Anti-gun "laws" may be sealing fates

No, don't answer.  But, as the anti-gun "laws" get more insane, will you comply?

If the penalty for owning a semi-auto "normal" gun approaches that for owning a fully automatic weapon of war (you know, the kind the Second Amendment is actually referring to- complete with the safety attachment called a suppressor) why settle for the lesser weapon?

If everything you want to do with your gun is "illegal", will you bury it, or will you push back?

If you know you are going to be targeted, or maybe even droned, for what you own or what you say, why just sit and wait for it to happen?  Why not "make a splash"?

The buffoons who sit around throwing their law tantrums must believe, contrary to reality, that they are immune to the law.  All the laws, actually.  The law of unintended consequences, Natural Law, and even the counterfeit "laws" they pass in their tantrums.  Because they have hired goons with fully-functional weapons surrounding them most of the time, they are not concerned about you or me.  "Crime" doesn't usually touch them.  That's for the "little people" to worry about.

But I don't worry.

They are the bad guys.  I know it, and the people who matter know it.  Some of their hired goons even know it.  The real Laws won't be thwarted.  Nature won't be cheated.  It doesn't even matter what you or I do, in the long run.  The Universe will balance out.  The general trend has been towards more liberty.

These anti-liberty bigots are on the losing side of history and they are fighting against the coming darkness that they hope will not engulf them.  So they target gun owners and other people who understand Liberty.  We are not their real enemy.  They have already lost.  Their nerve signals are still sluggishly transmitting the news of their death to their reptilian brains.  They will be so surprised in that moment when they suddenly get the news.  And I hope I'm still around to enjoy their pain, and to relieve myself in their dying faces.  No pity- not anymore.

.

Bitcoin- a fun ride

Bitcoin.  Seems like lots of people are talking about it recently.  Some extolling its virtues, and others screaming "Scam!".

I finally started accepting Bitcoin a while back- at a good time, it would appear.

Now, I am still not convinced that Bitcoin is as wonderful as some seem to think.  I may be wrong, and that would delight me.

My suspicions center on a couple of things:

Bitcoins are not based on anything tangible.  You can't hold a Bitcoin and turn it over in your hands.  This may not bother people accustomed to digital FRNs in their bank account, but it does bother me a little.  Anything digital can vanish without a trace- without you even doing anything negligent to lose it.  Maybe the digital world will keep getting more robust so that this will become a complete non-issue.  Other than government records, I would like to see information become impossible to accidentally lose.

The second part of my suspicion is less justifiable- I don't completely understand them.  Yeah, I have read volumes of stuff and watched numerous videos, but my ignorance must go deeper than mere information can fix.  Perhaps it's because I am more of a "stone knives and bearskins" sort of person, and not a computer geek.

Still, I don't like keeping all my eggs- or money- in one basket.  So I will keep dabbling in, and accepting, Bitcoin to see where this ends up.  It's good entertainment anyway.

.

Biggest pest: Government-owned property

Biggest pest: Government-owned property

(My Clovis News Journal column for the week.)

Clovis' Park Land Prairie Dog Poison Pellet Program shows some of the flaws with "public" property, and with the sad state of property rights in general.

Some people, me included, really appreciate prairie dogs for their historical significance to the region, and for their vital niche in the ecosystem. Wildlife of any sort is a valuable addition to the area.

Others want them eradicated. Nearby landowners are claiming damage from prairie dogs that wander- or emigrate- from Ned Houk Park onto their property. They want the city government, which claims the park, to pay for killing all the prairie dogs in the park so that no more will wander where they are not wanted. Sadly, no government ever truly pays for anything- that falls to all those who are "taxed", whether they consent to that use of their money or not.

I understand the economic damage that prairie dogs and other wildlife can cause to property owners, and I would never demand anyone "put up with it" on their own property. But don't expect others to bear the burden that is yours.

If all property were privately owned, and private property rights were actually respected, this entire situation would be less of a problem. Land owners who want prairie dogs could have them. Those who want to kill any on their property could do so, however they saw fit, as long as they didn't violate their neighbor's property rights. They could shoot them, poison them, or send tunnel-roaming killbots after them. As long as their bullets, poison, or killbots didn't affect anyone else's property no one would have any say in the matter.

