He hungers for a "4 digit pageview day". Just for fun, let's give him one.
.
Monday, June 03, 2013
"Nope, we can't sell you that..."
I don't get the whole logic of "laws" forbidding selling alcohol to obviously drunk people, or prohibiting the sale of Oxycontin to addicts.
Before long I expect to see similar "laws" forbidding grocery stores from selling food to fat people, or prohibiting restaurants from serving "obviously obese" customers.
Because, really, what's the difference?
In each case it's obvious that the customer has had (someone else's definition of) "too much" of what he is seeking to buy more of. It's also obvious that it's no one else's business- until a credible threat is made of causing imminent harm. And "might hurt someone" is never good enough an excuse for me.
.
Before long I expect to see similar "laws" forbidding grocery stores from selling food to fat people, or prohibiting restaurants from serving "obviously obese" customers.
Because, really, what's the difference?
In each case it's obvious that the customer has had (someone else's definition of) "too much" of what he is seeking to buy more of. It's also obvious that it's no one else's business- until a credible threat is made of causing imminent harm. And "might hurt someone" is never good enough an excuse for me.
.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Bad jobs
I think most people don't want to admit that there are some jobs that are legal that are just bad and should never be done.
They can call freelance aggressive thugs and thieves bad people, as well as people who do the illegal jobs that are honest- like those who deal in politically incorrect drugs or trade in sexual favors- but they pussyfoot around the fact that every TSA employee is a rapist, every cop is a thief and bully, and every politician is a mobster. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
When those jobs are illustrated to the general public, especially if children might see, the core nature of the job isn't shown. These bad guys are shown to be helpful and necessary.
Just watch some kids' cartoon where one of those jobs is shown and you'll never see any resemblance to reality beyond the ridiculously superficial. And all the main parts of the job will be ignored and never shown at all.
Of course, they can sometimes show politicians and lobbyists as bad guys, but only if they work for "the other side" - the politically incorrect "minority" (which may actually be in the majority) side.
Makes me wanna produce TV shows.
.
They can call freelance aggressive thugs and thieves bad people, as well as people who do the illegal jobs that are honest- like those who deal in politically incorrect drugs or trade in sexual favors- but they pussyfoot around the fact that every TSA employee is a rapist, every cop is a thief and bully, and every politician is a mobster. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
When those jobs are illustrated to the general public, especially if children might see, the core nature of the job isn't shown. These bad guys are shown to be helpful and necessary.
Just watch some kids' cartoon where one of those jobs is shown and you'll never see any resemblance to reality beyond the ridiculously superficial. And all the main parts of the job will be ignored and never shown at all.
Of course, they can sometimes show politicians and lobbyists as bad guys, but only if they work for "the other side" - the politically incorrect "minority" (which may actually be in the majority) side.
Makes me wanna produce TV shows.
.
Saturday, June 01, 2013
The worst politician quote ever
Someone recently reminded me again of the worst thing I think I have ever heard a puppetician utter. And he said it in public and no one shot him for advocating slavery!:
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
That's like claiming that life is all about the willingness to rot in your grave forever. It shows that this turd doesn't have the first clue what "freedom" is (and I'll bet liberty is really scary to him). It shows he sees it only according to what he can do to you.
Of course, he would consider himself and his hired goons to be "lawful authority", which they most definitely are not.
Yeah, it sounds like something that psychopath Mikey Poopie Bloomers would say, but it was actually a previous NY thug who said it.
.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Accommodating the Damaged Ones
Cops are such crybabies.
I am now expected to structure my life around the demands of these most broken, twisted, violent, and terrified individuals. When society is fashioned for the convenience of the police, you have a police state- even before the brutality reaches a crescendo.
I have to remember they can do anything to me their paranoid little minds justify in the name of "officer safety".
I am expected to comply with their prying demands to know who I am, where I am going, and what my business is once I get there.
I am expected to switch lanes if I see one robbing a traveler on the side of the road, so as not to "endanger" the life of the distracted thief.
I am told to not carry a gun- or if I do, to drop it at the first fearful whimper of a LEO- because I "might want to kill the cop". And why wouldn't I, under these conditions?
