously.

At least I don't start calling people nasty names- not worse than "statist", anyway. But if that's their position, that ruling other people is a legitimate human activity, should they be insulted by the acknowledgement that this is what they believe? I don't know. I am not insulted in the least when called an anarchist, even when the person is trying to insult me. I guess that's just me.

I just finished reading the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and he mentions a similar problem he had that was pointed out to him by a friend. He tells how he endeavored to change his behavior. I may not be as good a man as Mr. Franklin, so I may fail... but I will try to do better.

I'm not saying there is no place for condescension. Or profanity. Or even calling an idiot an idiot. What I am saying is that I try to not be the "place" for that.

However, there are some notions that have had a free ride for way too long. Some opinions are just not valid. The myth of "needing" a State is one of them. Too many people have coddled the people expressing this false delusion for far too long, and pretended that the idea isn't simply outright insane. I think it's long past time to call a spade a spade.

Thoughts?

_

Addendum: Then what makes me even more irritated in this particular case is that the commenter huffs off after claiming to find misogyny in the comments. Notice that no one mentioned gender at all. Until she brought it up, that is. It makes me think that she believes that socialism is a "feminine value" or something. Ugh!



.

Annular eclipse photos- May 20, 2012

All photos, except the one of the reflection in the house window, taken by my mother. In order, I think.

Free market supporter?

If you are a supporter of the War on (some) Drugs, you are an enemy of the free market.

.

Eureka! Eclipse shows stop signs DO have a use

After long, fruitless years of studying, I have finally done it: I have found a legitimate use for stop signs!

They are good screens for projecting annular solar eclipses on.

I was happy to be along the path of this evening's eclipse and by using a mirror I was able to watch the reflection of the whole thing (until the sun set). Awesome!

I also used a pinhole and reflections in car windows and another group of eclipse watchers let me look through their welding helmet as well. And I did sneak some peeks as the sun set and was dimmed by haze.

Here's a regular picture of the annular eclipse taken by my mom during the maximum.

.

A situation concerning a dog

On Claire Wolfe's blog, she mentions a "situation" she is facing. I think it is the first time I have ever found myself on the "other side" of a Claire opinion.

Basically, it comes down to this: Is it worth saving the life of an apparently unadoptable dog to let him be taken to be trained as a "drug sniffer"?

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is.

I love animals, but people have to come first, in my opinion. If I had to choose between a beloved family pet and some stranger, I might choose the pet, but that would be wrong of me.

Liberty is about humans. It is about doing what is right to other people. "Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." You don't have a right to do things you know will ultimately harm people who have not harmed others. And all "laws" are eventually enforced with death for those who don't submit in time. Helping the drug warriors get a tool to use against the innocent seems to violate the principles of libertarianism.

Cruelty to animals is a sign that I read as "Stay away! Danger! I am cruel and enjoy hurting living things. You or your child might be next!" But sacrificing an animal to rescue a person, even if the animal suffers in the situation, seems the proper response, to me.

As I mentioned in my comments, if I manufactured guns or ammo, I would NOT want any of them getting into government hands. I would not sell to anyone who I knew would provide them to any agent of The State. If I didn't know what was happening, that's different (but I would put an end to it as soon as I discovered it).

But I accept that I could be wrong. I might be allowing my feelings to cloud my thinking. Either way, this doesn't change my opinion of Claire in any way, and I hope my disagreement doesn't upset her.

.

Are "peace officers" a good idea?

No. And I'm not even talking about the reavers. I'm saying it is a bad idea to have anyone set apart, with a badge and "authority".

Yes, I know that the original idea was that a "peace officer" had no authority that wasn't held by any individual in the general population, but was supposed to be someone paid in order to free his time to devote to "keeping the peace". How has that worked out?

Even the notion of "policing" is a bad thing. It's my job to "police" my own sphere. No one can do that for me better than I can- all anyone else could do is interfere. There is no need for a "special" class to do it, and when established that "special class" will inevitably evolve into the abomination we suffer under now.

