Politicians can't really be as dumb as they seem, can they?
I include all the appointed bureaucrats such as all the Secretaries of This and That- and especially Ben Bernanke. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
But, anyway, either they are all really, really dumb, or they are smart enough to appear to be dumb. Judging by the actions they take and the things they advocate I have a hard time accepting that premise.
I'll try to not underestimate them if I have to avoid them or deal with them, but it is still pretty hard to accept that they may not be as dumb as they seem. What amazes me the most is how many people- statists, anyway- don't see it, but instead praise these clowns for their "wisdom".
If that's "wisdom" or "intelligence" I want no part of it.
.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Gay marriage, pedophiles, and libertarians
Recently I was forwarded a comment. The person who made the comment claims to "lean libertarian", but can't take the final step because "libertarianism says what you do in privacy is of no concern to me" and "what you do in public is permissible as long as it does not constrain my own liberty." Mostly correct- not only liberty, but also life and property/"pursuit of happiness".
The example that they gave was gay sex and, even more specifically gay marriage. They were concerned because they felt libertariansism left no room for rebuttal against gay marriage and felt that, if "normalized", it leads to this: Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
Other than both being "sexual", I see no connection, but, OK.
He asks "If it happens in private between consenting parties, what argument can full-throated libertarians make against the act? Would they even offer an argument?"
Some offer arguments, but I can only speak for myself.
I read the article and found it very interesting... and then it hit me- the basic difference between me and your friend. He was offended by the information and opinions presented and I was not. I took in the information presented and gave it consideration. He, apparently, couldn't do that, but only saw it as confirmation of his worst fears.
The main case against forbidding gay marriage should be an easy "conservative" fit: how on earth can the claim be made that government should be in the business of licensing private and very personal vows? It isn't that gay marriage should be "allowed", it is that government should never have been allowed to regulate, sanction, or ration marriages in the first place. It's like licensing churches. Or guns. Or cars and travel.
Beyond that, if something is truly consensual (and it needs to be informed consent, without deception) and doesn't harm either of the participants, how can you seriously advocate killing people over it? And that is what any "law" against something leads to. All "laws" are enforced by death. Sure, you can usually avoid that outcome by complying early in the enforcement process, but eventually, if resistance is made, armed government employees will arrive to either "arrest" you or kill you in the attempt. Don't believe me? Find a minor "law" and openly defy it around the government employees who are "responsible" [sic] for enforcing it- and keep refusing to comply each time they escalate their enforcement attempts. Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well..." as they walk away?
His complaint that libertarianism leaves "little room for rebuttal" against gay marriage, because "What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is of no concern to the true libertarian" seems misguided. Why would anyone want to rebut that? Because it offends them? No one has a right to not be offended. I don't worry that someone might be watching MSNBC or FOX news in the privacy of their own home, even though the thought offends me and I think it can cause wide-ranging problems out in society. Until someone is actually harmed, it just isn't any of my business.
Which gets back to the article he linked to.
If it were shown beyond a reasonable doubt that pedophilia, when engaged in willingly with INFORMED consent, did not harm either participant, neither physically nor psychologically, why use the lethal force of government (which is known, beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause harm to almost everyone) to prevent or stop it? Because it offends "the majority"? Gun ownership seems to offend either "the majority" or a very vocal minority. In itself, gun ownership harms no one. Until the gun is used to coerce or attack an innocent person- one who does not deserve to be harmed right now because they are not attacking or stealing. As long as no one is being harmed and everyone is engaging in consensual acts, you can be offended all you want, but you have no right to use force against them. Nor to delegate someone else to use force that you don't have the authority to delegate. You can't delegate something you don't possess.
I suspect that your conservative friend, if he were honest, would admit that he will never believe any studies that show "no harm from pedophilia". He will continue to "know" it causes harm, no matter what. And, in that, he may be right. I simply don't know.
So, no I wouldn't make an argument against pedophilia, in and of itself- although in the past I would have. No child "belongs" to me, just as I didn't "belong" to anyone when I was a child. Would I try to convince children that I thought it was a bad idea for them to engage in sex? Yes. Would I try to talk a pedophile out of acting on his desires? Absolutely. Just because the thought bothers me personally. Do I think it is somehow worse for a child to engage in sexual activity with an adult than with another child? Not really. And I also recognize that all children engage in some level of sexual experimentation or play. I did. It was completely consensual, it didn't harm me, and I don't regret it. Where would you draw the line between "normal" sex play and "perversion"? Where do you get the authority to draw that line?
And, even if it does cause harm, if there is informed consent with both parties, I wouldn't send The State after them. I would step in, myself. And I would accept any consequences that came from that.
Tattoos and piercings cause visible harm. Damage to the body that you can see with your own eyes. It offends my aesthetic sensibilities to see them, especially when there are "too many" of either (or both). I think that people who get multiples of either don't understand what they are doing to themselves. They invariably disagree with me on that point. I would still do my best to argue a person out of going overboard with them. But I know where the line is. I respect that line even when doing so makes me unhappy. Which is increasingly rare.
This is a taboo subject, and one I address with apprehension. More than any other subject, talking about sex leads to hatred and accusations and drives people away. It is the most emotionally charged subject I have ever found. Which means, I suppose, that it is important to talk about.
.
The example that they gave was gay sex and, even more specifically gay marriage. They were concerned because they felt libertariansism left no room for rebuttal against gay marriage and felt that, if "normalized", it leads to this: Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
Other than both being "sexual", I see no connection, but, OK.
He asks "If it happens in private between consenting parties, what argument can full-throated libertarians make against the act? Would they even offer an argument?"
Some offer arguments, but I can only speak for myself.
