Self defense = Awareness

Self defense. It's a touchy subject.  And so many times it isn't used when it should be.  People hesitate just a fraction of a second too long.

Why?

I think it is because they instinctively know "you just don't hurt people"- unless they are a damaged aggressor who doesn't have that internal regulator.

So, normal people have a fear of striking too soon or striking and hurting the wrong person. They worry about getting in trouble for hurting someone.  They don't want to attract attention.  They wonder if they are misinterpreting the situation- or instinctively assume the person approaching won't really hurt them.  Even in obviously dangerous situations, such as the "9-11" planes, this hesitation and self-imposed reluctance to hurt a bad guy will prevent action from being taken until it is too late.

Sadly, this is because normal people are nice.  The bad guys out there are not and have none of that concern.  To them you are less than human.  You are prey.

I don't know of any healthy way to turn a nice, normal person into a person who can switch that off and strike an aggressor fast and hard without doing some other damage to the psyche, too.  Some self defense training probably helps, but I think even this does some damage in most cases.  It isn't healthy to see the whole world as a threat, because that isn't the reality of the situation.

And, split-second judgments are always iffy.  In most cases, people are just not aware of a threat in the area until it is too late.  They don't notice their surroundings at all.

The best line to walk between being paranoid and being prey seems to me to be awareness.  Pay attention to your surroundings at all times.  Observe.  Not just to see threats, but to see beauty.  Observing the world has a big payoff in every aspect of your life.  It's the difference between being conscious and aware or being asleep and shuffling through life seeing nothing but the ground in front of your feet.

And then, when a real threat appears, noticing it early may just give you time to decide when the right time to strike has come.  The predator has already noticed you- even the playing field.


.

Liberty Lines 11-8-2012

(Published in the Farwell TX/ Texico NM State Line Tribune)

Small towns lead a strange double life.  I suppose big cities do too, although I don't know for sure.

People in small towns generally treat you with kindness and decency in person.  They will go out of their way to help someone- even a stranger.  Or a strange local.  They interact on a voluntary basis.

They don't often steal or attack one another- especially when there are mutual acquaintances and overlapping social circles, as there almost always are.

But, then, they turn around and don't hesitate to use political force against these same neighbors, by asking government to impose, and then enforce, counterfeit "laws" on them.

They ask government to violate their neighbors' private property rights for "the common good".  They ask government to violate their neighbors' individual sovereignty by pretending to have the authority to tell others what they may or may not introduce into their own body.  Instead of taking action when there is a real individual victim, they punish "what if"s and "maybe"s- something known in science fiction as "pre-crime".  Something known in real life as "mala prohibita"- not wrong in and of itself, but only wrong because someone decided to make up a "law".

Most would never consider doing these things to their peaceable neighbors in person.  They do these things by proxy- hiding behind government's skirts.

I would rather see things done more honestly and openly, if they are to be done at all.  It still wouldn't make it right, but at least you would know exactly who believes they own you when they act upon that belief.

If you think it is your business to control what your neighbor does, why not just walk uninvited into his house and poke around?  If you think your neighbor should be forced to pay for some program you support, why not rob him at gunpoint?

I'll tell you why not.  Because we know those things are not right.  They are still not right when you have others do them on your behalf.

As we enter the holiday season, let's cast off the desire to meddle and control, and replace it with a desire to be the best we can be.  Let's accomplish things voluntarily, not politically.

Obama "wins"

I didn't watch any election coverage yesterday.  In fact, I hadn't really thought about it until I got online this morning and saw half of the statist socialists cheering the victory of their candidate and the other half of the statist socialists wringing their hands over the defeat of their candidate.

Yawn.

As if it matters.  LOL

I'll keep doing what I do.

It wouldn't have made one bit of difference had Romney won.  He was Obama's clone.  Just a Big Government socialistic fascist stamped out of the same die as Obama. And the Bushes.  And Clinton.  Etc.  The claims about Obama's secret religion or birthplace were distractions from the things that really mattered- and on those things Romney wasn't just shooting blanks; he was pointing his finger and saying "click".  And only those who were blinded by their hatred of Obama even noticed Romney.

Maybe it's a good thing the presidency stays with Obamney 1.0/Obama- or should that be Bush 2.0?  Whatever.

Maybe a few more people will now grow up enough to reject The State.  Maybe more will stop saying such ridiculous things as "my president", or "our government".