Because, if I am "policing" my own life, and I go beyond the limits of protecting myself and my property (or the self and property of someone else), I am responsible for my actions and will be held accountable. Reavers are almost invariably found (by their own gang) to be acting "within department guidelines"- even when guilty of the most obvious acts of evil.

.

Freedom from religion

Regardless of what some "conservatives" claim, freedom of religion does- at least in some circumstances- mean freedom from religion.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution has to say on the matter, either. All the First Amendment says is that the government is prohibited from setting up an "official American Church" or from stopping anyone from worshiping however they see fit.

But don't get scared. It doesn't mean you have to shut up about your religion just because it annoys some people. It doesn't mean you have to stop practicing your religion.

What freedom of/from religion does mean, is that if you are in a position where you have power over someone else, rightly or wrongly, and that power is due to your government "job", you need to keep your religion in your pants, and keep your pants zipped. Until you are "off the clock", anyway. You have no authority to be preaching at people you are trying to coerce while they are paying you with money you had stolen from them on your behalf.

It means that what you believe on your own time is your business, but trying to pass or enforce "laws" based upon your religious beliefs- Sharia Law- is outside of what you have a right to do. It means using stolen money to promote your religious beliefs- any religious beliefs- is wrong.

Freedom of religion equals, in many cases, freedom from religion. Whether you like it or not. And believe me, even those who claim otherwise usually demand to be free of having other religions' ideas forced upon them- they just don't want to stop doing the forcing themselves. At least, that's what I have observed.

.

State not necessary for good life

State not necessary for good life

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 13, 2012.)

Many of my favorite things to do in and around Clovis are at government-owned locations. Which is kind of sad.

I really enjoy the zoo, the library, Goodwin Lake Trails, and Oasis State Park, just to name a few things off the top of my head. And, since I pay for them whether I use them or not, above and beyond any applicable entrance fees, I might as well take advantage of them.

I just see how much better those good things could be if they were voluntarily-financed and freed from the shackles of government. In some cases I can see improvements that could be implemented right away, and in other cases I see things that could make a big difference in the long-term. If, that is, innovations were encouraged, as is normally the case when something has a clear individual owner.

Of course, in our current situation government would still exert control over their daily operations through permits, licenses, red tape, taxation, and arbitrary regulations. That is the reality of the economic model known as "fascism"- where the business sphere is supposedly privately owned, but in practice The State dictates how business must be done; acting as the de facto owner.

Some people worry that if government doesn't provide something, no one will. I don't think that's ever the case except for those things no one really wants. Even if it were the case, I would do without something I enjoyed, without complaining, if it couldn't be voluntarily provided. At least people who don't enjoy the same things I do wouldn't be forced to subsidize my activities. There is nothing I want bad enough to force you to pay for it on my behalf.

Plus, if I decided I really wanted it, I would find a way to provide it. For example, ignoring the current regulatory climate for a moment, if I wanted a zoo and there wasn't one close enough, why couldn't I start my own? I could obtain the animals I like the best, or some I think people would gladly pay to come see, and design and create an attractive setting in which to house and view them. If I let the displays get filthy, or let the animals get sick, people wouldn't want to come spend money, and I would lose customers, so it would be in my best interest to keep things neat, clean, and healthy. No coercion involved.

Government is not necessary for a good life full of enriching activities. I pity those who have forgotten that beautiful fact.

.

Serving leftovers

Do you ever read the old posts on this blog? Without me linking to them, I mean.

So many times anymore, something I think I should write about will occur to me and then I realize I have already written about that in the past. I could just re-post those, maybe with a bit of an update, but that seems dishonest.

Just today I was dwelling on something I read on another blog where people were saying they would use violence against someone who offended them. I was going to write something about how you are welcome to act on that which offends you, as long as you don't attack in person or through government, but then I realized I have written that same thing so many times. Is it worth writing again, linking to, or should I just move on to other issues?

