Politicians fear guns? Of course!

Most politicians, even those who fool gun owners into believing they are their friend, fear guns. Or hate them openly. And they do all they can to ban or regulate them into uselessness.

Why does that surprise anyone?

Given the power, I'm quite certain plague-infested rats would ban rat traps and rat poison, and flesh-eating bacteria would ban antibiotics. So it's no wonder anti-liberty vermin who have gained political power would try to ban our best defense against them.

The solution is obvious: stop being a parasite that threatens our life, liberty, and pursuit of property and you'll no longer have any reason to fear guns.

.

Obamney/Ryden 2012! Embrace the fail!

The post's title has upset quite a few Rombots on facebook. Usually after they have posted something anti-Obama that I agreed with. Then they make some absurd comment about how much better Romney is, or at least how much less bad he supposedly is, than Obama ("No comparison to a full blown socialist marxist radical anti-ameriKan usurper..")- which is sad considering that anything they say about Obama applies just as much to Romney, or would if he were "elected" president.

I'd purge my bloated "friend list", but those I'd be most likely to "de-friend" need to be exposed to the truth worse than those whom I'd keep around.

.

Assume you are a "criminal"

If you see a Reaver ("law enforcement officer") or have to be around some government facility or employee, it is wisest to simply assume you are doing something "illegal" or at least something they won't like (and will probably use as justification for further scrutiny or molestation).

This isn't being "paranoid"; it's being smart. It is the reality of the police state in which we find ourselves living today. Don't deny it or fight it. Accept it and survive.

.

Our society able to govern itself

Our society able to govern itself

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 13, 2012. I think I woulda left out the word "Our" in the headline, but...)

Technology has evolved. I can now carry an entire library of books in one hand when I leave the house, and I still have a library full of "paper and binding" books at home. This is a wealth unimaginable to even the kings of previous generations.

Knowledge has grown. For example, the human genome has been read and is being studied to find causes and cures for many horrible conditions. This raises possibilities undreamed of just a generation ago. Not only of extending the typical lifespan, but of improving the quality of more of that lifespan. (Unless ObamaCare kills health care in America.)

Everywhere you look, things show promise of getting better. Well, almost everywhere you look. Why, in the midst of all this exciting advancement, do we still settle for the bronze age notion of externally-imposed government?

Sure, governance is necessary. Self governance. You have to take responsibility for your own actions and accept the consequences, but this primitive notion of having a ruler- either one man or "the majority"- to interfere in the consensual, non-aggressive aspects of your life is positively barbaric. Very few things should be subject to a vote of any sort, and then only when you allow the non-consenting parties to opt out without leaving their home turf.

This problem springs from the silly belief that society needs to be run. As if society were a machine that will stop functioning without someone sitting in the driver's seat. The truth is much happier: Society runs just fine without so much as a steering wheel.

Snowflakes form a six-sided crystal due to the way water molecules arrange themselves as they freeze. It is just a natural example of self-organization; it will always occur unless there is some contaminant introduced into the mix. In the same way, people naturally arrange themselves in a peaceful society where each interaction benefits both. Those who attack or steal get eliminated as a matter of course. Until or unless you allow the contaminant of legitimized coercion to pollute your society. Then you end up with something uncivilized. Something resembling what we live under now.

"Patriots" frequently suggest that if I don't like it, I can move to Somalia- a society which has been destroyed by those who keep trying to impose a state on people who never wanted one. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic and backward.

.

A squirt from the State's reproductive organ

I see it over and over again; something along the lines of how the looming economic and/or social disaster can be averted "if the US government creates more jobs".

Governments do not "create jobs". All they can do is to destroy jobs. Destroy wealth. Destroy opportunity. Destroy incentive and innovation.

I made this point a while back on facebook only to have a commenter scold me by claiming that:

Business owners and entrepreneurs can only create jobs if there is a demand for their services. There can only be a demand for their services if gen pop has disposable income for such services, gen pop can only have that income if they are employed, they can only be employed if they are educated. They have to be educated in some type of school, which happens to be funded by the gov't.... gov't creates jobs. Just saying...