I am tired of being told I have to accommodate these broken, perverted individuals, and then fawn over their "service" and "sacrifice" to "society".
Screw that.
.
I am now expected to structure my life around the demands of these most broken, twisted, violent, and terrified individuals. When society is fashioned for the convenience of the police, you have a police state- even before the brutality reaches a crescendo.
I have to remember they can do anything to me their paranoid little minds justify in the name of "officer safety".
I am expected to comply with their prying demands to know who I am, where I am going, and what my business is once I get there.
I am expected to switch lanes if I see one robbing a traveler on the side of the road, so as not to "endanger" the life of the distracted thief.
I am told to not carry a gun- or if I do, to drop it at the first fearful whimper of a LEO- because I "might want to kill the cop". And why wouldn't I, under these conditions?
I am tired of being told I have to accommodate these broken, perverted individuals, and then fawn over their "service" and "sacrifice" to "society".
Screw that.
.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Peace
I find myself more at peace recently- with regards to non-libertarians. Maybe I have more pressing things on my mind. Or maybe I have matured a little. Or maybe it is a temporary thing and will soon pass.
That doesn't mean I don't speak up, it just means I'm not going to get too worked up by those who continue to reject liberty in favor of slavery- unless they come to me. They are wrong, obviously, but my telling them so probably won't make them accept it. Sometimes when I start to respond to someone, on someone else's blog, or on a news story somewhere else, I take a moment and decide it's not worth it.
Of course, this only applies to "other" places, statist places- not "my own territory" (such as this blog), or friendly spaces around the internet. And, if you come to me defending statism and other forms of slavery, I'll probably not spare my keyboard.
.
That doesn't mean I don't speak up, it just means I'm not going to get too worked up by those who continue to reject liberty in favor of slavery- unless they come to me. They are wrong, obviously, but my telling them so probably won't make them accept it. Sometimes when I start to respond to someone, on someone else's blog, or on a news story somewhere else, I take a moment and decide it's not worth it.
Of course, this only applies to "other" places, statist places- not "my own territory" (such as this blog), or friendly spaces around the internet. And, if you come to me defending statism and other forms of slavery, I'll probably not spare my keyboard.
.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Self-reliance not such a bad idea
Self-reliance not such a bad idea
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 26, 2013)
Throughout most of American history, interference in an individual's life by government employees, even under the worst administrations, was rare. Government and its regulations were practically invisible, like a ghost, and most people never noticed government because its laws didn't affect their lives or normal behavior in ordinary circumstances. The regulations that did exist were generally consistent with Natural Law; "don't steal", "don't attack the innocent", and "don't trespass". The rest of the rules, like "give the taxman his cut", were easily complied with (or ignored).
Now it seems almost unnatural to go about your day without being confronted with some sort of State interference.
Now how often do you find your course of action impeded by a law, fee, permit, license, tax, etc? How many times every week are you forced to interact with a government employee to satisfy some bureaucratic edict? Even once per week would have been too often to a person just a generation or two ago.
Yet, it only gets worse as government gets in our faces more every day.
We are watched by cameras so that any infraction can be fined. We are tracked in our cars and on our cell phones and computers. We must go through a gauntlet of groping hands, or worse, to get from Point A to Point B in many cases. We are told to pay for the privilege of exercising our fundamental rights. In short, we are ordered to submit to treatment worse than that which spawned a revolution. We are fast approaching the condition where everything not forbidden is mandatory. And we are always deceived and told it is for our own good or for "security".
Benjamin Franklin knew the score: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He understood that tyrants claim you must give up essential liberty for the illusion of security- for that is all security ever is when you allow liberty to be diminished even the smallest amount: an illusion.
So, does all this government intrusion make your life better? Are you better off when you are not permitted to make vital decisions for yourself? Do you need a Big Brother watching your every move so that you don't hurt yourself or others? Or so Big Brother can make sure you don't defy his commands?
I can handle my own life, and I know you can too. Neither of us needs to be treated like a stupid or naughty child. Big Brother can go jump off a cliff.