Here was what I said in reply to the person who forwarded the comment to me:
I read the article and found it very interesting... and then it hit me- the basic difference between me and your friend. He was offended by the information and opinions presented and I was not. I took in the information presented and gave it consideration. He, apparently, couldn't do that, but only saw it as confirmation of his worst fears.
The main case against forbidding gay marriage should be an easy "conservative" fit: how on earth can the claim be made that government should be in the business of licensing private and very personal vows? It isn't that gay marriage should be "allowed", it is that government should never have been allowed to regulate, sanction, or ration marriages in the first place. It's like licensing churches. Or guns. Or cars and travel.
Beyond that, if something is truly consensual (and it needs to be informed consent, without deception) and doesn't harm either of the participants, how can you seriously advocate killing people over it? And that is what any "law" against something leads to. All "laws" are enforced by death. Sure, you can usually avoid that outcome by complying early in the enforcement process, but eventually, if resistance is made, armed government employees will arrive to either "arrest" you or kill you in the attempt. Don't believe me? Find a minor "law" and openly defy it around the government employees who are "responsible" [sic] for enforcing it- and keep refusing to comply each time they escalate their enforcement attempts. Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well..." as they walk away?
His complaint that libertarianism leaves "little room for rebuttal" against gay marriage, because "What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is of no concern to the true libertarian" seems misguided. Why would anyone want to rebut that? Because it offends them? No one has a right to not be offended. I don't worry that someone might be watching MSNBC or FOX news in the privacy of their own home, even though the thought offends me and I think it can cause wide-ranging problems out in society. Until someone is actually harmed, it just isn't any of my business.
Which gets back to the article he linked to.
If it were shown beyond a reasonable doubt that pedophilia, when engaged in willingly with INFORMED consent, did not harm either participant, neither physically nor psychologically, why use the lethal force of government (which is known, beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause harm to almost everyone) to prevent or stop it? Because it offends "the majority"? Gun ownership seems to offend either "the majority" or a very vocal minority. In itself, gun ownership harms no one. Until the gun is used to coerce or attack an innocent person- one who does not deserve to be harmed right now because they are not attacking or stealing. As long as no one is being harmed and everyone is engaging in consensual acts, you can be offended all you want, but you have no right to use force against them. Nor to delegate someone else to use force that you don't have the authority to delegate. You can't delegate something you don't possess.
I suspect that your conservative friend, if he were honest, would admit that he will never believe any studies that show "no harm from pedophilia". He will continue to "know" it causes harm, no matter what. And, in that, he may be right. I simply don't know.
So, no I wouldn't make an argument against pedophilia, in and of itself- although in the past I would have. No child "belongs" to me, just as I didn't "belong" to anyone when I was a child. Would I try to convince children that I thought it was a bad idea for them to engage in sex? Yes. Would I try to talk a pedophile out of acting on his desires? Absolutely. Just because the thought bothers me personally. Do I think it is somehow worse for a child to engage in sexual activity with an adult than with another child? Not really. And I also recognize that all children engage in some level of sexual experimentation or play. I did. It was completely consensual, it didn't harm me, and I don't regret it. Where would you draw the line between "normal" sex play and "perversion"? Where do you get the authority to draw that line?
And, even if it does cause harm, if there is informed consent with both parties, I wouldn't send The State after them. I would step in, myself. And I would accept any consequences that came from that.
Tattoos and piercings cause visible harm. Damage to the body that you can see with your own eyes. It offends my aesthetic sensibilities to see them, especially when there are "too many" of either (or both). I think that people who get multiples of either don't understand what they are doing to themselves. They invariably disagree with me on that point. I would still do my best to argue a person out of going overboard with them. But I know where the line is. I respect that line even when doing so makes me unhappy. Which is increasingly rare.
This is a taboo subject, and one I address with apprehension. More than any other subject, talking about sex leads to hatred and accusations and drives people away. It is the most emotionally charged subject I have ever found. Which means, I suppose, that it is important to talk about.
.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Worrying about the properties of unicorn poop
Recently I have been able to observe some "liberals/progressives" in their natural habitat. It has been highly educational and hilarious.
Now, they are not exactly typical "liberals", but it's still funny.
They watch news about the latest goings-on in DC and act like it is actually important. I guess I just don't get it. I couldn't possibly care any less who Obama nominates for what post, or what he believes about guns, or what he is advocating as a "solution" [sic] for the economy he has worked so hard to continue destroying. I already know he is a statist thug- just like Bush the Decider was before him.
The particulars of exactly how Obama and his co-conspirators plan to gang-rape Liberty are less important to me than my plans to defend my individual Liberty from his- or anyone's- aggression. And those plans aren't any of his business. I know the attack is coming, and that's really all that matters.
I hope you also know what's coming, and are getting prepared. I hope you don't waste time pretending that the noises and odors coming from DC (or a more local Mos Eisley) are "the real world". Or that the Storm Troopers and reavers are anything other than what they are.
And, I hope you can laugh at those who get all excited about what their Rulers proclaim and do.
.
Now, they are not exactly typical "liberals", but it's still funny.
They watch news about the latest goings-on in DC and act like it is actually important. I guess I just don't get it. I couldn't possibly care any less who Obama nominates for what post, or what he believes about guns, or what he is advocating as a "solution" [sic] for the economy he has worked so hard to continue destroying. I already know he is a statist thug- just like Bush the Decider was before him.
The particulars of exactly how Obama and his co-conspirators plan to gang-rape Liberty are less important to me than my plans to defend my individual Liberty from his- or anyone's- aggression. And those plans aren't any of his business. I know the attack is coming, and that's really all that matters.