Sigh. There are so many flaws in that "argument". Why do people confuse "schooling" with "education"? And, why assume that to be educated you must have been "in some type of school"? And why ignore all the education that occurs free of government [sic] funding?

So I responded:

Education only rarely, and purely by accident, happens in government schools. Home-schoolers and unschoolers get a better education without the indoctrination. Disposable income is eliminated by The State on many levels. "Taxation" (which is a euphemism for theft), red tape, regulations, licensing, etc., and the counterfeiting operation at the Federal Reserve, take about 7/8 of the production of Americans when you add it all up. Want more disposable income? Get rid of the parasites who are bleeding you dry. Then, find a service or a product that is needed, and provide it. You will have created jobs and "disposable income".

Of course, their final response was to ask where I got my "schooling". Not where, or how, I was educated, but where I was "schooled". To which I responded:

Truthfully, I attended government schools, but I educated myself by reading and experimenting and thinking. Thankfully I made it through government schooling without having my love of learning destroyed as happens to so many.

I smell a government school employee. How about you?

.

Obamney plus Paul Ryan is still poison

Would you suddenly like your cancerous tumor if it grew an attractive lump on one side?

Romney is still Obamney even if he has a Paul Ryan appendage hanging off his side. Poison is still poison even if you add a strawberry. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig...

The game is still rigged and YOU aren't even among the potential winners- if you consent to play.

.

Just Stop Believing

Is "The State" a real thing, or is it only a figment of the believers' imaginations?

The buildings associated with The State are real. The consequences of getting caught violating the multitude of its counterfeit "laws" are real. There are a great many people who work for The State who would tell you the State is real.

But, what if everyone stopped believing in The State? How long would it outlast the cessation of belief? It wouldn't. Not by one femtosecond. The State's existence is completely dependent upon belief.

I don't believe in The State. I believe in thugs who band together and call themselves "the government" or "The State", but those are completely separate issues. Stop believing in The State, just recognize all the aggressors for what they are, and stop pretending there's a difference between the warring gangs. They are as they do.

.

Statist Confusion

An awful lot of people have been carefully trained to confuse schooling with education, nationalism with patriotism, compliance with consent, federal reserve notes with money, control with safety, freedom with liberty, "The United States of America" with America, ...and numerous other examples.

Is it paranoid to think this isn't accidental?

.

Doomed from the start?

Some people seem to just be more naturally aggressive than others. I am thinking of a young child I know.

He is aggressive. Everything he does is loud, aggressive, and impulsive. Fortunately, he seems to be intelligent, so he may have the mental tools to override his impulses if he gets the right guidance (which may be unlikely, as his family are happily statist).

I realize that some of that is "just being a boy" (I was never that way), and he'll undoubtedly grow out of a lot of it, but will a person like this be less likely to accept the Zero Aggression Principle, or, even if he acknowledges it, be unable to abide by it? How will people like him fare in a free society?

And what about those who are like him, but not intelligent? I hate to think that anyone is just doomed before they ever get a chance, but on the other hand, everyone, smart or stupid, has to live with consequences. That's just reality, and isn't something you or I can prevent.

.

Government threat to life, liberty

Government threat to life, liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 6, 2012)

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have all heard those words, and most of us probably recognize them from the Declaration of Independence, but have you ever stopped to think about what they mean?

Those three things may seem random and unconnected, but they are as interconnected as links in a chain. Each is entirely dependent upon the one preceding it, and leads, or should lead, to the one that comes after it. Happiness is dependent on the liberty to pursue it, which you can't do if you are not alive. Originally "property" was mentioned instead of "pursuit of happiness", but it was later realized that property is just a facet of happiness. There are many other ways to pursue your happiness; many, but not all, depend upon your property, and your ability to keep it.

Even people who seek to violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others are trying to make themselves happy by doing so. They couldn't try to be happy without that freedom, but, freedom is only a part of liberty.

Liberty is the freedom to do anything you want as long as it doesn't violate the identical rights of anyone else. If your happiness depends on you punching people who are minding their own business, or if you believe you have to steal to make yourself happy, you are out of luck. Unless you get a job that comes with the illusion of authority to do those things. That still doesn't make it right.