Throughout most of American history, interference in an individual's life by government employees, even under the worst administrations, was rare. Government and its regulations were practically invisible, like a ghost, and most people never noticed government because its laws didn't affect their lives or normal behavior in ordinary circumstances. The regulations that did exist were generally consistent with Natural Law; "don't steal", "don't attack the innocent", and "don't trespass". The rest of the rules, like "give the taxman his cut", were easily complied with (or ignored).
Now it seems almost unnatural to go about your day without being confronted with some sort of State interference.
Now how often do you find your course of action impeded by a law, fee, permit, license, tax, etc? How many times every week are you forced to interact with a government employee to satisfy some bureaucratic edict? Even once per week would have been too often to a person just a generation or two ago.
Yet, it only gets worse as government gets in our faces more every day.
We are watched by cameras so that any infraction can be fined. We are tracked in our cars and on our cell phones and computers. We must go through a gauntlet of groping hands, or worse, to get from Point A to Point B in many cases. We are told to pay for the privilege of exercising our fundamental rights. In short, we are ordered to submit to treatment worse than that which spawned a revolution. We are fast approaching the condition where everything not forbidden is mandatory. And we are always deceived and told it is for our own good or for "security".
Benjamin Franklin knew the score: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He understood that tyrants claim you must give up essential liberty for the illusion of security- for that is all security ever is when you allow liberty to be diminished even the smallest amount: an illusion.
So, does all this government intrusion make your life better? Are you better off when you are not permitted to make vital decisions for yourself? Do you need a Big Brother watching your every move so that you don't hurt yourself or others? Or so Big Brother can make sure you don't defy his commands?
I can handle my own life, and I know you can too. Neither of us needs to be treated like a stupid or naughty child. Big Brother can go jump off a cliff.
.
Slavery is wrong, whatever you call it
Yesterday, on my "Death-by-Government Day" post, blogger "Bonnie Gadsden" asked a very pertinent question:
Do we revile those three women in Cleveland who recently escaped after a decade of captivity as sex slaves? What about those who foil a kidnapping attempt?
Runaway slaves, those who hid to avoid being enslaved, and those who escape or avoid a kidnapping. I'd say "draft dodgers" are in honorable company. They are the ones who actually sacrificed for freedom.
.
"Kent, what do you think about draft dodgers?"
I responded:
"You might as well ask what I think about the slaves who escaped their captivity up until the 1860s- or those in Africa who escaped being captured and enslaved in the first place. Because conscription IS slavery.
It isn't cowardice to keep your freedom, especially when you know the price will be high, it is bravery."
Do we revile those three women in Cleveland who recently escaped after a decade of captivity as sex slaves? What about those who foil a kidnapping attempt?
Runaway slaves, those who hid to avoid being enslaved, and those who escape or avoid a kidnapping. I'd say "draft dodgers" are in honorable company. They are the ones who actually sacrificed for freedom.
.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Happy Death-by-Government Day
Or, should it be called "Dead Government-paid Murderer Day"?
I know that many people who were in the employ of the US government truly believed they were doing the right thing. I know that a lot of people actually fall for the "they fought for our freedom" propaganda, and have a powerful desire to honor the dead for that reason. I know I come off as a heartless monster for seeing it differently.
But, if you are in the military you are only fighting for one "cause": the power (and wealth) of those who run the mafia called the US government. You are their pawn; their tool. That you get angry at that revelation is proof of how effectively you have been brainwashed.
Your scars, your death, and your murders don't protect one single act of liberty. No one is free to write even one anti-State phrase on the "government's invention" because of your sacrifice. No one is able to carry a fully functional M16 onto a flight from Texas to DC because of your "service". No one is allowed to drive across the country without having to possess a plastic national ID card because of those you killed. No one is allowed to buy morphine for their cancer-stricken grandmother, over-the-counter in Walmart, because you were blown to bits in Iraq. Your lost leg, shattered and bleeding in the hot sun beside some nameless dirt road in Afghanistan, doesn't buy the liberty to do one single thing. Your dead "brothers" didn't accomplish anything that was worth losing their life for The State.
