If you cite a quote, people will say "he didn't really say that". The quote about there being "a gun behind every blade of grass" is a prime example.
If you use a statistic, people will say "your statistic is wrong". The oft-referenced number of 20,000 anti-gun laws being an example.
It apparently doesn't matter if the information being transferred in the quote is accurate- what matters to quibblers is whether the person it is attributed to actually said it. It's why I don't really like using quotes. I much prefer to just speak for myself, and anyone who wants to quote me can do so. My words, and yours, hold just as much import as anyone else's words as long as we speak of things we know.
And, it apparently doesn't matter that even one anti-gun "law" is too many- they want to quibble over whether the number you quoted is accurate, and whether the same "law" that applies to non-overlapping territories count as two or one. It doesn't matter. One anti-gun "law" will kill people. One is wrong. Whether the "true number" is 20,000 or "only" 300 (as one person tried to argue), any is too many.
If the best you can do for your anti-liberty bigotry is to worry about who first said which accurate thing, or to try to split hairs over just how much evil is OK, then your position is empty. You have no ethical high-ground to defend.
.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Empty, meaningless words
A lot of gun owners say they support the "right to keep and bear arms". Some of them even know that "to keep and bear arms" means to own and to carry weaponry.
A lot of gun owners also say they will refuse to comply with any attempt by government agencies to register firearms.
Maybe.
If you don't carry a gun with you as you go about your daily life, you are not living the "keep and bear arms" you claim to support. Your "support" is empty and meaningless.
If you do carry, but submit to a "carry permit" before you "bear arms" then you are already agreeing to register your guns. Because you have already done so. Your refusal to comply is moot. Empty and meaningless words.
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? Do you not understand that Natural Law says you have the absolute right- simply because you are alive- to provide for your own defense regardless of what anyone else may demand?
I'm not telling you what to do. I am pointing out that you need to look at your own life and your real-life actions to see if there is a consistency there that you can be proud of, or if there is something you need to change.
.
A lot of gun owners also say they will refuse to comply with any attempt by government agencies to register firearms.
Maybe.
If you don't carry a gun with you as you go about your daily life, you are not living the "keep and bear arms" you claim to support. Your "support" is empty and meaningless.
If you do carry, but submit to a "carry permit" before you "bear arms" then you are already agreeing to register your guns. Because you have already done so. Your refusal to comply is moot. Empty and meaningless words.
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? Do you not understand that Natural Law says you have the absolute right- simply because you are alive- to provide for your own defense regardless of what anyone else may demand?
I'm not telling you what to do. I am pointing out that you need to look at your own life and your real-life actions to see if there is a consistency there that you can be proud of, or if there is something you need to change.
.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Comment moderation, temporarily
I'm turning on comment moderation for a while due to the number of Chinese spammers (judging by where "extra" page views are coming from) recently.
So, if you comment and it takes me a while to post it, I apologize, but I WILL get it approved unless it is a spam comment. Disagreeing with me or insulting me don't count as spam and I have never deleted any such comment, and never will.
I'm sure this will only be temporary, as these things seem to come in waves and cycles.
.
So, if you comment and it takes me a while to post it, I apologize, but I WILL get it approved unless it is a spam comment. Disagreeing with me or insulting me don't count as spam and I have never deleted any such comment, and never will.
I'm sure this will only be temporary, as these things seem to come in waves and cycles.
.
Dorner immolation* "not intentional"?
The sheriff responsible for burning the "cabin" Chris Dorner was supposedly* holed up in, says his minions didn't intentionally torch the "cabin". Just like the feds didn't "intentionally" roast the Branch Davidians.
But the police radios tell a different truth.
Cops already get really twitchy, and willing to break the law and faces, over people photographing or making videos of them "just doing their job". How long until they react the same to people who hear them "just doing their job" over radios and scanners?
If your own words and actions are that dangerous to you, maybe you should recognize that you are verminous scum; not one of the good guys.
.
But the police radios tell a different truth.
Cops already get really twitchy, and willing to break the law and faces, over people photographing or making videos of them "just doing their job". How long until they react the same to people who hear them "just doing their job" over radios and scanners?
If your own words and actions are that dangerous to you, maybe you should recognize that you are verminous scum; not one of the good guys.
-
*Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. You and I will never know the truth unless Chris Dorner pops up and starts offing reavers again..
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Following orders is NOT honorable
There is no good in following orders. None.
To pretend this personality defect is a sign of an "honorable person" is disgusting and dishonest.