Sadly, even though Thomas Jefferson claimed that government's purpose was to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is no greater threat to those "unalienable" rights today, and for the past several generations at least, than government.

How do you fix that? Either you stop permitting government to legally interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyone, or you have to put that power away; out of reach of those who use it as a weapon. That was what the Constitution was supposed to do- place most things beyond the reach of government. But government grew, and now it ignores the rules which were supposed to restrain it. It considers everything to be within its reach, and few people disagree.

No government can ever claim to possess "just powers" yet violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of anyone without losing its legitimacy. No matter how badly you want that to not be true.

.

Angry armed mother gets off

Yes, the double meaning is intentional.

There was a recent case where a mom, who was an armed government employee, came home to discover her 19 year old daughter and a male visitor enjoying themselves in a naked fashion.

The mom became violent, striking the man and then holding him at gun point (and handcuffed naked) until she discovered, through a phone call, that she couldn't have him charged with anything because he was an invited guest. She was then arrested, but the charges were dismissed.

I was sent this story in an email from someone who thought it was funny and liked the outcome.

I did neither.

I responded thusly:

While the mom's emotional over-reaction was somewhat understandable from a parental point of view, I hope the guy sues her. And wins. An invited guest in the home doesn't deserve to be held at gun point even if doing something, with consent, that you don't like. He wasn't harming her, trespassing, or damaging her property in any way. She was wrong.

Which got a reply from him in which he disagreed:

First - Invited or not you don't [have sex with] my daughter in my home without my permission. Second - She held him at gun point till she found out the facts and then she let him go. He did sue her and this was the court decision upholding the dismissal of the district court. For a change the court was right!!

This bothers me for a few different reasons.

It assumes ownership of the daughter. It asserts that it is not also her house. It claims the right to demand permission from someone not involved in the activity, and who isn't harmed by it. It seems to say that holding an innocent person at gun point (after punching him) is OK as long as you then let him go- no liability here for initiating force. I think the court was clearly wrong.

Added- He later responded, and said this in regards to the daughter's property rights:

Until the daughter is granted or gifted that right or a portion of that right of ownership, she has no ownership interests.

Hmmm. OK. I don't think rights can be granted (or withdrawn), but only respected or violated. I respect my (nearly) 5 year-old daughter's property rights- especially when she asserts them. Those rights don't come from me. Sometimes she doesn't use those property rights in a way I would choose for her to use them. That's life. Sometimes I assert my property rights in ways that irritate her (and others). It's not something I have to ponder. I would hate to have someone who is a part of my family, living with me, but whom I declare has no property rights to the house, or at least to their portion of it. Now, she can't burn her room without damaging everyone else's property, or without endangering my life, but the same boundaries apply to me and my decision about burning my room. As long as we live under the same roof, the best way I can see to get along is to respect each other's boundaries and property rights. That mom did not.

.

Drug tests, "checkpoints", and the TSA

From drug tests, to DWI "checkpoints, to the TSA, rapists have been given "authority" to control your life.

Welcome to America, the world's first "rape-ocracy:".

.

"I voted Demopublicratican because..."

I got half of this in an email, from someone who said it was only "pointed in one direction", and that I point in all directions. So, I added another direction. It's not perfect, by any means, but sometimes it is really hard to make a distinction where none really exists. See what you think.

**

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

1a. I voted Republican because I love having the power to insert myself into other people's marriages through State coercion. Everything is subject to licensing, even love.

2. I voted Republican because I don't care what oil companies do as long as it doesn't affect my driving habits.

2a. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3a. I voted Republican because I believe without government "laws" my friends, family, and neighbors will not know the difference between right and wrong and they might do things I don't like.

4. I voted Republican because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as I am not offended by it saying things I don't like about my traditional values.

4a. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5a. I voted Republican because I trust the police and military with guns even though they kill more innocents than all the freelance criminals combined.

6. I voted Republican because I want authorities to absolve me from the consequences of my actions, and because I like to poop in my nest. And, because I believe "laws" are the answer.

6a. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7a. I voted Republican because I'm not concerned about millions of babies, children, mothers, and fathers being bombed to death in "Brown people countries" so long as we keep all American fetuses alive. And as long as we can keep killing people to show that killing is wrong.