.

Avoid the personality cult

The case of the activist-turned-informant illustrates why you shouldn't get caught up in any one person. Not Ron Paul. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not Ayn Rand. Not Henry David Thoreau. Not anyone.

Weigh a person's words for yourself. See if what they are saying is true and whether it works for you. Don't worry so much about who said what. Don't even get too caught up in whether the person who said the words, lives by them. Who knows, they might be right in what they say, but they may not believe themselves. Or they may be weak. Or a self-deceiver.

You are smart enough to work things out for yourself. Other people can give you ideas and make you see things in news ways- perhaps get you to recognize connections you hadn't seen before- but ultimately you have to think for yourself and act on what you decide. Regardless of what anyone else may do.

Seriously, if I imagined that anyone was too wrapped up in what I write, I'd get really worried about them. I hope I give you ideas, but I am not anyone's paragon. And neither is anyone else.

That being said, I am probably my own worst critic and harshest judge.

.

Accepting consequences of outlawry

You may or may not know about the recent uproar that came about when a respected liberty activist was found to be working as a police informant.

It makes me really sad.

Do you have an absolute human right to use, sell, and purchase any substances you want? Yes. But, as I have said many times, it may not be smart to do so in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves. You have to weigh the consequences and decide if it is worth it to you right now- in case you are caught.

We are ALL outlaws, so we had better accept that fact and start doing things to protect ourselves from the real bad guys- the ones with badges and government jobs. And remember that if you are doing something that the Rulers forbid, it is your responsibility and you shouldn't turn on other people if you get caught just to try to strike a deal with the bad guys. Well, maybe report the mayor or police chief for something, but not non-aggressive people.

.

Drive throughs installed- cheap

A few evenings ago we were out in the front yard- I was watering our attempt at garden plants- when my daughter's mom ("Dm") said "That car just ran into that house!"

I looked up and the car was still moving forward- into the house. The back tires were still spinning, kicking up quite a cloud of dust. The car had gone right into the front door and was pushing the porch roof up and kinda over. Then the brake lights came on and the tires stopped spinning.

The car slowly backed out of the house, and I thought the porch roof was going to fall since it was lurching back and forth. A woman got out of the car and started yelling "Oh my god! Oh my god!" over and over. There was another car in front of the house and a couple of girls got out of it and kinda milled around.

"Dm" decided she needed to go over there and get into the middle of it. I stayed in the yard and looked through my spyglass. It seemed no one was injured, just upset.

I guess by the time she got there (just around the corner from us) the driver had sat down and wasn't talking anymore; just crying. She had run into her own house.

I think it was a case of putting the car into drive by accident, instead of reverse, then, when the car started forward, panicking and hitting the gas instead of the brakes. (One of my second wife's sisters did that and ran through the front of a convenience store.)

The cop and sheriff showed up almost immediately. The sheriff didn't stay too long. The cop talked to everyone there and put "caution" tape around the gaping hole where the front door and a window were kinda dangling in the rubble of what had been a wall. "Dm" said he told them they couldn't stay there until the house had been inspected to see if it was going to fall down. He tried to get "Dm" to say she thought drugs were involved, or that one of the woman's kids had been driving. Then he left.

No person was hurt, and the house is now under repair. What I couldn't help wondering is why the situation "needed" a cop, and who called them. The cop didn't actually help the situation in any way (do they ever?). At least he didn't arrest anyone.

.

Time Magazine's breastfeeding cover

Yeah, like all of you, I've seen it. Seriously, I don't get the uproar. It's fairly obvious to me that two people who are old enough to consent to having their pictures on the cover of a magazine shouldn't have anyone else dictate their actions for them.

(I'm joking. Sorta. They're really claiming that large person who is attached at the boob is 3 years old? I am not sure I am falling for that.)

.