I do suspect many "conservatives" will become more fervent in their slavish devotion to Nazi rituals, though, thinking this to be a rejection of Obama's ideology.  LOL.

Maybe lots more guns will be bought in preparation for defending ourselves from government employees.  Maybe Obama will even fall into the trap of outlawing guns and trying to implement confiscation so that "we" don't have to keep wondering "is it time?"

Maybe the dollar will finally collapse so that we can go back to using real money.  So what if "they" make it illegal?  It will happen anyway.

Maybe more people will embrace their outlawry and stop obeying counterfeit "laws".

Maybe Obama and his minions- "conservative" AND "liberal"- will tighten their grip enough that everyone who matters will slip from their straining fingers.

Maybe this will bring Americans to the point of remembering the Declaration of Independence in large enough numbers that they finally remember that bit about "abolishing" government that violates liberty, and finally take responsibility for governing themselves- each as an individual.

Maybe governmental suicide is imminent- advanced by the illusion of victory.

But if not, I will keep doing what I do.

I am not worried by Obama.  Romney wouldn't have been noticeably different, much less "better".

The government has always been your enemy, and always will be.  You may not have noticed as long as you believe "your guy" is in charge.  That doesn't alter the truth.  Accept it and get ready for interesting times.  They were coming no matter which delusional statist thug "won" the election.  You have warning; you have no excuse.

Remember, this is only one battle in a long string of battles- the war is not over.


.

Aftermath of the "Election"- Listen up, Republicans

Hey Republicans- you could have easily won the election if you hadn't nominated Obama's clone as your candidate. Good job! I'm sure you'll take this lesson and put it to good use next time. Not. LOL

You had your chance with Ron Paul... but you cheated and broke your own convention rules so that you could ensure this result- just like I warned you at the time.

Well, at least your folly will probably shake a few more people out of their "government is legitimate" delusion so that they can join me on the side of real Liberty.


.

How do you ration your fear?

Drunk driving. Terrorists.  Natural disasters.  Diseases.  "Breakdown of social order".  Lack of government control.  All these things are supposed to cause fear.  As they say: "meh".

I seem to have a different outlook than most people, perhaps even different from most libertarians.

I am not afraid of things that seem to really scare some people.

I oppose enforcement of anti-drunk-driving "laws".  In fact, I think drunk driving "laws" should all be eliminated completely.

Yes, I believe if you do drive drunk (or sober, for that matter) and cause harm to a person or someone else's property, then you are in debt.  Some debts are impossible to pay.

I have been told that driving drunk is the same as pointing a loaded gun at an innocent person's head.  But I don't quite believe that.  There seems to be a real difference there, even if I can't put my finger on it.  Perhaps it is the intent behind the act.

"Might hurt someone" just doesn't cut it with me.

"Terrorists"?  I've never seen one- at least one who didn't work for government.  Do I fear them? Do I believe I need to give someone else my liberty so that they can protect me from terrorists?  Nope.  Sorry.

Natural disasters?  They will happen.  Take precautions.  It's the best way to guard against harm when they do happen.  Will that guarantee your safety?  Don't be silly.  But it's better (and smarter) than sitting around refusing to do anything and expecting someone else to come bail you out.

Diseases.  Probably about the same thing as "natural disasters".  Avoid doing things that increase your chances of catching a communicable disease, but don't expect me to sit around wearing a dust mask spraying disinfectant on everything I touch.  I fear medical treatment more than I fear disease.  I fear the expenses, too.

"Breakdown of social order"?  Might happen.  If it does I am as ready as I can be under the circumstances.  I'm adaptable.

Lack of governmental control?  Fear it?  I crave it.  I'd rather see chaos or anarchy than a rigid, ordered "society".  Either things will work out OK, or they won't.  If they don't... well, that's life.  Some will say I just don't understand how bad it could be.  Probably not.  But I have been in plenty of situations beyond the realistic reach of government, and things worked out just fine.  Bring it on!

Perhaps my problem is a lack of fear.

The State needs "us" to be afraid. All the time.  Of everything except its employees (well, other than when it wants us to be afraid of defying or killing them).  I can't live that way.  I don't have that much fear- not enough to go around.  I have to ration my fear carefully.  Those things just don't get any.


.

State has no authority in religion

State has no authority in religion

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 5, 2012)

Recently I saw some people around here get very upset over what they saw as an attack on their Freedom of Religion at government-sponsored sporting events.

I saw it somewhat differently.