8. I voted Republican because I believe government owns the whole country and can violate my right to decide who I allow, or not, on my property- and that Social Security is not socialism because I paid into it all those years.

8a. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9a. I voted Republican because I believe that businesses should submit to government before being allowed to engage in trade, should be "taxed" to support the military, and that many consensual economic activities should be forbidden because I don't like them.

10. I voted Republican because I believe that the Constitution is Holy and can't be improved upon even when it authorizes the government to commit acts of evil.

10a. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

11a. I voted Republican because I think it's OK to pay trillions of dollars of your money to bomb and invade countries to make their people hate us, as long as it keeps the oil flowing and keeps me feeling patriotic bliss.

12. I voted Republican because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

12a. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

.

Keep abreast of the illegal infringements

"Shall not be infringed". It's the Law. But criminal governments don't obey it, and will murder you if you do what you have a fundamental human right to do.

That being the case, it is probably a good idea to know the counterfeit "laws" that the bad guys will use against you. So, here's a book that can help:



Another good thing is that if you buy the book through that link I get paid a bit of money, which I am always in desperate need of. So, think about it. Please.

.

If that's "peace", then you can have it

In a blog post that showed up in my Google Reader, but then vanished before I could actually go to the blog and post a comment, a libertarian said that because of the Aurora movie theater shootings he was getting rid of his shotgun by finding someone who would destroy it so it could never be used again. I find his lack of reasoning ability frightening. So I'll address it here.

He said he had once been "a gunnie" and had bought a revolver for self-defense. He spoke of going to the shooting range with his revolver, and how he learned to hate guns from his experience of shooting one (hey, it's not for everyone), and realized that he wasn’t ever going to use it in his home to defend himself against an aggressor. If someone broke in, his plan was to try to escape through the back door. He decided he could never shoot a home invader. His "reasoning" was that if they wanted his possessions, then they could have them. He says he wasn’t going to kill anyone over his "stupid stuff".

But what if it isn't your "stuff" they want? Sometimes, what they want is to kill you. Or worse. And, then after they survive the encounter with you they'll go do it to someone else. Shouldn't you do all you can to prevent that? I guess not. I think his attitude is selfish and self-centered. Think about other people, not just about yourself.

He says his original desire to own a gun was based upon fear and self-deception, and that it gave him a false sense of "control". That's not the point of owning and carrying a gun. The point is to prevent someone else from controlling you or the ones you love. Sure, you may fail. Is that a reason to give up and never try? Only if you are a coward. Just because any number of things could kill you at any time do you close your eyes and walk out into traffic when crossing a busy road? Do you get rid of your smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Do you stop eating? Well, perhaps some mentally disturbed people do, but healthy people take charge of the things they can control and face the things they can't when they arise. They don't just give up.

He also quoted some Brady Mass-Murderer Fan Club lies about gun owners being more likely to shoot themselves than to use a gun in self-defense. Way to go, dude.

Guns are not "The" solution for everything, but they are a solution for some specific problems. Irrationally excluding one solution just because you don't like it is... well, irrational. I don't know, but I would have to say that he probably isn't responsible enough to own a gun. And that isn't "peace"; that's just a tragedy.

.

Chick-fil-A and gay marriage

The (somewhat) free market works every time it is allowed to do so.

Chick-fil-A's owner said he opposes gay marriage. His statement drove away some people and attracted others. That's how it should work. Even if the result isn't the one I would agree with. I don't get to "run" the economy.

This is how it should be. The only thing that happened here "as it should never be" is when that one elected crook (was it the mayor of Boston? I forget...) said that because of that statement, Chick-fil-A was not welcome in "his" town. What a worm.

That's why political power is not legitimate. It gives parasites and control freaks the delusion that they have the authority to decide who gets to enter into voluntary arrangements with others. No one has that authority.

.

Bloomberg's Plan- Police Strike

It's been a while since Bloomin' Bloomberg called for a nationwide police strike unless we "mundanes" agree to be violated with even more gun "laws".

He says:

I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'

I'm in full support of that idea. With a couple of conditions.