I realize it is hard to accept this when you have been told the lie all your life, and when you want so badly for all those who have died in the past to have not died in vain (or worse, in service of evil).
I'm sorry.
(Also, check this out.)
I know that many people who were in the employ of the US government truly believed they were doing the right thing. I know that a lot of people actually fall for the "they fought for our freedom" propaganda, and have a powerful desire to honor the dead for that reason. I know I come off as a heartless monster for seeing it differently.
But, if you are in the military you are only fighting for one "cause": the power (and wealth) of those who run the mafia called the US government. You are their pawn; their tool. That you get angry at that revelation is proof of how effectively you have been brainwashed.
Your scars, your death, and your murders don't protect one single act of liberty. No one is free to write even one anti-State phrase on the "government's invention" because of your sacrifice. No one is able to carry a fully functional M16 onto a flight from Texas to DC because of your "service". No one is allowed to drive across the country without having to possess a plastic national ID card because of those you killed. No one is allowed to buy morphine for their cancer-stricken grandmother, over-the-counter in Walmart, because you were blown to bits in Iraq. Your lost leg, shattered and bleeding in the hot sun beside some nameless dirt road in Afghanistan, doesn't buy the liberty to do one single thing. Your dead "brothers" didn't accomplish anything that was worth losing their life for The State.
I realize it is hard to accept this when you have been told the lie all your life, and when you want so badly for all those who have died in the past to have not died in vain (or worse, in service of evil).
I'm sorry.
(Also, check this out.)
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Kokesh released- now what?
Now that Adam Kokesh has been released, and the most serious(ly fraudulent) charges against him have been dropped, there are a few thoughts I have.
First off, I would be careful around him. Maybe he is a great guy who would NEVER snitch, but I don't know what they might have done to him or threatened him with while he was held prisoner. I hate to admit I would think this way, but it's something to keep in mind. It has happened before with other activists- maybe Adam is a better, stronger person than the others, but how do you know?
Second, I see a lot of claims about how it has been revealed that he been working for Barry The Enemy all along. Supposedly, The Enemy needs an "Incident" in order to declare martial law across the country, and Adam's armed march on DC is just that incident. Well, I hate to say this, but Bring It On. If The Enemy wants to get the preliminaries out of the way, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Then we will know "It's Time".
Third, if this is going to be the standard way from now on to treat every activist who sticks his or her neck out, then why would anyone go to the trouble anymore? Whether you agree with their methods or not, not everyone who does something you don't agree with is working with The Enemies. They may simply be wrong. Or YOU may be wrong. (Hey, it's a possibility.)
As always, think for Yourself. Don't follow anyone unquestioningly. If your conscience or your rationality say "stop!", listen to them!! You have a brain for a reason. Even if something is a great idea, it may not be right for you. We each have our path to liberty. Don't initiate force; don't steal/defraud/damage property- but other than that find what works for you. No person is infallible or great enough to blindly follow.
And, don't let this Kokesh issue distract you from continuing to live in liberty as you seek even more.
.
First off, I would be careful around him. Maybe he is a great guy who would NEVER snitch, but I don't know what they might have done to him or threatened him with while he was held prisoner. I hate to admit I would think this way, but it's something to keep in mind. It has happened before with other activists- maybe Adam is a better, stronger person than the others, but how do you know?
Second, I see a lot of claims about how it has been revealed that he been working for Barry The Enemy all along. Supposedly, The Enemy needs an "Incident" in order to declare martial law across the country, and Adam's armed march on DC is just that incident. Well, I hate to say this, but Bring It On. If The Enemy wants to get the preliminaries out of the way, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Then we will know "It's Time".
Third, if this is going to be the standard way from now on to treat every activist who sticks his or her neck out, then why would anyone go to the trouble anymore? Whether you agree with their methods or not, not everyone who does something you don't agree with is working with The Enemies. They may simply be wrong. Or YOU may be wrong. (Hey, it's a possibility.)