Religious freedom is a condition necessary for liberty. As long as you practice your religion, or absence thereof, without attacking any innocent person, without coercion, and without violating the property of others, no one should be able to use government force to interfere. Not exactly freedom from religion, but from religious coercion. Simply being exposed to someone else's religion can't harm you.

No part of the government has the authority- and certainly not the right- to meddle in your non-coercive religious practices.

A harder thing for many religious people to accept, but just as critical, is the necessity of not permitting government to incorporate anyone's particular religious ideas into its official policies or promote them at its events. This is a de facto endorsement that can only muddy the waters.

No government money should ever go toward religious displays of any kind, nor should any government money be used to oppose any privately-funded religious display. If you are accepting "tax" money, or using government facilities, you must avoid promoting religion at your event. If you don't like that then you should make certain to remove yourself from the position of using government. However, even at government events, any individuals who are not there in any "official" capacity nor any position of leadership can still practice religion.

The incorporation of religion into "law"- such as Sharia Law or prohibition or sex laws- is the first step down a dangerous slope. This gives religion State power and gives the State religious authority. Few people worry about this issue, or even notice, as long as the religion they follow is the one being promoted or incorporated, but as soon as they get a whiff of someone else's religion having the same influence on government, the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth begin.

By all means weigh any government actions according to your faith, but be careful to not let your faith be soiled by association with government, neither controlling it or being controlled by it, and don't let it be imposed on others by "law", nor force anyone else to pay for it through the use of their "tax" money.

Any government which is able to promote your religion today will be able to suppress your religion tomorrow. Freedom of religion is a double-edged sword. Be careful how you swing it, because that backstroke can cut you deeply.


.

Buy a gun today!

This vote would send a message.  If I had the money, I'd do this.  Maybe you can.

.

Slave Affirmation Day

Generally called "election day" or some-such nonsense.

I think voting is harmful to liberty.  I understand why some people believe it is necessary to vote in self-defense.

Do what you think is best.

But I will guarantee you that "best" does NOT include v*ting for ANY Republican or Democrat.  That path leads straight to Hell (probably not a spiritual one, but quite definitely a physical, Earthly one).

Choose wisely.  And, as a friend constantly points out, Abstain from beans.


.

Remember The Sixth of November, too

Remember, remember, the sixth of November,
The quadrennial election plot?

I know of no reason this treacherous season
should NOT be forgot.
Obamney: 'twas his intent
to rule your life wherever you went.

Votes are cast and votes are tallied, your liberty to kill.
By reason alone, deny him the throne.
Reject not the righteous Red Pill.

Withdraw consent, Abstain from beans.
Withdraw consent, stop voting for fiends.

Molon Labe!

(Or, in picture form:)

.

"Doc's Plan"

This is an idea that I have seen promoted.  I post it here- edited only for language:

Here's the answer to the health care, welfare, social security problem in America.  

The President announces that on a given date, every single person of the over 315,000,000 citizens in the USA will be given $3,000,000. You, me, your child[ren], and even The Donald will get this money. Every man, woman and child will get 3 million bucks to do with what they please. It will be tax free.  

One month from that date ALL welfare, both federal and state will be forever ended. That means no more Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, assisted housing, health care, unemployment compensation; public schools, everything will be ended forever. No more Social Security taxes (or the like) will be taken from our paychecks and those various government offices will cease to exist.  

If you piss away your 3 million bucks on rims or other silliness, you will not get any charity from the government ever again and you'll be out of luck.  

This will end homelessness and poverty in America.  

We know that there are some people who will spend it all as soon as they get it. Some common sense financial counseling will be offered.
People who are visiting on visas or not will get none of it.

OK, yes, I know this would cause immediate inflation- possibly hyperinflation.  It would also cause all the bureaucrats who work in all those obsolete government agencies be to unemployed- the money might make them ignore that for a while, though.

It wouldn't make everyone's life skittles and cream, but would short-sightedness overpower the imminent end of all welfare?  What do you think?

Feel free to spread this idea anywhere you think it might get attention.


.

Some weeks are better skipped

This has been quite a week.

Beginning Monday about noon, it has been taken up by the emergency room, and trips to the doctor and surgeon in the Big City an hour and a half away.  And there will be more trips next week and a surgery next Friday- when I have to be there by 5AM.  And then there will be more trips to The Big City the next week.  I wish gas prices were a lot lower.

The medical problem isn't mine (it's my daughter's mom's) but since she doesn't drive, and since I should be concerned ...