Any idiot can manage to follow orders. It takes a real human to evaluate those orders, and decide if they should be followed or ignored. Or even to decide if the one giving the orders needs to be stopped in his tracks.
Cars follow orders. You take certain actions that transmit orders that you wish the car to obey, and as long as the car is functional, and your orders do not exceed its operational parameters or the laws of physics, it does as you order it to do. That doesn't make the car a hero. It makes it a tool.
Humans should never allow themselves to become tools. There should always be a gateway that filters the orders and asks if this order is right or wrong. "If I do as ordered will I be harming innocent individuals or their property rights?" If the answer is "yes", a hero refuses to comply. A thug obeys even after seeing that the answer is "yes". A tool obeys without even asking the question of himself, but only taking the word of those issuing the orders.
Don't let yourself be a tool.
.
To pretend this personality defect is a sign of an "honorable person" is disgusting and dishonest.
Any idiot can manage to follow orders. It takes a real human to evaluate those orders, and decide if they should be followed or ignored. Or even to decide if the one giving the orders needs to be stopped in his tracks.
Cars follow orders. You take certain actions that transmit orders that you wish the car to obey, and as long as the car is functional, and your orders do not exceed its operational parameters or the laws of physics, it does as you order it to do. That doesn't make the car a hero. It makes it a tool.
Humans should never allow themselves to become tools. There should always be a gateway that filters the orders and asks if this order is right or wrong. "If I do as ordered will I be harming innocent individuals or their property rights?" If the answer is "yes", a hero refuses to comply. A thug obeys even after seeing that the answer is "yes". A tool obeys without even asking the question of himself, but only taking the word of those issuing the orders.
Don't let yourself be a tool.
.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Random thoughts
Sometimes I get a stack of random thoughts that I decide to share. Maybe I will eventually expand on them; maybe nothing more is necessary. Here they are in no particular order:
One thing that has been kind of fun for me has been watching some of the people I met when I first got on the internet become "kinda a big deal" in the years since then. And, I've only been online for 12 years. I can only imagine what those who were around at the beginning have seen.
I suspect the near future belongs to the copsuckers. I hope not for too long. But there are a majority of people who have a religious devotion and need to believe in the goodness of The State. Even when they hate what it does, they believe if only "the right people" are in charge, things would be fine. This will keep leading to "wacky fun", until the piper demands to be paid.
Not one new law is ever needed for any problem. Never. I have observed problem after problem, and I can see how to solve most of them without adding one "law"; they are are almost universally created by "laws" in the first place- and those that can't be solved by getting rid of "laws" probably are just a fact of life that can't be solved- yet.
Someone, somewhere, isn't going to like what you say, unless you utter completely empty words (in which case, thinking people still won't like what you say- but they are so rare you may never notice). So, since that's the case anyway I would prefer to receive hate mail from those who excuse murder, theft, coercion, kidnapping, and other evil acts- as long as they are done by The State. You are known by those who decide to be your enemy.
It's time to stop focusing on "laws" further violating the right to own and to carry arms. Let's take it back to the root. I'm against the machine gun, silencer, and sawed-off shotgun "bans".
In the name of "civilizing" a place, statists adopt the least civilized notions: "Gun control" and loss of property rights.
"Dominate the market" is not the same as a monopoly. You can dominate the market by providing what customers want, and leaving no room for competition, but the instant someone has a better idea he is free to entice your customers away from you. A monopoly can only be maintained with The State and its "laws". In a free society there can be no monopoly because nothing can prevent some guy setting up shop in his garage to end the monopoly. That is no guarantee the "established" guy won't continue to dominate the market, though.
.
-
One thing that has been kind of fun for me has been watching some of the people I met when I first got on the internet become "kinda a big deal" in the years since then. And, I've only been online for 12 years. I can only imagine what those who were around at the beginning have seen.
-
I suspect the near future belongs to the copsuckers. I hope not for too long. But there are a majority of people who have a religious devotion and need to believe in the goodness of The State. Even when they hate what it does, they believe if only "the right people" are in charge, things would be fine. This will keep leading to "wacky fun", until the piper demands to be paid.
-
Not one new law is ever needed for any problem. Never. I have observed problem after problem, and I can see how to solve most of them without adding one "law"; they are are almost universally created by "laws" in the first place- and those that can't be solved by getting rid of "laws" probably are just a fact of life that can't be solved- yet.