I hope you also know what's coming, and are getting prepared. I hope you don't waste time pretending that the noises and odors coming from DC (or a more local Mos Eisley) are "the real world". Or that the Storm Troopers and reavers are anything other than what they are.
And, I hope you can laugh at those who get all excited about what their Rulers proclaim and do.
.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
"There are parts I like..."
First, this:
I think of this Futurama clip every time I talk to a Constitutionalist.
But they are rarely honest enough to admit "There are parts of the Constitution I like and parts I don't like!".
Because they are almost universally supportive of the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, and "immigration control"*, and against "gay marriage" (which means they are for government-regulated marriage). None of those things are permitted by the Constitution. If you support or advocate any of those you are against the Constitution when it doesn't allow you to "legally" do things you want to do. Just like me.
However, I readily admit to not liking most of the Constitution due to the fact it established a State, and that I consider it irrelevant, while acknowledging that a "Constitutional America" would be a huge improvement over what the US is now.
*The one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves. Not the same thing at all.
.
I think of this Futurama clip every time I talk to a Constitutionalist.
But they are rarely honest enough to admit "There are parts of the Constitution I like and parts I don't like!".
Because they are almost universally supportive of the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, and "immigration control"*, and against "gay marriage" (which means they are for government-regulated marriage). None of those things are permitted by the Constitution. If you support or advocate any of those you are against the Constitution when it doesn't allow you to "legally" do things you want to do. Just like me.
However, I readily admit to not liking most of the Constitution due to the fact it established a State, and that I consider it irrelevant, while acknowledging that a "Constitutional America" would be a huge improvement over what the US is now.
_
*The one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves. Not the same thing at all.
.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Regulations, taxes block progress
Regulations, taxes block progress
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 7, 2012.)
Fraser Institute released its Economic Freedom of North America 2012 report, and New Mexico came in 50th among the American states.
That's bad news, but it's also an incredible and exciting opportunity, because it would be so simple to flip that ranking upside down.
Economic freedom is natural; it requires a lot of effort to stifle it. To destroy economic freedom requires "taxation", regulations, red tape, licenses, and fees. All those things amount to barriers which are erected between an idea and actually providing a product or service to people who might want it. All that would be needed to improve New Mexico's standing is the removal of some of those barriers.
You could even decide how high to lift New Mexico. If a slight improvement is good enough, just remove some of the economic barriers; if you want to rise to the top, get rid of them all. Your choice- the more barriers you insist on removing, the better off we all become.
This doesn't mean there would be no economic risk, or that every new business idea would succeed, but it would make it easier to try new things and allow more of those new things to succeed. The more new things that are tried, the more successes there will be. If you throw one dart, it is unlikely you will hit a bulls-eye, but if you throw a hundred darts, a bulls-eye is almost a sure thing. The state should not be rationing the darts.
Unfortunately, the state and many of its supporters are addicted to their favorite economic barriers.
The "left" wants barriers to ensure the fairy tale of "fairness".
The "right" wants barriers which enforce its notions of "goodness".
Both would be happy to eliminate the other side's favorite barriers, but will fight tooth and claw to hang on to its own barriers. And always propose more. The state is happy to oblige.
So here we are.
Solving this problem means taking power, position, and money away from politicians and bureaucrats. Be assured they will go into fear-monger mode to prevent that from happening. Don't fall for their lies.
America as a whole has slipped further down the index of world economic freedom; now at number eighteen. This is a tragedy that can be solved. New Mexico could lead the way, if we can just be bold enough to do it.
So, which is it? Are you more concerned about imposing barriers against others, or being a shining beacon, even though it means allowing others the same freedom?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 7, 2012.)
Fraser Institute released its Economic Freedom of North America 2012 report, and New Mexico came in 50th among the American states.
That's bad news, but it's also an incredible and exciting opportunity, because it would be so simple to flip that ranking upside down.
Economic freedom is natural; it requires a lot of effort to stifle it. To destroy economic freedom requires "taxation", regulations, red tape, licenses, and fees. All those things amount to barriers which are erected between an idea and actually providing a product or service to people who might want it. All that would be needed to improve New Mexico's standing is the removal of some of those barriers.
You could even decide how high to lift New Mexico. If a slight improvement is good enough, just remove some of the economic barriers; if you want to rise to the top, get rid of them all. Your choice- the more barriers you insist on removing, the better off we all become.
This doesn't mean there would be no economic risk, or that every new business idea would succeed, but it would make it easier to try new things and allow more of those new things to succeed. The more new things that are tried, the more successes there will be. If you throw one dart, it is unlikely you will hit a bulls-eye, but if you throw a hundred darts, a bulls-eye is almost a sure thing. The state should not be rationing the darts.
Unfortunately, the state and many of its supporters are addicted to their favorite economic barriers.
The "left" wants barriers to ensure the fairy tale of "fairness".
The "right" wants barriers which enforce its notions of "goodness".
Both would be happy to eliminate the other side's favorite barriers, but will fight tooth and claw to hang on to its own barriers. And always propose more. The state is happy to oblige.
So here we are.
Solving this problem means taking power, position, and money away from politicians and bureaucrats. Be assured they will go into fear-monger mode to prevent that from happening. Don't fall for their lies.
America as a whole has slipped further down the index of world economic freedom; now at number eighteen. This is a tragedy that can be solved. New Mexico could lead the way, if we can just be bold enough to do it.
So, which is it? Are you more concerned about imposing barriers against others, or being a shining beacon, even though it means allowing others the same freedom?
.
Keep playing an unfair game
"That's not fair!"
Every time I hear those words I smile because I am reminded of Scott Adams' assertion that "fairness" isn't a feature of reality, but a concept invented so that stupid people could feel like they are participating in conversations.