So far I have managed to keep writing and posting in between being gone large chunks of the week, but no guarantees for the next week.  Fortunately, Blogger lets me schedule posts ahead of time so no one notices when I'm gone.  I still have some written and scheduled for the next few days.

Plus, my sister, whom I haven't seen in 12 or 13 years, is supposed to be moving here from Los Angeles, with her girlfriend.  The last we knew she planned on being here yesterday.  But, after supposedly picking up the rental truck (which my parents sent her the money to rent) Monday, and running into delay after delay, no one has heard from her since Wednesday evening.  She has never been very good about answering calls or texts in a timely manner, but this is ridiculous.  Is she avoiding everyone now?  Did she get cold feet?  Did her girlfriend balk about leaving California?  Mechanical trouble?  Did they get hijacked?  The truck was supposed to be turned in by opening time this morning.  Did she even get the truck?  I know my parents are worried.  So am I.  But I'm also suspicious.

UPDATE: The sister has been found.  They are only one state away- they say they had packed the phones and just dug them out.  Should be here before morning.

UPDATE #2:  My sister and her girlfriend are finally here.  Safe, sound, and exhausted.  I am also exhausted after helping unload the truck.  But I'm very happy they are here now.


.

Known by your enemies

How do you feel about people who rape women and then murder them?  If you are like me you probably don't care much for them, and celebrate when one is killed by his intended victim or a rescuer.  Right?

But why do you assume the murderous rapists are bad guys?

Do you think you should become a homicidal rapist for a year so that you can see things from their perspective?  Would this change your mind... and should you change your mind?  Does anyone actually think this way?

Well, apparently some people "think" this way.  On my post about the disgusting religion of "Officer Safety" one brillyunt thinkur had this to say:

"You are obviously clueless about anything but your poor insecure feelings that some Officer must have hurt. I consider you below contempt. Why not go and be an Officer and get back with me after a year of experience. Sometimes one needs to be educated to know how little he knows."

Boo frickin' hoo.

How many times has this been demanded of me?  I have lost count.  Seriously.

I have to have been abused by a cop before I can be opposed to abuse by cop?  A close friend or relative must first be murdered by a cop before I can know that this is wrong?  I have to then become an aggressive authority-crazed Taser-jockey before I can have an opinion about their disgusting acts and the harm they cause?  I have to become one of them to understand how "wonderful, kind, honest, hardworking, necessary, and misunderstood" they are?  I have to have experience in imposing counterfeit "laws" on people for the "official" duly-elected or appointed mafia before I can know it is wrong to punish or kidnap people for doing things that do not violate any other individual in any way?  No, I don't.

I can be just as offended by other people being terrorized and murdered.  It is called "empathy".  And being ethical.  It doesn't have to be personal.  I can't imagine being one of those who only recognize evil when it is attacking them.  What is wrong with people like that?

I know... the commenter is either a reaver or a cop-sucker, and his opinion on cops means just as much as the opinions of the Manson cult concerning their guru.

Still, it is revolting to suggest that I would ever lower myself to become a cop.  A sheriff, maybe, but a type this commenter would soak his pants over.

Homicidal rapists are the bad guys strictly because they violate the Zero Aggression Principle.  Cops are the bad guys for the exact same reason.  And more.  Not only do cops violate the ZAP, they also steal as an integral part of their "job"- they would lose their "job" if they didn't commit these evil acts.  Then they demand you thank them for violating you.  Scum!  I can't become a cop because I have pledged to myself and to my neighbors to not do these things, and to never help LEOs do those things, either.

If this draws fire from some particularly twisted statists, so be it.  It is an honor to have certain kinds of people as my enemy.


.

The "cost" of a hurricane

So, Hurricane Sandy may cost $50 billion.  OK.  But I wonder how much the typical "nice" day costs?  How much does a sunny day cost in damage done by the sun?  How much does a gentle rain cost?

It's like the cold spell (or heat wave) that is said to have claimed X number of lives.  How many people does a pleasant day kill?  How many people die doing things on a nice day who would have survived had the weather been nasty enough to keep them inside?

When calculating these things- if that is even a valid goal- you should subtract out the cost in money and lives that would have been "spent" anyway.  I have my doubts that this is done, since the larger the number, the more dramatic the news and the more emotions will be inflamed.

Everything has a cost.  Be prepared so that you aren't caught off-guard.  Then, enjoy the wind and rain.  Don't fear the uncertainty.