-
-
It's time to stop focusing on "laws" further violating the right to own and to carry arms. Let's take it back to the root. I'm against the machine gun, silencer, and sawed-off shotgun "bans".
-
-
.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Voluntary solutions the answer
Voluntary solutions the answer
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 18, 2013.)
Libertarians often get accused of blaming everything on government. Little old us, picking on big strong government? That's silly.
The problem is not government, nor is it crime. The problem is people using theft and aggression against others. To draw a false distinction between these primary sources of theft and aggression in the world is to miss the point entirely. It is to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
Theft and aggression exist, and always will, so I might as well accept it and deal with it. So how can you and I survive in the world without resorting to the same tactics used by the bad guys?
Through voluntary cooperation and trade, of course. This is called "the economic method", and when this is used everyone wins, or they are free to walk away- in which case they still win since they were not forced to enter a transaction without their consent. When the economic method is used, completely free of coercion or fraud, there are no losers.
When cooperation and free trade fail- which they sometimes will because there will always be bad people out there who will resort to coercion and fraud- you survive by falling back on self defense.
Isn't self defense an act of aggression? No, it isn't. It can be violent, but it is never aggression. Aggression is the act of starting the attack- throwing the first punch- not of defending yourself or your property from others. Any "laws" that get in the way of self defense and defense of property only make society less civil. They protect the bad guys while hobbling the rest of us.
Almost everyone recognizes violent crime and theft as wrong-doing. In that, libertarians fall squarely on the side of the rest of society. Where we differ is that we make no allowances for theft and aggression done under color of "law". Double standards are rejected and no one gets a pass for their actions.
Without the human potential and energy being wasted maintaining the double standard, the real problems of aggression and theft can be dealt with more effectively.
Then the mental resources and energy that are no longer being wasted can be directed at the other problems that the universe throws at our species. After all, natural disasters, disease, and ignorance won't magically go away by themselves. That takes people who care enough to act, freely, to find voluntary solutions.
Libertarians often get accused of blaming everything on government. Little old us, picking on big strong government? That's silly.
The problem is not government, nor is it crime. The problem is people using theft and aggression against others. To draw a false distinction between these primary sources of theft and aggression in the world is to miss the point entirely. It is to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
Theft and aggression exist, and always will, so I might as well accept it and deal with it. So how can you and I survive in the world without resorting to the same tactics used by the bad guys?
Through voluntary cooperation and trade, of course. This is called "the economic method", and when this is used everyone wins, or they are free to walk away- in which case they still win since they were not forced to enter a transaction without their consent. When the economic method is used, completely free of coercion or fraud, there are no losers.
When cooperation and free trade fail- which they sometimes will because there will always be bad people out there who will resort to coercion and fraud- you survive by falling back on self defense.
Isn't self defense an act of aggression? No, it isn't. It can be violent, but it is never aggression. Aggression is the act of starting the attack- throwing the first punch- not of defending yourself or your property from others. Any "laws" that get in the way of self defense and defense of property only make society less civil. They protect the bad guys while hobbling the rest of us.
Almost everyone recognizes violent crime and theft as wrong-doing. In that, libertarians fall squarely on the side of the rest of society. Where we differ is that we make no allowances for theft and aggression done under color of "law". Double standards are rejected and no one gets a pass for their actions.
Without the human potential and energy being wasted maintaining the double standard, the real problems of aggression and theft can be dealt with more effectively.
Then the mental resources and energy that are no longer being wasted can be directed at the other problems that the universe throws at our species. After all, natural disasters, disease, and ignorance won't magically go away by themselves. That takes people who care enough to act, freely, to find voluntary solutions.
.
Bill of Rights. "Feds only"?
Even though I don't look to the Constitution as the paragon of liberty that some seem to believe it is, I still find the Bill of Rights interesting.
And, I find it funny that some people claim that the Bill of Rights is "only binding on the federal government". Nonsense.
What the Bill of Rights did was to recognize that there are things no other person is allowed to do to you. No matter their justification. "Government" is nothing but people- so forbidding government to do something means it is recognized that no individual has the right or the authority to do those things to any other individual. You can't eliminate this truth by paring a "government" down to one person or by piling people together until you can call it a "government".
No government can do what is wrong for an individual to do without being in the wrong, and no individual can do things that are wrong for "government" to do, either. Because there is no "government"; there are individuals. The Bill of Rights just recognizes that some things are wrong for one person to do to any other person. But it only makes it a crime for government to do those things.
.
And, I find it funny that some people claim that the Bill of Rights is "only binding on the federal government". Nonsense.
