This has nothing to do with "should" or "should not". This is just my personal opinion. But I want you to carry a gun with you everywhere you go.
I'm not ordering you to do so, so don't get bent out of shape over my wish.
I doesn't matter to me if you are a "felon" or if some local gang says it can tell you not to carry. Those are things you must settle inside yourself. It doesn't even depend on whether your intent is to go out and harm the innocent. If everyone carried you wouldn't survive long enough to pursue your career. In the long run more innocent lives would be saved. The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, so any general increase in the number of guns being carried will arm a lot more good guys.
It isn't "wrong" to carry a gun. It can be wrong to use it in certain ways.
Yes, there is a political aspect to this. The more people who carry a gun (or even a sword, or???) the less likely it is that the thugs will dare try to tell everyone that such is not "allowed". There is safety in numbers, because there is power in numbers. It's part of the reason that no large-scale gang of thugs has yet completely criminalized tobacco. It is too common. Call it "collectivism" if you want, but people coming together, voluntarily, to fight off a common threat is part of the benefit of being human.
How many cops would be willing to tackle and kick pregnant women in a public place if they could see, or just knew, that everyone around was armed? How many peaceable people who happen to be "open carrying" would be attacked by cops if almost everyone around was known or suspected to be armed?
But, just like the way tobacco is being incrementally demonized, possibly on the way to prohibition, guns are becoming an "oddity" in some places. Incrementalism has made the sight of a gun on the hip rare in far too many places. It has made it unlikely that a mugger will face a target who is carrying concealed. By seeming to agree, through your actions, that carrying a weapon is "extreme" you fall right into the hands of the anti-liberty bigots. That would bother me. By allowing guns to be incrementally pushed out of sight it is making it easier for the thugs to make up more severe rules, and get away with it, which will make the sight of guns even less common. You may not care about this political action, but it is affecting real people and costing lives.
The non-political side of this is that I have lived in armed camps, and they are wonderfully peaceful. (I'm not talking about an armed camp in a time of war; during a time of war the "camp" will be armed whether you like it or not, but the arms may be mostly in the hands of the bad guys.) I am talking about the peace that comes from a "society" that doesn't beg for someone else to protect the individuals who are a part of it, and the peace that comes from being prepared to deal with the problems that might arise. Self responsibility.
You say you don't "need" to carry. OK. I'm glad you can see the future, but I can't. There are a few things that I think separate humans from other critters: the ability (and physical need) to make and use weapons, the ability to make fire, and our reasoning ability. I believe you should exercise those at all times. Those are the things that you can't really improvise to get around the lack of- when you need one of those things you get no second chance. None of those things is a magical cure-all, and there will be situations that you aren't prepared for no matter what, but why handicap yourself voluntarily right from the beginning? It just makes no sense to me.
Now, if you don't want to carry for whatever reason, don't. It's your choice. I wish you'd reconsider, since I want to live in a polite society again. And more guns makes us all- except the thugs- more safe. But don't complain that because I wish you would carry, and you don't, I am being extreme or not respecting your views. The complaints I get from this make me think that the objectors feel guilty for their choice. If you feel guilty maybe you need to change something.
.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Saturday, March 02, 2013
A cop's duty is to die for the innocent
If we are to pretend for a moment that the ridiculous notion of having people be cops is not ridiculous, then the ultimate (in every sense of the word) responsibility of a cop is to die in place of an innocent person.
"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.
It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop. Or under a thugscrum.
If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".
No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State. The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.
Cops make it safe to be a bad guy. They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized. Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft. Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.
.
"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.
It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop. Or under a thugscrum.
If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".
No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State. The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.
Cops make it safe to be a bad guy. They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized. Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft. Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.
.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Asking the wrong questions
You know what "they" say: if they can keep you asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what you think the answers are.
Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
A person shouldn't murder. It doesn't matter what tool is used. In this case Andre used 3 knives. If he wanted to murder he could easily have done so with bare hands. Any "law" that seeks (dishonestly) to restrict Andre's right to own and to carry weapons would not have affected his ability to murder. It would only disarm those he chooses to victimize.
I support Andre's right to own and to carry weaponry, and I wish he had been shot and killed when he went on his killing spree. This wasn't a case of too many guns, but of one too few.
.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"Hurray for Washington!"
Hurray for Washington! by By Mary Theroux
Go to the link above and read it, and then consider...
Has politics ever been anything but a puppet show? Ignore that fact that you may have liked some of the shows more than the current one. It's all smoke and mirrors and you are forced to "enjoy the show" at the point of a gun. Well, how often are you really forced to participate? Sure, you may know that certain silly individuals wearing the ill-fitting hat of government demand you sit up and pay attention, but how often do you actually get grabbed if you ignore them? I'm finding it harder and harder to care what those pathetic control freaks shriek about.
Yeah, more people are beginning to figure it out, but politics is always about celebrating something largely imaginary and silly.
Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.
Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.
.
Slavism
The opposite of libertarianism isn't just statism. It isn't just authoritarianism. Those are just aspects of slavism: the love of being a slave, or the imposition of slavery on others.
I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.
They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished. While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure. They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.
Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".
.
I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.
They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished. While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure. They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.
Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".
.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Your liberty depends on their liberty
Your liberty depends on their liberty
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 25, 2013)
Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.
If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".
It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.
Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.
When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.
Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.
That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.
This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.
It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.
If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.
Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.
If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".
It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.
Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.
When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.
Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.
That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.
This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.
It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.
If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.
.
Feeling entitled?
Entitlements. Just because you really like one, and the thought of losing it makes you angry, you can't complain that your "entitlement" shouldn't be called an "entitlement".
I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".
Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.
I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her. She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.
If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.
I hate that people have been robbed and lied to. It doesn't justify continuing the theft.
I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out, "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it. The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.
Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State. It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".
Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day. Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money. There is a way to avoid the pain, too.
However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out. No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme. And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either. It's a good deal.
Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS. They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme. The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support. It's only a matter of time. It is absolutely inevitable.
Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs. Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.
.
I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".
Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.
I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her. She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.
If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.
I hate that people have been robbed and lied to. It doesn't justify continuing the theft.
I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out, "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it. The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.
Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State. It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".
Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day. Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money. There is a way to avoid the pain, too.
However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out. No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme. And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either. It's a good deal.
Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS. They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme. The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support. It's only a matter of time. It is absolutely inevitable.
Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs. Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.
.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Nit-picking for evil
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.
.
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.
.
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:
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)