.

Denial

Frustration.  But you can't get through to some people no matter what.  Even if they are staring down the barrel of a gun.  Or a storm.

With Hurricane Sandy aiming directly at my friends in Pennsylvania I took it upon myself to mention to some of them that I hoped they were taking precautions.

Universally I met with the standard reaction, if they reacted at all:

"Oh, nothing ever happens around here.  I'm not going to be paranoid.  The electric company will keep the lights on, or fix it quick if anything happens.  I have a couple of bottles of water, and some food.  I can go over to ___'s house, or where I work, if I need food or water.  It's just down the block.  I don't need anything.  My cell phone works and it's charged.  Etc."

Sigh.  Denial.  "It can't happen to me!"

Why can't people realize that sometimes you can't just walk a block or two to somewhere you believe will have what you need, and be able to get it when you arrive?  Why do people not realize that cell phones need their towers to be standing and be powered in order to work- even if charged?  That sometimes things are bigger than a couple of days can fix?

How did people become convinced that it is "paranoia" to be able to take care of yourself?  How did people become convinced it is somehow morally superior to refuse to be prepared to survive without relying on other people?

How can people not see the fun in being ready for unexpected events- or even those with plenty of warning?

Does no one think ahead and consider it wise to be prepared anymore?  I guess this means that, once again, I am "No One".

**
UPDATE: read the comment I just posted below.


.

Restitution could provide justice

Restitution could provide justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 28, 2012.)

Recent and ongoing local events illustrate the folly of imprisonment. The situation is not unique. The same type of events repeat, in limited variation, all across America on a continuous basis.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, and subsequent studies which keep confirming it, should demonstrate that you can't give one group of people dominion over another group of people without both groups losing their humanity. It's not healthy for anyone.

Imprisonment also provides a taxpayer-subsidized "Criminal University" where skills, experience, and lessons are passed from one bad guy to many more people- quite a few of whom are "enrolled", not for attacking or stealing, but for violating arbitrary edicts against self-determination or private property rights. You can't teach people to be good by enforcing bad rules.

The primary goal shouldn't be punishment; but protecting the innocent and private property. If punishment actually helped achieve that goal then a better argument for it could be made, but it doesn't. Only restitution provides some justice to the victim. It costs a violator nothing extra to sit in a cage while the victim is "taxed"- stolen from yet again- to keep prisoners. Only the imprisonment industry benefits, although they have a great many people fooled.

Sure, most people will say that there are just some prisoners who should never walk free again. If someone needs to be caged, they need to be dead, but no government is honest enough to be trusted with that power. Remove the "laws" (the illegitimate rules against self defense and against the most effective defensive tools) that protect aggressors and thieves from the rightful consequences of their actions, to bring the price of being a bad guy back up to where it needs to be, and watch the population of actual bad guys dwindle.

And stop harassing everyone else.

Anyone imprisoned for anything other than theft or aggression is, in truth, a political prisoner. Accidents are not crimes, and while they may create an debt, that in no way involves the State. The US now imprisons a larger percentage of its residents than has any regime in history- more even than those such as Soviet Russia and China, not exactly shining examples of liberty or justice. It's not that Americans are worse than any population in history- it's that the laws are wrong.

When your course of action fails to keep things from getting worse, it's time to do something different. Sometimes, the way it's always been done is also the way it's always been done wrong.

.

Greed- The definition

I think "greed" is basically "self-interest with regard to physical things".

This is not bad in any way, no matter what some people may believe.

However, when you twist that "self-interest with regard to physical things" to where you value it enough to steal, defraud, and/or murder for those things, then that is where you committed the evil act- the greed itself isn't evil.  This is why statism is "greedy" in an evil way- it steals, defrauds, and murders... and claims to be doing it for "the common good".

Everyone is greedy- even those who do altruistic things- otherwise they wouldn't survive. It's how you express that greed that can be the problem.

.

Wading into "preparedness"

Claire Wolfe has been having a preparedness discussion that has a lot of very good information.  Not a hand-wringing TEOTWAWKI- "you GOTTA have ALL this stuff" discussion, but a calm, realistic discussion.

I highly recommend you check it out.


Preparedness priorities, part I

Preparedness priorities, part II

Preparedness priorities, part III

Preparedness priorities, part IV

Preparedness priorities, part V

You can also check out my Preparedness page.