What the Bill of Rights did was to recognize that there are things no other person is allowed to do to you. No matter their justification. "Government" is nothing but people- so forbidding government to do something means it is recognized that no individual has the right or the authority to do those things to any other individual. You can't eliminate this truth by paring a "government" down to one person or by piling people together until you can call it a "government".
No government can do what is wrong for an individual to do without being in the wrong, and no individual can do things that are wrong for "government" to do, either. Because there is no "government"; there are individuals. The Bill of Rights just recognizes that some things are wrong for one person to do to any other person. But it only makes it a crime for government to do those things.
.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Statist hate
Recently I was reminded again of the mental capacity of most of those who oppose liberty. It gives me hope- although I can worry a little because they are extremely violent maniacs who see nothing wrong with murdering those they hate- and killing other innocent people to get to their target seems to be completely OK with them.
Their "argument" boils down to this, repeated endlessly with slight alterations in endless combination, and brave new "spellings", every chance they get:
"YOU SCUMSUCKIN (censored) (censored) (censored)!!!!! GET OUT OF MY (censored) AMERICA, (censored)!!!! YOU IS A COWARD AND AM NOT GOOD ENUFF TO SUCK A REAL PATRIOTS (censored)!!!! LIBRAL (censored) LIKE YUO NEDE TO BE SHOOT IN THE (censored) HAED!!!! THE TROOPS GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO RIGHT YOUR WORDS OF HATE ON YUR (censored) COMPUTET AND THEY YOU THE INTERNET!!!!! THEY FIGHT THE TERRISTS OVER THERE SO (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU DON'T GET (censored) RPED BY THEIR TOWELHEADED CAMEL (censored)ING TERRORISTS ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!! THIS IS WHY AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE BECAUSE OF (censored) (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU PUSSY (censored)!!! KISS MY (censored) AMERICAN (censored) FLAG!!! yOU MUSLIM LOVING LIBERTY HATING (censored) (censored)!@!!! THE CONSTITUTION GIVES WARRIORS A RIGHT TO GO KILL (censored) (censored) THAT HATE AMERICA!!!! HOORAH!!!!"
Yeah... Well, at least we don't have to worry about them outsmarting us.
It cracks me up that these guys consider me a bad guy, and themselves to be the good ones.
On the other hand, I seriously wonder whether the posts like that are parodies meant to make the anti-liberty bigots look ridiculous. As if they need any help.
.
Their "argument" boils down to this, repeated endlessly with slight alterations in endless combination, and brave new "spellings", every chance they get:
"YOU SCUMSUCKIN (censored) (censored) (censored)!!!!! GET OUT OF MY (censored) AMERICA, (censored)!!!! YOU IS A COWARD AND AM NOT GOOD ENUFF TO SUCK A REAL PATRIOTS (censored)!!!! LIBRAL (censored) LIKE YUO NEDE TO BE SHOOT IN THE (censored) HAED!!!! THE TROOPS GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO RIGHT YOUR WORDS OF HATE ON YUR (censored) COMPUTET AND THEY YOU THE INTERNET!!!!! THEY FIGHT THE TERRISTS OVER THERE SO (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU DON'T GET (censored) RPED BY THEIR TOWELHEADED CAMEL (censored)ING TERRORISTS ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!! THIS IS WHY AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE BECAUSE OF (censored) (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU PUSSY (censored)!!! KISS MY (censored) AMERICAN (censored) FLAG!!! yOU MUSLIM LOVING LIBERTY HATING (censored) (censored)!@!!! THE CONSTITUTION GIVES WARRIORS A RIGHT TO GO KILL (censored) (censored) THAT HATE AMERICA!!!! HOORAH!!!!"
Yeah... Well, at least we don't have to worry about them outsmarting us.
It cracks me up that these guys consider me a bad guy, and themselves to be the good ones.
On the other hand, I seriously wonder whether the posts like that are parodies meant to make the anti-liberty bigots look ridiculous. As if they need any help.
.
Bitcoins for me
I think I have finally got a Bitcoin wallet operational, for those who prefer this method of payment and donation.
The address is:
1BKqRWERfVU2hryZFm5R2UFQFnjU51QV15
And the QR code is:
If you intend to send me some Bitcoin, please let me know so I can see if everything goes like it is supposed to. I would suggest that someone could send me some, that I could send back, just to see if it all works, but I would be horrified if something went wrong and the Bitcoin was lost somewhere in cyberspace, so don't do that.