Deals could be worked out between land owners for who is responsible for keeping prairie dogs where they are welcome, and away from where they are not. Any damage migrants cause to a neighbor's property could be dealt with through agreement, arbitration, or insurance.

There would be no issue of forcing people to pay to kill a species they like, nor any issue of forcing people to host animals they consider to be pests.

With "public" property you always have a conflict in how that property is used and administered. You always end up with people being forced to pay for things that disgust them. When there is no individual owner who is responsible, the buck gets passed and suboptimal decisions get made and forced upon everyone. Someone always ends up very unhappy.

This is the way it always works any time socialism is embraced. "Public" property is a cornerstone, if not the foundation, of socialism.
.

Freedom vs Liberty

Freedom is sex; Liberty is consensual sex.
Freedom is violence; Liberty is defensive violence.
Freedom is making a profit; Liberty is making a profit honestly.

OK.  What others can you think of?


.

No "good cops"

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  There are NO good cops.

This offends a lot of people, especially those who have family members who are in "law enforcement", and those who love a cop who claims to be a "peace officer".  But, the truth is still that there are no good cops.

If there is even one, show me.

But then consider:  Has this person ever enforced a single counterfeit "law"?  Any anti-drug "law", anti-gun "law", "tax law", speed limit, seat belt enforcement, property "code", asset forfeiture, etc.?  If so, the person isn't a "good cop"- certainly not a good person while acting as a cop.

Some cops may be less evil than others; I certainly hope so.  But "less evil" falls very short of "good".

Don't use the excuse that "the people" wanted the "laws" the cop is enforcing.  Majority rule is just as illegitimate as dictator rule. If 100 billion people "decide" to violate the rights of one individual, it is still wrong. Enforcing a "law" based upon that violation is wrong.  If you have no choice, then you can't be good and do your job.

Cops don't enforce every "law" on the books, anyway (as some claim); it is utterly impossible. They will always use their discretion to decide which "laws" to enforce and which to ignore when they see them being broken. And they almost always ignore broken laws when it's other cops they see doing the lawbreaking.

And don't give me that BS about having taken an oath to enforce the "laws".  "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."  Any "law" that violates the Constitution has been declared by the Supreme Court to not be a law. (Even if they now weasel-word their way into claiming that anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" and health care "laws" and compulsory schooling "laws" don't violate the Constitution.  Ha!) If a cop took an oath to the Constitution, and then ever enforced a "law" that violates the clear language of the Constitution as written, then that cop violated his oath. But that's small potatoes.

If you, as a cop, ever enforced any "law" that violated anyone else's Natural Rights, then YOU were the thug and the bad guy. Don't try to pass the blame and say you were "only doing your job".  It didn't work at Nuremberg and it won't work at Nuremberg II.

You have a brain- use it.

I still say show me ONE cop who doesn't initiate force or theft as a part of being a cop- regardless of what the majority tells him to do- and I will accept that he is a good cop. On an individual by individual basis. I have never, ever been shown even one... and I have been asking for years for just one example.

If you can honestly say the person you are claiming to be a good cop has never once enforced a single counterfeit "law", then you still have to answer what they did about all their "brothers in blue" they knew who were enforcing those "laws".  Because if they didn't stop them- using everything up to and including deadly force- then they are not a "good cop".  They allowed bad cops to commit evil acts and get away with it.

A "good cop" wouldn't survive with his job for even one day.

Thus, there are no "good cops". (There are, however, "nice cops".)

But there are good ex-cops.  I know because I have met a few.  And they generally despise cops, and admit that the things they did while a cop were wrong.  Not everything, but enough things to make their cop past a shameful thing.  There is no honor in being a cop.
.

"Why don't you like cops?" video

*I'll add this to the related post later this morning, but here it is as a stand-alone.

"We need to talk..."

What is this "citizenship" thing I have heard so much about?  If you want to sell me on the idea, and get me to join up and be a "citizen", you'll have to do a better job of convincing me that it's in my best interest.  So far I have seen no evidence of that.