Maybe that's true; maybe it isn't completely true.
However, "fair" does figure into playing games with agreed-upon rules. When someone doesn't play by those rules you feel it isn't fair. You can whine about it, you can keep trying to adapt to the "new" rules, you can "cheat" in your own way and hope to somehow win, or you can walk away.
Some people seem to think of The State as a kind of game. They realize that the rules seem to only be applied in one direction- against individuals who are not a part of the government gang- but they still believe they should keep playing and try to win. Or at least not lose.
What I don't get is that so many of those people think whining about the unfairness will change anything. As long as you keep playing, what incentive is there for any change? You'll keep playing, keep losing, and The State will keep teasing you with the promise of winning a little bit... someday.
When playing against someone who keeps changing the rules to benefit themselves, you are an idiot to not walk away.
Withdraw consent.
.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Liberty, in the real world
I like to handle physical objects. Hats. Guns. Skulls. Whatever.
I enjoy looking at pictures of things I like, but nothing beats having an interesting item in my hands, turning it over, examining every angle, and feeling the weight of it as I turn it over and feel its texture. Concepts are good, but I want to feel the reality, even if it is gritty.
So it is with liberty. I can be free in my mind but I want to grasp liberty in my grubby paws and explore every nook and cranny. I want to see the dirt and stains and scratches. I don't expect liberty to be shiny and perfect, but to be real. I want to live it- flaws and all.
And I will despise anyone who tries to prevent me from experiencing that. And I may need to defend my life, liberty, and property from thugs and parasites who try to take those things from me.
If you fear or hate liberty or those who love it, just get out of the way and leave us alone and there will be no problem. Get in our way by initiating force or being a thief and you may not like the consequences you bring upon yourself. We have seriously had enough.
.
I enjoy looking at pictures of things I like, but nothing beats having an interesting item in my hands, turning it over, examining every angle, and feeling the weight of it as I turn it over and feel its texture. Concepts are good, but I want to feel the reality, even if it is gritty.
So it is with liberty. I can be free in my mind but I want to grasp liberty in my grubby paws and explore every nook and cranny. I want to see the dirt and stains and scratches. I don't expect liberty to be shiny and perfect, but to be real. I want to live it- flaws and all.
And I will despise anyone who tries to prevent me from experiencing that. And I may need to defend my life, liberty, and property from thugs and parasites who try to take those things from me.
If you fear or hate liberty or those who love it, just get out of the way and leave us alone and there will be no problem. Get in our way by initiating force or being a thief and you may not like the consequences you bring upon yourself. We have seriously had enough.
.
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Liberty Lines 1-3-2013
(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM State Line Tribune January 3, 2013)
School shootings are, fear-mongering hysteria to the contrary, rare. I have seen the statistics that show your chances of being murdered in one are less than one in two million. Your risk of being killed in a car wreck on the way to school is much higher. You have a higher chance of being killed by a police officer, or of choking to death on a pen cap. Of course, even one murder is too many.
The recent tragedy in Connecticut will result in more anti-gun "laws" being proposed. "Laws" just like the ones that failed to prevent the massacre, and in fact make events like that one more likely. Connecticut has some of the worst- and by that I mean most restrictive- anti-gun "laws" in America. How'd that work out?
There are other meaningless displays that some will propose. Such as lock-downs. The school in Connecticut was "breached" violently. No lock-down prevents that. Lock-downs only increase other risks- risks that are actually more likely to really happen.
I realize no one in government or in the touchy-feelie "we can legislate our way to Utopia crowd" wants to hear it, but the truth is that arming teachers and school employees again is the only thing that can work. It isn't "radical"- it's a return to common sense that seems to have been lost in recent decades. It doesn't even require new "laws"; just the elimination of some very bad ones that are currently enforced.
Fortunately, events like the one in Connecticut will still be highly unlikely even if reasonable measures are passed over in favor of "feel good" security theater. But when the next massacre happens in another of those "gun free zones" take a moment and think about the lives that would have been saved if the decision-makers had listened to me.
.
School shootings are, fear-mongering hysteria to the contrary, rare. I have seen the statistics that show your chances of being murdered in one are less than one in two million. Your risk of being killed in a car wreck on the way to school is much higher. You have a higher chance of being killed by a police officer, or of choking to death on a pen cap. Of course, even one murder is too many.
The recent tragedy in Connecticut will result in more anti-gun "laws" being proposed. "Laws" just like the ones that failed to prevent the massacre, and in fact make events like that one more likely. Connecticut has some of the worst- and by that I mean most restrictive- anti-gun "laws" in America. How'd that work out?
There are other meaningless displays that some will propose. Such as lock-downs. The school in Connecticut was "breached" violently. No lock-down prevents that. Lock-downs only increase other risks- risks that are actually more likely to really happen.
I realize no one in government or in the touchy-feelie "we can legislate our way to Utopia crowd" wants to hear it, but the truth is that arming teachers and school employees again is the only thing that can work. It isn't "radical"- it's a return to common sense that seems to have been lost in recent decades. It doesn't even require new "laws"; just the elimination of some very bad ones that are currently enforced.
Fortunately, events like the one in Connecticut will still be highly unlikely even if reasonable measures are passed over in favor of "feel good" security theater. But when the next massacre happens in another of those "gun free zones" take a moment and think about the lives that would have been saved if the decision-makers had listened to me.
.
Friday, January 04, 2013
Donations and "Subscriptions"
I just added Paypal buttons for donations and "subscriptions" over there on the left (since the blog redesign in January 2014, they are on the right), under my head. I realize many people despise Paypal, and I completely understand why. However, it is still the way most people choose to send me money and I'm not going to be silly and refuse it.