.
The address is:
1BKqRWERfVU2hryZFm5R2UFQFnjU51QV15
And the QR code is:
If you intend to send me some Bitcoin, please let me know so I can see if everything goes like it is supposed to. I would suggest that someone could send me some, that I could send back, just to see if it all works, but I would be horrified if something went wrong and the Bitcoin was lost somewhere in cyberspace, so don't do that.
.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Chinese spammers
The last few days my blog has been inundated with spam comments from (according to my Blogger analytics) China.
While Blogger is catching almost all of them, it makes me feel bad. Here these people are spending hours copying and pasting (I assume) comments onto blogs and those comments are being trashed without ever being seen. Not that I want to see them.
Are the people getting paid anyway? Are they basically slave workers?
Are they aware that their spam is being filtered? Are they working on ways to avoid being automatically detected?
The spam comments annoy me, but it makes me wonder about other things.
.
While Blogger is catching almost all of them, it makes me feel bad. Here these people are spending hours copying and pasting (I assume) comments onto blogs and those comments are being trashed without ever being seen. Not that I want to see them.
Are the people getting paid anyway? Are they basically slave workers?
Are they aware that their spam is being filtered? Are they working on ways to avoid being automatically detected?
The spam comments annoy me, but it makes me wonder about other things.
.
"Primitive" Fire starting
I decided it might be a good topic to add here, to supplement my BrainTan Buckskin post.
In Colorado, I lived right on the river and had a nice stand of willows, some western birch, and narrow leaf cottonwood in my yard.
The cord on my bow (a curved piece of... willow?) is braintan buckskin. It lasts pretty well unless I try to teach someone else firestarting. (I have been known to make a "practice bow" for them.) I have used elk rawhide for my cord, and if you flex it a LOT as it dries it will be flexible enough to work, and it lasts a good long time. I had one last for years, through making a fire just about every day. Probably well over a thousand fires from that one cord. Maybe close to two thousand.
One thing I found is that, for me, it helps if the bow is NOT flexible. I actually used a cow rib bone once when I didn't have my kit with me, and it worked pretty well.
One thing I found is that, for me, it helps if the bow is NOT flexible. I actually used a cow rib bone once when I didn't have my kit with me, and it worked pretty well.
I used old, dead standing, willow or similar thumb-thick (or slightly thicker) birch for the spindle. (The spindle pictured is 10.25") I use a good spindle until it is too short to be comfortable anymore.
The fire-boards I used in Colorado were usually birch. The larger dead branches would often naturally split making it really easy to get a good fire-board just by breaking it off the shrub. If it still wasn't completely split, a whack or two on a big rock would usually finish the job. I still prefer wood that is similar in its qualities. Just don't try to use evergreen wood (the resin in the wood lubricates, and you want friction, not lubrication, to make heat).
The inner bark of the cottonwood made good tinder, not resinous like juniper, but still easy to light. Big dead branches (or half-trees) were always falling off, and the bark would come off, exposing the fibrous inner bark. I'd collect handfuls of it and fluff it up. The wad of tinder in the picture seems to be a combination of cottonwood, juniper, and various unidentified fibers. I have a habit of just picking up promising looking tinder as I walk, often not even thinking about it.
The small bundle below the mass of tinder is a little buckskin bag full of charcoal from previous fires. I sometimes add a bit to my tinder nest if I sense the coal might need a little help. Once that charcoal starts to glow, which it does quickly, you almost can't lose your coal.
For the bearing block, I found a nice river rock that fit my hand, and I chipped and ground out a socket and lubed it with elk tallow. The most annoying thing to improvise is a good bearing block (this is what you place on top to apply the downward pressure on the spindle and keep it all from wobbling around).
For the bearing block, I found a nice river rock that fit my hand, and I chipped and ground out a socket and lubed it with elk tallow. The most annoying thing to improvise is a good bearing block (this is what you place on top to apply the downward pressure on the spindle and keep it all from wobbling around).
I also use a square of elk rawhide to catch the coal.
I have improvised EVERYTHING in the above list at one time or another. Normally you can just tell when the wood will work.
The bag under it all is what I carry it in. It is (poorly) braintanned elk. Not shown are 6 extra spindles (one is yucca), a spare fireboard (2/3 the length of the old one), and a piece of birchbark. Sometimes I also keep an extra bow cord in there. I also have a yucca spindle in there with buckskin thumb-loops for more hand drill attempts ("making blisters").