No, I didn't consent when I was born, nor did I "implicitly consent" [sic] because I failed to move away from my friends, family, and home at some later time.  Don't keep feeding your delusions about our imaginary "relationship".

These "services" you pretend to provide in exchange aren't good enough.  In fact, most of them are downright unwanted and disgusting.  Keep 'em.  And don't expect me to pay for crap I don't want.  Understand?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  ("idiot!")

For a relationship of this type to work, I realize there are obligations on both sides.  I'm sure you have quite a list; mine is simple, but non-negotiable.

First off, before we get into what you expect of me, let me tell you my conditions- your obligations, if this is to be considered.

First- Don't interfere with my Natural Rights or my defense of them.

That means don't steal from me, don't attack me, and don't whine when I defend myself from those who do.  And NEVER get in the way when I need to protect my life, liberty, or property- from anyone, including your hired thugs.

Second- Don't ever do any of those things to other people, claiming it is on my behalf.  It's not.  I don't consent.

Until you can abide by those conditions, we have no "relationship"- you are just a bully barging in where you are not welcome.  Go away.

... Wait... There was no one here.  I was talking to myself all along.  The State is an imaginary mental construct without any basis in reality whatsoever.  Whew!  That was close!


.

"Net Assets"- Carl hit the bull's-eye!

I just finished reading Carl Bussjaeger's book "Net Assets" and I can't say enough good things about it.  I'm sorry it took me this long to get around to reading it.

I found myself smiling on each page- it just made me feel that good.

It's non-science fictiony science fiction.  It's a feel good liberty-beats-tyranny tale.  It's just a really good book.  The only thing that would have made it better would be if the spontaneous militia gathering he describes in the book had included a few Time's Up flags among the Gadsdens.  But he wrote the book before I created the flag, so that can be forgiven.

So, go download the PDF and give Carl a few bucks or some metal as a "thank you" to him for putting forth the effort to write the book.  You'll want to reward him after you read it, so just go ahead and do it now before you forget.

I just downloaded the sequel.

.

Liberty Lines 4-4-2013

(Written for an audience that still gives lip-service to the Constitution and "government": State Line Tribune, Farwell TX.)

I love liberty.  Mine, yours, and the other guy's.  This gets twisted around and misinterpreted.  Some mistake liberty for "complete freedom from responsibility and consequences" and suggest it indicates "a lack of discipline and maturity".

How completely backwards they have it.

Freedom is only a component of liberty; not the whole story.  Freedom is doing whatever you want to do.  That can be good, bad, or neutral.  Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical liberty.

Thomas Jefferson phrased it like this: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”  In other words, you have no liberty to attack or steal, even if you have the freedom to do so and get away with it, because doing so violates someone else's equal rights.  You have either violated their person or their property.  Everything else is within your liberty to do, whether listed specifically in the Bill of Rights or not, even if some are offended by your actions- it's just none of their business.

Respecting liberty is the mature and responsible way to live among other people.  It is much more ethical and moral than relying on hired hands to enforce silly rules- rules which invariably violate Jeffersonian "rightful liberty"- against your neighbors.

When you ask others to violate the liberty of another person you are asking those you send on your behalf to accept all the responsibility and consequences for the wrong things you send them to do.  By doing so you are showing a definite lack of discipline and maturity.  But the responsibility is still yours, whether you accept it or not.

I, like Jefferson, prefer the "inconveniences" of "too much" liberty to those of too little.  You have chosen your side whether you know it or not.  Where do you stand?

.

"Good" is in almost everyone

You don't have to be a libertarian to be good.  There are good liberals and good conservatives out there- I have met some of both.

The trick is that they are only good when they are acting in accordance with libertarian principles- whether or not those align with the rest of their beliefs.

Everyone follows a lot of libertarian behavior in their daily life- otherwise we'd all be dead.  Both "progressives" and "conservatives" embrace plenty of libertarian ideals even though they'd probably rather ignore that fact.  But those ideals are the times when they are being the best they can be.

As long as you are not attacking, stealing, defrauding, or trespassing on privately owned property you are acting as a libertarian, no matter what you might call yourself.

The flipside is that libertarians are also only good as long as they are behaving in a libertarian manner.  None of us is perfect.