For those of you who hate Paypal but feel a pressing need to send me money, I happily accept silver, gold, and ammo. If you have other ideas of things to send me, let me know.
Obviously, you can still read the blog whether or not you subscribe. If you think I give you value that is worth paying for, then I appreciate it. If I don't- or if you can't afford anything- don't worry about it.
I have also been trying to "get with" Bitcoin- and it is giving me fits. I'll keep trying, but I have been so busy I have to ration the time I spend on computer projects that don't involve actual writing.
For those of you who have helped support my writings, I thank you sincerely. You really have no idea how grateful I am.
.
For those of you who hate Paypal but feel a pressing need to send me money, I happily accept silver, gold, and ammo. If you have other ideas of things to send me, let me know.
Obviously, you can still read the blog whether or not you subscribe. If you think I give you value that is worth paying for, then I appreciate it. If I don't- or if you can't afford anything- don't worry about it.
I have also been trying to "get with" Bitcoin- and it is giving me fits. I'll keep trying, but I have been so busy I have to ration the time I spend on computer projects that don't involve actual writing.
For those of you who have helped support my writings, I thank you sincerely. You really have no idea how grateful I am.
.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Connecticut's Sandy Hook lessons
It has been weeks since the massacre at the Connecticut elementary school. So many innocent lives lost to one indescribably evil act by a broken individual. The magnitude of such a tragedy is hard for rational people to comprehend. Yet, the knee-jerk reaction from the political class is as predictable as sunrise.
It is adding insult to injury to force the individuals of America to withhold our grief because we have to prepare for a second attack. This time from politicians and their Laws of Mass Destruction. It is hard to find the time to cry when you know, from the moment of the first news reports, that fundamental human rights which are subject to no government's "laws" will be scapegoated. Tears must wait until your self defense has been secured.
Doing the same thing that keeps being done and that keeps failing, is not the right way to deal with it. For a change, let's do the thing that people like me keep suggesting.
A person who is willing to violate the laws against murder will never let a "law" against owning or carrying a gun stop him. The anti-gun "laws" only disarm the people who have no intention of murdering children. And, in doing so, those "laws" make the children-your children- less safe.
Politicians- who have had the anti-gun bills written in advance, waiting for such an opportunity to try to rush them into "law"- want you to be afraid. They count on it. Fearful people are temporarily willing to give up some liberty for the illusion of safety. It doesn't work that way.
I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to refuse to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I am resolved to make sure everyone knows the motivations of the people who would wish to take away the tools that allow you and me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.
Anyone calling for you to be disarmed- anywhere, at any time, for any reason- is not doing it for your sake. They do not have your best interests in mind. Instead, the only reason they do it is so that they can do things to you that you would stop if you had the ability. They do it so that they can keep hurting innocent people and you'll be powerless to prevent it.
Schools are not safer when the good people are disarmed. That is a deadly myth. How many more children will be sacrificed on this gory altar?
Instead of making it easier for these evil murderers to do what they want, let's end the insanity of "gun free zones" so that the next attempt will get nipped in the bud. A "gun free zone" is more accurately labeled a "slaughter house". Only a monster would advocate more of this.
.
It is adding insult to injury to force the individuals of America to withhold our grief because we have to prepare for a second attack. This time from politicians and their Laws of Mass Destruction. It is hard to find the time to cry when you know, from the moment of the first news reports, that fundamental human rights which are subject to no government's "laws" will be scapegoated. Tears must wait until your self defense has been secured.
Doing the same thing that keeps being done and that keeps failing, is not the right way to deal with it. For a change, let's do the thing that people like me keep suggesting.
A person who is willing to violate the laws against murder will never let a "law" against owning or carrying a gun stop him. The anti-gun "laws" only disarm the people who have no intention of murdering children. And, in doing so, those "laws" make the children-your children- less safe.
Politicians- who have had the anti-gun bills written in advance, waiting for such an opportunity to try to rush them into "law"- want you to be afraid. They count on it. Fearful people are temporarily willing to give up some liberty for the illusion of safety. It doesn't work that way.
I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to refuse to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I am resolved to make sure everyone knows the motivations of the people who would wish to take away the tools that allow you and me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.
Anyone calling for you to be disarmed- anywhere, at any time, for any reason- is not doing it for your sake. They do not have your best interests in mind. Instead, the only reason they do it is so that they can do things to you that you would stop if you had the ability. They do it so that they can keep hurting innocent people and you'll be powerless to prevent it.
Schools are not safer when the good people are disarmed. That is a deadly myth. How many more children will be sacrificed on this gory altar?
Instead of making it easier for these evil murderers to do what they want, let's end the insanity of "gun free zones" so that the next attempt will get nipped in the bud. A "gun free zone" is more accurately labeled a "slaughter house". Only a monster would advocate more of this.
.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
So many "laws", so little time...
I saw something that mentioned how many new "laws" came into effect with the new year.
Cool!
The more "laws" they pass, the more "laws" I can break. And the less I worry about each one I break.
When everyone is an outlaw it's not because we are all bad, but because the "laws" are. I actually find myself smiling about the opportunity to break more of their "laws". Am I sick or what?
.
Cool!
The more "laws" they pass, the more "laws" I can break. And the less I worry about each one I break.
When everyone is an outlaw it's not because we are all bad, but because the "laws" are. I actually find myself smiling about the opportunity to break more of their "laws". Am I sick or what?
.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Respect two-way street
Respect two-way street
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 30, 2012.)
I have noticed a couple of recent letters to the editor calling for respect towards those in political office.
That's all well and good; there needs to be more respect in society, but it needs to be earned. Respect is cheapened when it is not deserved. When it is given unearned to someone who demands it, it is downright worthless.