Then you put it all together and do this:
I have improvised EVERYTHING in the above list at one time or another. Normally you can just tell when the wood will work.
The bag under it all is what I carry it in. It is (poorly) braintanned elk. Not shown are 6 extra spindles (one is yucca), a spare fireboard (2/3 the length of the old one), and a piece of birchbark. Sometimes I also keep an extra bow cord in there. I also have a yucca spindle in there with buckskin thumb-loops for more hand drill attempts ("making blisters").
Then you put it all together and do this:
Keep your hair tied back; bandanas and stampede strings out of the way, and keep your body over the spindle, with your shoulder directly above the bearing block and your wrist locked against your shin bone for stability.
Good luck ... or better yet: practice.
Since we are on the subject of fire, here are some easier methods. If you have access to the right materials (a steel striker, flint or chert, and some char), you can make a flint and steel fire. "Thank you" to one of my regular readers who sent me this good-sparking steel!
What if you have nothing but a magnifying glass (or far-sighted glasses)?
And, you can make it even easier by having some "char" to focus your lens on. Funny thing is, the glowing part of the char is hard to see in the bright sun. It catches almost instantly and might catch you off-guard. Watch me burn my fingers and be amused.
Now, if you want a fire really easy, and I mean "matches and gasoline" easy, try a firesteel (from firesteel.com) and some dryer lint. It just doesn't get easier than that. My 5 year-old daughter can make fire in seconds this way (see video at the very bottom)- and has more than once.
There is really no excuse to be without a fire in a survival situation. Even in wet conditions you can find some dry tinder somewhere, and you should be able to find some method to light it. Just learn and practice.
There are more primitive, much more difficult (for me) methods, such as the hand drill and "fire plow" (really "rubbing 2 sticks together"). If I ever manage to succeed with either of those methods, I'll post the video. If anyone wants to come here and teach me those methods, I'm up for it.
Bonus video:
.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
"I never thought..."
"I never thought, in all my life, that..."
And that's the problem. Too many people don't think. They don't plan ahead. They always think "it can't happen to me, not here, not today".
But it can, and it does. To countless people every day. It doesn't mean you need to live your life in fear. Just be aware. Observe. Be ready for whatever might come your way, as much as you can.
And, remember, there is nothing magical about your life. Special, yes. Magical, no.
"It" can happen to you. Pay attention and see "it" before it's too late.
.
And, remember, there is nothing magical about your life. Special, yes. Magical, no.
"It" can happen to you. Pay attention and see "it" before it's too late.
.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Sometimes, statists are just...
... well, decide for yourself.
A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race". Yes, he does- no denying it. But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.
I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."
He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.
So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."
Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."
OK. Kidding. That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.
I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."
I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."
A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race". Yes, he does- no denying it. But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.
I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."
He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.
So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."
Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."
OK. Kidding. That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.
I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."
I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."
Confused, since I don't deny being opposed to or against coercion and theft, I asked: "'Several things'? What are they? Besides aggression and theft, I mean.
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons."
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons."
I then linked to "The Philosophy of Liberty" video and explained that it might do a better job of illustrating what I was talking about.
Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"
Yeah, I suppose. And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too. What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?
Not all viewpoints are valid.
It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did. Nope. Sorry. Not gonna buy it.
.
.
Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"
Yeah, I suppose. And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too. What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?
Not all viewpoints are valid.
It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did. Nope. Sorry. Not gonna buy it.
.
.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Clueless about money
There are clueless people out there. I try to not be one of them.
I saw this question about buying silver: "But who are we going to sell back to when we need money someday?"
Seriously? Silver IS money. The "money" the person refers to is fake. It is only money because people believe it is. Don't trade your money for Federal Reserve Notes unless you find someone who prefers fake money. And, in that case, someone more intelligent will always be happy to trade you so that you can pay the economically ignorant person. At least until "dollars" are no longer an option, in which case the FRN-preferrer is gonna be out of luck.
.
I saw this question about buying silver: "But who are we going to sell back to when we need money someday?"
Seriously? Silver IS money. The "money" the person refers to is fake. It is only money because people believe it is. Don't trade your money for Federal Reserve Notes unless you find someone who prefers fake money. And, in that case, someone more intelligent will always be happy to trade you so that you can pay the economically ignorant person. At least until "dollars" are no longer an option, in which case the FRN-preferrer is gonna be out of luck.