I have learned to be very skeptical when a celebrity (or anyone) claims to be "libertarian".  Actions speak louder than words, and most people haven't got the slightest hint of a clue what it means to live by libertarian principles.  However, I am willing to give anyone a chance until they show me they don't deserve one.

-

Personal note:
I had an interesting April Fool's Day.  I was super busy, and mostly stayed away from the computer, which saved me from being exposed to a lot of the mean-spirited "jokes" I see online every year.  But the universe wouldn't let me get out of it that easy.  My dad invited me to run some errands with him.  And we got stuck in a car wash when it broke down.  Stuck for around 20 minutes.  Several other "funny" things happened which included me taking a nice, painful gouge out of the tip of my thumb with a piece of PVC pipe I was trying to repair for my parents' sprinkler system.  And then I got a tetanus shot.  Typing is more difficult than usual right now, but be glad I don't text these blogs, since the injury to my thumb has made texting incredibly difficult.

.

Not a libertarian? You're not free

Not a libertarian? You're not free

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 1, 2013)

So, you're still not a libertarian? Why not?

Let's get beyond misguided religious excuses, justifications regarding "fairness", and overblown, irrational fears.

What all these excuses boil down to- as reasons why you can't embrace libertarianism- is wanting to feel OK with having someone available to hurt other people who are not harming you.

Yes, that really is at the foundation of all acts non-libertarians are trying to justify.

Libertarianism recognizes your absolute right to self defense when you are being attacked, and to defense of your property against "takers". You can't claim you need to reject libertarianism in order to protect yourself from villains. The rejection of libertarianism is based instead upon a desire to hurt people who are minding their own business, but doing something you don't like.

It is not "self defense" when you use force against those who are not harming the innocent, but who are somehow offending you. If this is the case, don't join in. Ignore them or laugh at them. Speak out against what they do. Just don't use aggression or "the law" against them.

If you are supporting "taxation" it means you want someone else to be responsible for taking property from the rightful owners to pay for things you feel are important enough to steal for.

It isn't enough for you to contribute your own money, and you apparently don't think you can convince enough people to join you. Since you fear your argument for your position is too unconvincing to get support, you want to force others to pay for what you want through "taxation". If not enough people are willing to pay for it voluntarily, without the threat of "legal action", then it needs to go away.

A rejection of libertarianism means a recognition that everyone has equal and identical rights is not enough for you. The right to stand up for the victimized is not enough. You believe some should have "special rights", and you want someone else to punish those you think are treating someone unfairly.

Sure, some people- an increasing number with each passing day- reject libertarianism because their livelihood is tied to The State. That is tragic, but it is at least an honest reason to reject liberty in favor of slavery.

Johann von Goethe said "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."

Shed the inconsistencies. Free yourself.
.

Opposition to the "law" doesn't mean support for the act

Just because I know "laws" against prostitution are stupid and evil, it doesn't mean I want my sister to be a hooker.

Just because I know the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is destructive and wrong, it doesn't mean I want my daughter in a relationship with a drug dealer.

Just because "laws" forbidding suicide are pointless and stupid, it doesn't mean I want my best friend killing herself.

There are lots of things you have a right to do that are not the best thing you could be doing.  I really don't want to see anyone doing anything to hurt themselves even when they have every right to do so.

Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

.

A thought

It isn't that certain things need to be "made legal"; it's that it was wrong to ever make them "illegal" to begin with.

.

Asset forfeiture? No. Theft.

Government (well, in reality, those who claim to be part of government) possesses nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen/counterfeited money.  "Asset forfeiture" is just another twisted example.

I can't make up a rule- say, I declare you can't have any dogs that are a color other than black- and then claim that by violating my "rule" you forfeit your property rights and I get to take your "illegal" dogs and other property.

And it is no more "right" when goons calling themselves "government" do the same thing simply because you have bits of a plant or a gun or anything else that they decided you shouldn't have.

.

Slavers and thieves

If you ever want to help me out financially, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

If you ever want to hold a gun to someone else's head- in person or through "taxation"- to "help" me... don't bother.

It isn't compassion or generosity to give away other people's money.  It is nice to help others and share when you can.  It isn't "nice" at all to share what isn't yours to share.