So should politicians and other government employees be shown respect? Well, sure, the same respect that is due everyone alive is also due to them. But no extra respect is due them simply because of their job.
And respect is a two-way street.
I get really angry at people who show a lack of respect toward waiters or cashiers. Just because they are acting as our servants- working to serve us at that moment- it is no reason to treat them with contempt or indifference. They are still our equals.
As human beings our servants deserve our respect, until the moment they fail to respect those they serve or otherwise do something to lose it.
This is particularly true for those in political office. It seems that they invariably forget they are to be the servants; the hired help.
These chronically ungrateful servants order their masters around. They steal from us and demand to be treated with respect as they do so. They impose and enforce illegitimate "laws" that violate our fundamental human rights. They bark orders and then attack when their orders are not obeyed instantly. Only a fool would keep such a servant employed. No one deserves less respect than this kind of servant.
It is an upside down relationship we see in America today, where the servants have the masters convinced that they are in charge, and through intimidation and draconian enforcement, have scared the majority of the masters into forgetting who serves whom.
As long as we, their bosses, let them get away with it the situation will only get worse.
Don't ever forget: YOU outrank the president. You are the master holding the leash of every Supreme Court justice. Every congressperson, mayor, sheriff, police officer, or government bureaucrat works at your pleasure. They are like the butler and are obligated to do your will- and have zero authority to act as your superior in any situation. Especially when they are repeatedly caught with their fingerprints in your vault, and all over your stolen liberty.
The authority is yours- use it.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 30, 2012.)
I have noticed a couple of recent letters to the editor calling for respect towards those in political office.
That's all well and good; there needs to be more respect in society, but it needs to be earned. Respect is cheapened when it is not deserved. When it is given unearned to someone who demands it, it is downright worthless.
So should politicians and other government employees be shown respect? Well, sure, the same respect that is due everyone alive is also due to them. But no extra respect is due them simply because of their job.
And respect is a two-way street.
I get really angry at people who show a lack of respect toward waiters or cashiers. Just because they are acting as our servants- working to serve us at that moment- it is no reason to treat them with contempt or indifference. They are still our equals.
As human beings our servants deserve our respect, until the moment they fail to respect those they serve or otherwise do something to lose it.
This is particularly true for those in political office. It seems that they invariably forget they are to be the servants; the hired help.
These chronically ungrateful servants order their masters around. They steal from us and demand to be treated with respect as they do so. They impose and enforce illegitimate "laws" that violate our fundamental human rights. They bark orders and then attack when their orders are not obeyed instantly. Only a fool would keep such a servant employed. No one deserves less respect than this kind of servant.
It is an upside down relationship we see in America today, where the servants have the masters convinced that they are in charge, and through intimidation and draconian enforcement, have scared the majority of the masters into forgetting who serves whom.
As long as we, their bosses, let them get away with it the situation will only get worse.
Don't ever forget: YOU outrank the president. You are the master holding the leash of every Supreme Court justice. Every congressperson, mayor, sheriff, police officer, or government bureaucrat works at your pleasure. They are like the butler and are obligated to do your will- and have zero authority to act as your superior in any situation. Especially when they are repeatedly caught with their fingerprints in your vault, and all over your stolen liberty.
The authority is yours- use it.
.
Happy 2013
Do you feel optimistic about the coming year? Or is rationality getting in the way of your "feelings"?
I'm not sure how I feel or what I think right now.
I think tyranny will get worse for the foreseeable future, but I think they who believe in The State have already lost the game in the long run. Things may be painful for a while as it all works out. I intend to make it as pain-free on myself as possible, by never depending on "government" or things others look to "government" to provide. I will act as though The State is already dead, and has been replaced by the freelance thugs that will probably inhabit the next phase of civilization. I will fend for myself and try to come to the aid of others doing the same.
I'm less optimistic about my individual circumstances than I am about the trend of future history, but that's not unusual. I will watch for opportunities to change that around, too.
Happy New Year, and have fun however you choose to celebrate- or not.
.
I'm not sure how I feel or what I think right now.
I think tyranny will get worse for the foreseeable future, but I think they who believe in The State have already lost the game in the long run. Things may be painful for a while as it all works out. I intend to make it as pain-free on myself as possible, by never depending on "government" or things others look to "government" to provide. I will act as though The State is already dead, and has been replaced by the freelance thugs that will probably inhabit the next phase of civilization. I will fend for myself and try to come to the aid of others doing the same.
I'm less optimistic about my individual circumstances than I am about the trend of future history, but that's not unusual. I will watch for opportunities to change that around, too.
Happy New Year, and have fun however you choose to celebrate- or not.
.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Wrapping up 2012
Another arbitrarily designated year is coming to an end, and the next is about to begin.
I think a solstice or equinox makes a lot more sense for marking the "endginning" of a year- or a birthday if you have no desire to have a shared holiday experience- but whatever works.
I survived 2012... so far. I didn't change my situation as much as I would like, but I did make small progress. That's better than just holding my own or going backwards. And there are some possibilities on the horizon- at least there seem to be. And I can keep working toward something better.
I am caring less what "laws" surround me. I am caring less what "authorities" proclaim. I would like to see liberty explode over the globe, but I'm not holding my breath. I know liberty isn't important to very many people, but I also know that only those who know it is important matter.
I hope your year was a good one, and I hope the next is better.
.
I think a solstice or equinox makes a lot more sense for marking the "endginning" of a year- or a birthday if you have no desire to have a shared holiday experience- but whatever works.