.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
More laws will not save any lives
More laws will not save any lives
(My Clovis News Journal column for January, 11, 2013)
In the weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the standard reactions that always follow such a tragedy cropped up everywhere, with a new emphasis on the specter of "mental illness". Surprise! Mentally ill people are responsible for mass-murders.
What can be done about that?
Even more "taxes" to force us to pay to treat more people? If nationalized health care is bad, and it is, how can more be good? Nothing is free, politicians' claims to the contrary. Do you sentence someone to life in a cage or a "hospital" when they haven't hurt anyone, just on the fear they might someday do something? Should everyone who is depressed or upset be caged until they appear to be happy?
There is no guarantee that something would happen. Do you steal a life in trade for a life?
Who is to be held responsible when a person slips through the cracks and commits murder?
What about people who are just evil? Some of them function quite well, and pass notice. Or get elected.
People who do not have a history of mental illness can suddenly snap. How do you predict or prevent this?
Some blame parents, but serious mental problems are typically due to brain chemistry. The drugs given to kids and teens for many comparatively minor problems (ADHD, "depression") seem to precipitate these kinds of horrendous acts, and trigger suicides. That doesn't take responsibility away from the murderers at all, however, there is a very clear correlation, and that may indicate causation.
Some mentally ill people will always slip through the cracks. The only effective way to stop their rampages is to make sure that they will NEVER have a disarmed pool of innocent targets available. No one, other than the people who were already there just going about their lives when Evil strikes, can always in the right place to make a difference at the right time. You are always your own "first responder".
My heart breaks for those innocent children, their teachers and administrators, all the families who will have an un-fillable hole in their lives from now on, and for the survivors who were there, and rendered helpless by "law". I can't imagine the thoughts of "if, only..." they must be having.
More socialism, more coercive "laws", and knee-jerk "someone has to do SOMETHING!" responses will not save one innocent life.
Armed self defense, and respecting that fundamental human right, will. I'll keep supporting the solution rather than ensuring the safety of those monsters who are determined to become famous by mass murder.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January, 11, 2013)
In the weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the standard reactions that always follow such a tragedy cropped up everywhere, with a new emphasis on the specter of "mental illness". Surprise! Mentally ill people are responsible for mass-murders.
What can be done about that?
Even more "taxes" to force us to pay to treat more people? If nationalized health care is bad, and it is, how can more be good? Nothing is free, politicians' claims to the contrary. Do you sentence someone to life in a cage or a "hospital" when they haven't hurt anyone, just on the fear they might someday do something? Should everyone who is depressed or upset be caged until they appear to be happy?
There is no guarantee that something would happen. Do you steal a life in trade for a life?
Who is to be held responsible when a person slips through the cracks and commits murder?
What about people who are just evil? Some of them function quite well, and pass notice. Or get elected.
People who do not have a history of mental illness can suddenly snap. How do you predict or prevent this?
Some blame parents, but serious mental problems are typically due to brain chemistry. The drugs given to kids and teens for many comparatively minor problems (ADHD, "depression") seem to precipitate these kinds of horrendous acts, and trigger suicides. That doesn't take responsibility away from the murderers at all, however, there is a very clear correlation, and that may indicate causation.
Some mentally ill people will always slip through the cracks. The only effective way to stop their rampages is to make sure that they will NEVER have a disarmed pool of innocent targets available. No one, other than the people who were already there just going about their lives when Evil strikes, can always in the right place to make a difference at the right time. You are always your own "first responder".
My heart breaks for those innocent children, their teachers and administrators, all the families who will have an un-fillable hole in their lives from now on, and for the survivors who were there, and rendered helpless by "law". I can't imagine the thoughts of "if, only..." they must be having.
More socialism, more coercive "laws", and knee-jerk "someone has to do SOMETHING!" responses will not save one innocent life.
Armed self defense, and respecting that fundamental human right, will. I'll keep supporting the solution rather than ensuring the safety of those monsters who are determined to become famous by mass murder.
.
"Moral"? "Compassionate"?
It isn't "moral" to use government coercion to make people act like you think they should act.
It isn't "compassionate" to use government coercion to force people to "help" other people.
It is neither "moral" nor "compassionate" to use government coercion to protect you from things that scare you, such as guns or immigrants.
I get really tired of "conservatives" and "liberals" who can't grasp these simple, yet true, facts. I get tired of being subjected to the broken record of "moral" or "compassionate" people who are in reality neither one.
If you are too dumb to see that your support of this or that "law" is destroying individual lives in order to make you feel better, then I hope someone with more patience than me can get through to you someday soon, before you poke your own eye out with a colon polyp.