I also don't wish to benefit from slavery.

If you want to force an expert to provide me with services against his will or without compensation based upon mutual consent, then you are advocating in favor of slavery.  It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe it to be, or what you call it.  The truth is the truth.

I was watching a video the other day that was ridiculing "conservatives" for their opposition to socialized medicine.  The above points- which are indisputable if you value reality- were never considered.

The slavers and thieves are all around us.  They are pretending they are the last bastions of compassion while carrying out the Old Evils.

.

"Coexist" doesn't mean you get to kill me

I can coexist with those who worship flags; who parrot "patriotic" utterances; who pretend a State can be anything other than a massive mafia.

Life is what it is.

What bothers me is that those people aren't honest about what they are supporting.  They pretend they are The Good, and everyone else is The Evil.  They pretend their favorite flavor of socialism, fascism, tyranny, and mass murder is none of the above.

Or, they are cryptostatists and pretend they aren't supporting statism at all, when they are.

Either way, I could let them go their own way if only they'd stop trying to force me to go along with them, and pretend that they aren't full of ... "humbug".

But that isn't the Way of the Statist.  Misery loves company, and rabid statists hate to see anyone who isn't under the same delusions they enjoy.  Their slavism is too wonderful to not be "shared"- with force.  Funny, but if you have to force someone to join you, perhaps your path isn't as superior as you pretend.

I wouldn't force you to be free even if I could, but refusing to allow you to feed off of me isn't "forcing" you to do anything.

Statists wish to be left to the wolves, whom they see as their protectors.  I simply don't wish to let them drag me along.  Not without trying to defend myself.  And, that, to a statist, is unforgivable.


.

Defense of Marriage...?

My marriages failed because of ME.

Before I had ever heard of gay marriage.

I probably could have saved at least one of my marriages by doing a lot of things different; by putting forth a lot more effort and sacrifice.  But what uninvolved "others" were doing couldn't have saved them.  My marriages would have failed regardless of what relationships or marriages other people- most of whom I don't know and will never meet- choose to engage in.

So, to claim you are "defending marriage" without addressing the reason mine failed- probably the same reason the vast majority of marriages that fail do so- is silly.

No one else's relationship status can threaten my relationships, or weaken them in any way, unless I let them.  And that would probably mean I am focusing on the wrong thing.

.

You are being played

Arbitrarily changing rules to benefit yourself isn't right- especially when those new rules violate someone.  Even my young daughter has figured that out (it hasn't stopped her from trying to get away with it, though).

She was complaining that one of her playmates changes the rules as she goes in order to make sure she wins.  I pointed out that when someone does that it makes makes others not want to play their game.

As I said it I suddenly thought of The State.

"Theft is wrong, unless we do it and call it 'taxation'."

"Here, change your clocks so that you can be forced to get up early and feel sick for a month or so."

"Stop for at least 4 seconds at this red metal octagon or we get to steal money from you so that we can afford to keep stealing money from others who fail to stop 'good enough' at this and other red metal octagons."

"This gun was OK here last year, but today if you are caught with it we get to kidnap you and murder you if you resist."

Some rules were changed to benefit the bad guys centuries ago, and some will be changed tomorrow.  It makes no difference when the change occurred if the new rules go against liberty, and benefit those who want you to believe you owe them allegiance.  You know what the rules should be- anything more is going backwards.

And on and on it goes.  Smart people know they are being played.  How do they respond to that knowledge?

.

Judges shouldn't have final say

Judges shouldn't have final say  (and they don't!)

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)

I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.

The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.

Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.

Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".

The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.

Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.

Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.

You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.

And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.

--

Bonus video:

.

Equality... in what?

There are some "imperial entanglements" in my life I have avoided, and others I have gotten dragged (unwillingly) in to.

I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty.  I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.

The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.

If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them.  But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture.  Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.

So I posted this status on Facebook:

I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.

Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people.  People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.

Here is part of what was said:

This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.

So, without the State, there can be no contracts.  Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread.  And, so, I finally "blocked" him.

Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:

Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!

I really need to remember that it's only the internet.  I can laugh and walk away at any time.

.