I survived 2012... so far. I didn't change my situation as much as I would like, but I did make small progress. That's better than just holding my own or going backwards. And there are some possibilities on the horizon- at least there seem to be. And I can keep working toward something better.
I am caring less what "laws" surround me. I am caring less what "authorities" proclaim. I would like to see liberty explode over the globe, but I'm not holding my breath. I know liberty isn't important to very many people, but I also know that only those who know it is important matter.
I hope your year was a good one, and I hope the next is better.
.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Change needed
I really feel the need to change something in my life. But I don't know what.
Maybe a new hobby. Or perhaps revive an old one. Maybe a "real job". Maybe a change of scenery. Or some (positive) adventure. Maybe all of the above.
I know one thing I wish I could change, but that depends on the actions of another person, so all I can do there is try to not be an obstruction, even as I recognize it is unlikely to happen.
I did fairly well with my last New Year's resolution, so maybe I should make this my new one- if I can figure out what I need.
Suggestions?
.
Maybe a new hobby. Or perhaps revive an old one. Maybe a "real job". Maybe a change of scenery. Or some (positive) adventure. Maybe all of the above.
I know one thing I wish I could change, but that depends on the actions of another person, so all I can do there is try to not be an obstruction, even as I recognize it is unlikely to happen.
I did fairly well with my last New Year's resolution, so maybe I should make this my new one- if I can figure out what I need.
Suggestions?
.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
An armed camp? Yes, PLEASE!
“Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?” ~ Dianne Feinstein
Obviously the idiot puppetician has never spent time in an armed camp.
I have. Many times. And it was wonderful.
People were friendly. Strangers were openly welcomed, without fear. Disputes were cordial, or at least peaceably resolved. No one stole from anyone, even though valuables were left unattended. No one attacked anyone. Kids ran free and were watched by everyone.
I could only wish America could return to being an armed camp. All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than thugs like Feinstein and her gang- would ever want to give up such a life ever again.
It just shows what a dishonest, horrible, corrupt, despicable, and evil "person" Dianne Feinstein really is. How sad for her.
.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
"If YOUR son went on a killing spree...?"
I have gotten this question, or similar (more literate) examples of this line of thinking on several occasions. And I don't understand the thought processes that generate it.
"So my question to you Sir Had this been your son who committed an unthinkable and utterly unfathomable crime would you still be ok wil the use of and I quote 'Threat of force'"
(All errors, punctuation or lack thereof, and grammatical lapses in the original.)
And the answer is: YES!
If one of my loved-ones tried to commit an act similar to the one perpetrated by the Sandy Hook murderer, I would want him stopped- with deadly force if necessary- before he managed to harm even one innocent person. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?
If a loved-one attempts a massacre of innocents, then I have already lost him anyway. I want as little harm to come from his actions as possible. In a case like this, the "least harm" comes with stopping the attacker as soon as possible. However you have to. No matter who it is, or "why" the attack was put into action.
For that matter, if I ever went berserk and tried to go on a killing spree, I would hope someone could stop me before I hurt any innocent person. If I am not innocent and am an immediate threat, then I need to be stopped. If my son or daughter is not innocent and is carrying out an attack, then they need to be stopped.
My desire for self-preservation, and for the well-being of my loved ones, does not trump my desire for the safety of innocent people.
This is also why I want to see any cop, soldier, drone operator, politician, or bureaucrat dead as soon as they initiate force, or give a credible indication that they intend to do so. It is why I will NEVER "support the troops" or honor "law enforcement".
No double standards!
.
"So my question to you Sir Had this been your son who committed an unthinkable and utterly unfathomable crime would you still be ok wil the use of and I quote 'Threat of force'"
(All errors, punctuation or lack thereof, and grammatical lapses in the original.)
And the answer is: YES!
If one of my loved-ones tried to commit an act similar to the one perpetrated by the Sandy Hook murderer, I would want him stopped- with deadly force if necessary- before he managed to harm even one innocent person. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?
If a loved-one attempts a massacre of innocents, then I have already lost him anyway. I want as little harm to come from his actions as possible. In a case like this, the "least harm" comes with stopping the attacker as soon as possible. However you have to. No matter who it is, or "why" the attack was put into action.
For that matter, if I ever went berserk and tried to go on a killing spree, I would hope someone could stop me before I hurt any innocent person. If I am not innocent and am an immediate threat, then I need to be stopped. If my son or daughter is not innocent and is carrying out an attack, then they need to be stopped.
My desire for self-preservation, and for the well-being of my loved ones, does not trump my desire for the safety of innocent people.
This is also why I want to see any cop, soldier, drone operator, politician, or bureaucrat dead as soon as they initiate force, or give a credible indication that they intend to do so. It is why I will NEVER "support the troops" or honor "law enforcement".
No double standards!
.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Libertarian values bring peace
Libertarian values bring peace
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 23, 2012)
Being libertarian isn't all fun and games. We are not necessarily the "party crowd" we are sometimes made out to be. While some libertarians are undoubtedly that way, as are many non-libertarians, it certainly isn't a given.
Libertarianism is not about "taking liberties", but about respecting the liberty of others to do as they wish with their own life as long as they are not stealing or attacking.
Many, perhaps most, libertarians have very ordinary personal lives. Some may never shoot or own a gun, may never smoke marijuana regardless of whether or not it is still criminalized, and may have no desire to do anything sexually experimental. Libertarians are not usually "libertines", although we will defend the right to be one- within limits.
Many have very deeply held moral beliefs which are quite familiar and traditional, and while realizing that we have no right to tell others how to live, we know that some choices are not right for us. We accept that we have no right to make those choices for others.