.
It isn't "compassionate" to use government coercion to force people to "help" other people.
It is neither "moral" nor "compassionate" to use government coercion to protect you from things that scare you, such as guns or immigrants.
I get really tired of "conservatives" and "liberals" who can't grasp these simple, yet true, facts. I get tired of being subjected to the broken record of "moral" or "compassionate" people who are in reality neither one.
If you are too dumb to see that your support of this or that "law" is destroying individual lives in order to make you feel better, then I hope someone with more patience than me can get through to you someday soon, before you poke your own eye out with a colon polyp.
.
Monday, February 11, 2013
It's not me, it's you.
If everyone around you is an idiot, or is always "out to get you", that may be a hint that "they" might not be the real problem.
If "you" are a country, and you are always at war with someone somewhere for some reason, that might be a clue that the problem isn't all the other countries, but You.
.
If "you" are a country, and you are always at war with someone somewhere for some reason, that might be a clue that the problem isn't all the other countries, but You.
.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
"From my cold dead hands?" Ha!
"You can have my guns when you ...." Wait. No you can't.
You never have my permission to have them. I would rather my guns go to a drug lord or an inner city gang member after my death than to any government agent.
If you steal them "under color of law" you are a thief and you took them without consent.
If you kill me in the process of stealing them, you are a murderer and my dead silence is not consent.
If you threaten and torture me or my family until you get me to hand them over under duress then you are an aggressor and you deserve the aggressor's fate: death. And in that case I will spend the rest of my life ensuring that your earned fate finds you.
It doesn't matter if there is a "law" saying you have authority to steal my guns. It doesn't matter if you wear a badge or have a title or hold a "high" office. You can never "have" them. Not even if you somehow end up possessing them.
.
You never have my permission to have them. I would rather my guns go to a drug lord or an inner city gang member after my death than to any government agent.
If you steal them "under color of law" you are a thief and you took them without consent.
If you kill me in the process of stealing them, you are a murderer and my dead silence is not consent.
If you threaten and torture me or my family until you get me to hand them over under duress then you are an aggressor and you deserve the aggressor's fate: death. And in that case I will spend the rest of my life ensuring that your earned fate finds you.
It doesn't matter if there is a "law" saying you have authority to steal my guns. It doesn't matter if you wear a badge or have a title or hold a "high" office. You can never "have" them. Not even if you somehow end up possessing them.
.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
The "gateway drug" of "gun rights"
Gun rights are a primary gateway drug for liberty. For some people religion fills that role. Or something else. Everyone has their hot button.
For me, it was a combination of gun rights, property rights, and love for the environment.
But, back to gun rights. What I see happen frequently is that (intelligent) people who are passionate about gun rights come to see that it depends on all the other rights. Liberty can't be dissected.
The biggest dangers to gun rights have been the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War on a Scary Emotion... I mean "Terror".
What people see is that supporting these nonsensical violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only whittles away on the liberty to own and to carry weapons, including ANY weapon owned (or deployed) by any employee of The State. (Yes, I mean "nukes" as well. If you shouldn't have one in your garage, then the US Government shouldn't have any either. And, if everyone had to pay for their own nukes out of their own pockets, I doubt you'd see anyone having them anyway. End tangent.)
Concern for the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons- and particularly the collectivist drive to demonize that right- serves to wake up a lot of people. "If government extremists are wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?" And thinking people will then look into that question and discover that the government extremists are wrong about everything. They'll be addicted to liberty from that moment on.
.
For me, it was a combination of gun rights, property rights, and love for the environment.
But, back to gun rights. What I see happen frequently is that (intelligent) people who are passionate about gun rights come to see that it depends on all the other rights. Liberty can't be dissected.
The biggest dangers to gun rights have been the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War on a Scary Emotion... I mean "Terror".
What people see is that supporting these nonsensical violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only whittles away on the liberty to own and to carry weapons, including ANY weapon owned (or deployed) by any employee of The State. (Yes, I mean "nukes" as well. If you shouldn't have one in your garage, then the US Government shouldn't have any either. And, if everyone had to pay for their own nukes out of their own pockets, I doubt you'd see anyone having them anyway. End tangent.)
Concern for the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons- and particularly the collectivist drive to demonize that right- serves to wake up a lot of people. "If government extremists are wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?" And thinking people will then look into that question and discover that the government extremists are wrong about everything. They'll be addicted to liberty from that moment on.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)