Not only must the police go on strike with regards to providing "protection", but they also must stop their thieving for The State. No traffic enforcement. No DWI "checkpoints". No drug busts. Nothing. Sit home and eat donuts and pretend to be 15 year-old girls online. On your OWN time.

Your safety is your problem, not mine. My rights don't crumble in the face of your fear or your desire to go home at the end of your shift. If you are scared to be a cop among an armed population, then f'ing QUIT. Please! Make the strike permanent.

It will never happen, though. The truth of the matter is that cops can't afford to stop "servicing" the public or the public will realize what an unnecessary burden the Reavers really are. Without fear of "legal" assaults, they could carry their own defensive tools without risk. They would get a taste of liberty and they just might like it. Some of us already know we don't need you at all. It might only take a police strike to show the rest of the people the light.

That's a risk Bloomers and his minions- wherever they may run their scheme- can never permit to happen. His promise, as delightful as it is, is nothing but a blast of verbal flatus from a giant windbag. What a disgusting waste of meat.

.

Patriots? Where?

Nationalists:

• Get teary-eyed over the "Stars and Stripes" and the national anthem.
• Say things like "our government" and "my president".
• Believe that "if we just elect the right people..."
• Believe that the Constitution is the answer, if only it had been enforced.
• Say "Love it or leave it".
• Chant "USA, USA".
• Believe the propaganda about the latest Enemy of America, whether economic or military or "terrorist".

Patriots:

• Would have started shooting government employees by now.

Note: I do not consider myself a "patriot", and I am certainly NOT a "nationalist". Liberty is what matters, not where you find it. Or don't.

.

No one should meddle in our lives

No one should meddle in our lives

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 29, 2012)

When I defend liberty I constantly get accused of condoning all sorts of things I don't condone. Rather than "condoning" them, I realize that those things are simply none of my business; not mine to approve or condemn. Nor are they anyone else's business, either.

Recently a fellow libertarian posted a comment on facebook that I agreed with whole-heartedly. He said "There is a difference between approving of what someone does and approving of their freedom to do it, and the latter does not somehow mandate the former."

So true! Why is this impossible for so many people to understand?

It really does seem to be impossible for the majority of people to grasp. Our entire political system is evidence of that. Almost everyone is seeking to use the force of the state to prohibit others from doing things they don't approve of, while others are doing the same thing to them. It's like the Hatfields and McCoys, but without taking responsibility for the violence that is done on your behalf. Or, actually, it's precisely what some people claim would happen in the absence of an externally-imposed government. "You kill one of ours, so we kill one of yours", and the cycle goes on until everyone has been shot.

It's a demented way to run a society, if you ask me, and, it is probably one of the best demonstrations that societies shouldn't be "run" at all; complex systems function better when allowed to "self-organize". No one should have the authority to meddle in other people's lives until there is an individual victim.

This obsession over condoning or forbidding other people's voluntary, mutually-consensual behavior is also why government grows and grows, and never becomes smaller. It is why the number of laws increase geometrically- or faster- every year until even no one in government has a clue how many laws there now are. Or whether you (or they) are breaking some of them.

So, as long as you aren't attacking anyone or taking or destroying other people's property, whether or not I approve of the other things you do isn't even something you need to concern yourself with. It's not even on the map.

But, while we are talking about attacking and stealing, I definitely don't condone taking property from people by threat of force in order to finance the loss of more of their liberties, and to finance the enforcement of that violation.

.

Business Idea for you

Spending money can be fun. Spending large amounts, if you can afford it, can be even more exciting.

Here's a business idea to capitalize on that quirk of human nature so that you can get your own large amounts of money to spend. If you're nice you can cut me in on your profits for giving you the idea.

What I envision is a website where people can place fantasy orders for things like cars, houses, home entertainment centers, or whatever they might like. However, the only thing they actually pay for is the thrill of choosing among various options and placing the orders. Perhaps they might actually pay only $1 for every $100,000 they spend.

There could even be free accounts where they are limited to "spend" less than $50,000, and to spend more they need to upgrade to a premium account by actually linking a credit card.

Then, they can go shopping. When they click "place order" they would only pay the price of the game they just played. They might get a receipt showing the items they "ordered", so that they could print it out.

.