I may have no interest in doing something, but as long as the activity is consensual, I would never dream of stopping you or reporting you to "the authorities". It's simply none of my business. This has nothing to do with a libertarian's personal moral beliefs. Libertarians know enough to not interfere with the non-coercive behavior of others even if, personally, we find it disgusting. No one's personal idea of "immoral" should equal "illegal" nor become an excuse for using any form of coercion, official or private, against people. This is what leads to horrors such as Sharia Law and the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs.
We understand there is no such thing as "harming society" because apart from individuals, "society" is meaningless, and that if no third party individual is harmed, no one is harmed.
We generally understand that being offended is not the same as being harmed. This is a hard concept for even some libertarians to live.
We libertarians understand the value of minding our own business as long as the behaviors at issue are voluntarily engaged in by all individuals involved. Minding your own business and letting go of the desire to control the lives of others brings peace to your own life and is the truly neighborly way to be.
At its heart, libertarianism is the radical idea that other people are not your property. What could be more self-evident than that?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 23, 2012)
Being libertarian isn't all fun and games. We are not necessarily the "party crowd" we are sometimes made out to be. While some libertarians are undoubtedly that way, as are many non-libertarians, it certainly isn't a given.
Libertarianism is not about "taking liberties", but about respecting the liberty of others to do as they wish with their own life as long as they are not stealing or attacking.
Many, perhaps most, libertarians have very ordinary personal lives. Some may never shoot or own a gun, may never smoke marijuana regardless of whether or not it is still criminalized, and may have no desire to do anything sexually experimental. Libertarians are not usually "libertines", although we will defend the right to be one- within limits.
Many have very deeply held moral beliefs which are quite familiar and traditional, and while realizing that we have no right to tell others how to live, we know that some choices are not right for us. We accept that we have no right to make those choices for others.
I may have no interest in doing something, but as long as the activity is consensual, I would never dream of stopping you or reporting you to "the authorities". It's simply none of my business. This has nothing to do with a libertarian's personal moral beliefs. Libertarians know enough to not interfere with the non-coercive behavior of others even if, personally, we find it disgusting. No one's personal idea of "immoral" should equal "illegal" nor become an excuse for using any form of coercion, official or private, against people. This is what leads to horrors such as Sharia Law and the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs.
We understand there is no such thing as "harming society" because apart from individuals, "society" is meaningless, and that if no third party individual is harmed, no one is harmed.
We generally understand that being offended is not the same as being harmed. This is a hard concept for even some libertarians to live.
We libertarians understand the value of minding our own business as long as the behaviors at issue are voluntarily engaged in by all individuals involved. Minding your own business and letting go of the desire to control the lives of others brings peace to your own life and is the truly neighborly way to be.
At its heart, libertarianism is the radical idea that other people are not your property. What could be more self-evident than that?
.
Government is imaginary?
I see a few people who make the claim that government isn't real. It is all in your mind. And, to an extent, that is true.
The same could be said of "family". Or "society". Or the NRA. Or any group.
There are only individuals.
However, while a group is nothing without individuals, individuals become "more" within the group. That "more" may be positive or negative.
Seeing yourself as a part of a group can give you courage to do things you would never think of doing on your own. It might give you the courage to mount an effort to collect coats for poor people, or it might give you the courage to join a middle-of-the-night armed raid on someone's home.
The "collective" has a real-world effect.
It also has an effect on those who are not a part of the group.
It can be discouraging to see individual members of a gang attacking others with no consequences. It can be discouraging to see what happens to their targets who fight back. Bad guys find safety in numbers. And the biggest numbers are found in that coercive, violent gang known as government.
Government doesn't exist apart from bad people willing to do what they believe government is empowered to do- the belief that belonging to government empowers them to do things that are forbidden to non-members- and those individuals, and their beliefs, are a danger to those who find themselves in the cross-hairs. Ridiculing the existence of government will only get you so far.
While I could fill this blog, every day from now on, with individual examples of evil committed by people who only have the courage to commit the evil because of their membership in The Gang, that would be tiring, and no one would want to read that. So, the shorthand of referring to the evils of government is useful.
In the end it comes down to individuals initiating force and theft. But to ignore what motivates them, emboldens them, and helps them escape responsibility is to ignore the elephant in the room. As long as most people see government as a real thing, apart from the interchangeable individuals who make it up, you will keep needing to address that belief.
.
The same could be said of "family". Or "society". Or the NRA. Or any group.
There are only individuals.
However, while a group is nothing without individuals, individuals become "more" within the group. That "more" may be positive or negative.
Seeing yourself as a part of a group can give you courage to do things you would never think of doing on your own. It might give you the courage to mount an effort to collect coats for poor people, or it might give you the courage to join a middle-of-the-night armed raid on someone's home.
The "collective" has a real-world effect.
It also has an effect on those who are not a part of the group.
It can be discouraging to see individual members of a gang attacking others with no consequences. It can be discouraging to see what happens to their targets who fight back. Bad guys find safety in numbers. And the biggest numbers are found in that coercive, violent gang known as government.
Government doesn't exist apart from bad people willing to do what they believe government is empowered to do- the belief that belonging to government empowers them to do things that are forbidden to non-members- and those individuals, and their beliefs, are a danger to those who find themselves in the cross-hairs. Ridiculing the existence of government will only get you so far.
While I could fill this blog, every day from now on, with individual examples of evil committed by people who only have the courage to commit the evil because of their membership in The Gang, that would be tiring, and no one would want to read that. So, the shorthand of referring to the evils of government is useful.
In the end it comes down to individuals initiating force and theft. But to ignore what motivates them, emboldens them, and helps them escape responsibility is to ignore the elephant in the room. As long as most people see government as a real thing, apart from the interchangeable individuals who make it up, you will keep needing to address that belief.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)