Expect the unexpected. Be adaptable. Survival preps are fun, and they should be fun. If you make them fun people will want to join you. If you make preps tedious and serious people will call you names.

Please don't be like the person I mentioned preparedness to yesterday.  She is convinced there is some basis to the "Mayan Apocalypse" stuff, and that it will actually end up being a good thing, but when I asked if she had set aside "extra food, cash, or whatever", she replied emphatically that no, that was "fear".  I kinda talked her past that, I think, but I wonder why people feel this way about normal "insurance".


.

Perusing Dictionary definitions

I am always having to answer to the fact that "The Dictionary" conflates "anarchy" with "chaos", "destruction", and "disorder".  Or presumably negative concepts to that effect.  And I am not often believed outside the anarchist "community".

People don't seem to like it when I point out that dictionary definitions can be wrong due to common usage being incorrect- eventually if enough people use the word in the wrong way, the dictionary reflects that error.

Such is the case with "anarchy".

Several times I have been asked to give one example of another word that has suffered the same fate, and until now I haven't been able to.

That's right- I said "until now".

I have found another word that the dictionary says means two opposite things.  One word is said to mean both "to examine or consider with attention and in detail" and "to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner".

If you do one, you are not doing the other.  The word is "peruse".

Dictionaries are not infallible, and are subject to accidental errors and intentional manipulation.

.

This prohibition is different

Many times I have pointed out that the old alcohol prohibition (which never really ended, but was just changed to profit a nastier gang) and the current prohibition on politically-incorrect drugs have a lot in common.  Such as creating gang violence and inflating prices and selecting for criminals in the supply of the prohibited substances.  Without making the demand for the substances go away even a little.

There is one big difference between the old alcohol prohibition and the current everything else prohibition, though: the most dangerous gangs this prohibition has spawned are the ones with the badges.

Now, I admit, the old prohibition is not something I have first-hand knowledge of.  And history books often lie.  Still, I'm willing to believe them when they claim the worst prohibition-related violence back then was committed by the "criminals".

That simply isn't the case with the current prohibition.

This time, more innocent people are hurt and killed by the prohibition enforcers.  They are worse, by at least an order of magnitude, than the prohibition violators.

And, even the prohibition violators who cause real harm are outnumbered greatly by those who violate prohibition non-violently.  The same can't be said about the enforcers.  Even the "best" of the prohibition enforcers is destroying lives every time he kidnaps or robs someone who did no actual wrong, but only ignored a counterfeit "law".  And the enforcers who cause real harm also outnumber the prohibition violators who cause real harm.  It's time to put an end to this stupidity.


.

Changes needed to ensure justice

Changes needed to ensure justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 21, 2012)

"Justice" is the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed by an act of aggression or property loss and correct the damage; to return the victim to as close to the "pre-victimized condition" as is possible.

What, then, is "injustice"? It is often simply the lack of justice. This could be injustice through omission or a case of justice being impossible to provide. Or, it could be (and often is) the opposite of justice. Anti-justice.

This might be the attempt to harm an individual who has already been harmed by an attack or a theft. Laws that criminalize the failure to report a stolen gun being one example.

Injustice could be the attempt to punish an individual for an offense they didn't actually commit. This happens more than most people want to admit- just check out The Innocence Project to see how many innocent people have been railroaded into a conviction just because "someone needs to be punished" when a law is broken, and because prosecutors and judges want to be seen as "tough on crime".

Injustice could also be the attempt to punish an individual for doing something "illegal" that does not harm any individual nor anyone's private property; a "mala prohibitum" act. There is never any justice involved in prosecuting any victimless crime; doing so always creates a victim out of thin air.

If you advocate, pass, support, or enforce any "law" which attempts to criminalize and punish anything other than a physical attack on an innocent person, or the theft or destruction of private property, the result will always be injustice. If you permit a government court to handle any case where the government is an interested party, an egregious conflict of interest, the result will frequently be injustice.

To ensure justice, some things need to change fundamentally. All laws concerned with anything other than an attack on the innocent or the violation of private property need to be abolished and everyone imprisoned for these false offenses needs to be freed immediately. The incentive to punish someone, anyone, for every crime needs to take a back seat to finding the real perpetrator and making things right with his victim through restitution. Finally, courts need to be separated from the control of the government and there needs to be competition in providing this service.

If you value justice you will insist on these changes; if you only give lip service to justice while actually thirsting for punishment and retribution you'll be content with the status quo. Where do you stand?


.