As always, think for Yourself. Don't follow anyone unquestioningly. If your conscience or your rationality say "stop!", listen to them!! You have a brain for a reason. Even if something is a great idea, it may not be right for you. We each have our path to liberty. Don't initiate force; don't steal/defraud/damage property- but other than that find what works for you. No person is infallible or great enough to blindly follow.
And, don't let this Kokesh issue distract you from continuing to live in liberty as you seek even more.
.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Don't look! You might see something unpleasant!
Statists seem to have infinite capacity for denial. Just watch what they write.
"I don't break any laws!"
"It's wrong because it's illegal."
"It's wrong because it's illegal."
"Just one more law will fix it."
"Just elect the right people..."
"The Constitution was fine, it just needed us to keep the government in compliance."
It's almost cute the way they twist and turn trying to keep believing. It's like kids trying to convince you that their imaginary friend is "really real". The thing is, kids grow out of that (usually), while statists just get more adamant and angry when you point out how their imaginary friend keeps failing to deliver.
.
"The Constitution was fine, it just needed us to keep the government in compliance."
It's almost cute the way they twist and turn trying to keep believing. It's like kids trying to convince you that their imaginary friend is "really real". The thing is, kids grow out of that (usually), while statists just get more adamant and angry when you point out how their imaginary friend keeps failing to deliver.
.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Reward the bully- punish his victim
I recently saw a quote* that was intended to show the absurdity of supporting gun owners' rights. As you'll see, it utterly failed:
And, if that were the whole story, it might be true. But it isn't.
The truth of the matter is, that when you know there's a bully out there who intends to hit an innocent kid with a rock (or his fist, or a hammer, or a "law"), and you frisk the intended victim to make sure he has no rocks in his pocket, and then you threaten him with severe punishment if he dares to try to defend himself- well, then you are the bully's accomplice. You are a friend to the villain and an enemy to all that is good.
The answer may not be to "give" every child a rock (they can find them on their own just fine- just like the bully did and will continue to do), but that would still be a better answer than the anti-liberty bigot tactic of trying to disarm all the decent folk. The worst possible thing you can do is to try to take away the rocks the good kids have. Or punish those who fight back. When you do, you are only rewarding the bad guys and making it easier (and safer) to be a bad guy.
Anti-liberty bigots expose the festering evil in their hearts everytime they think they have come up with a clever new slogan.
I'll give my daughter some rocks, and expect her to abide by the ZAP. Count on it.
(*I apologize that I forgot where I saw this quote. I copied it, but neglected to copy the source.)
"When one child hits another with a rock, the answer isn't to give every child a rock."
And, if that were the whole story, it might be true. But it isn't.
The truth of the matter is, that when you know there's a bully out there who intends to hit an innocent kid with a rock (or his fist, or a hammer, or a "law"), and you frisk the intended victim to make sure he has no rocks in his pocket, and then you threaten him with severe punishment if he dares to try to defend himself- well, then you are the bully's accomplice. You are a friend to the villain and an enemy to all that is good.
The answer may not be to "give" every child a rock (they can find them on their own just fine- just like the bully did and will continue to do), but that would still be a better answer than the anti-liberty bigot tactic of trying to disarm all the decent folk. The worst possible thing you can do is to try to take away the rocks the good kids have. Or punish those who fight back. When you do, you are only rewarding the bad guys and making it easier (and safer) to be a bad guy.
Anti-liberty bigots expose the festering evil in their hearts everytime they think they have come up with a clever new slogan.
I'll give my daughter some rocks, and expect her to abide by the ZAP. Count on it.
(*I apologize that I forgot where I saw this quote. I copied it, but neglected to copy the source.)
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Red Pill: "Down With Power"
I just recently finished reading L. Neil Smith's "Down With Power". Excellent book!
Maybe not quite as excellent as "Lever Action", but I'm probably prejudiced since the latter book was the one that finally showed me where I fit in the scheme of the world. And pretty much made me who I am today. Whether you consider that a good thing or not being a separate issue altogether.
OK... maybe it is just as good. The only reason I might choose "Lever Action" is purely emotional.
I recommend you get yourself a copy of "Down With Power", read it, and then loan it to people who need to read it. If your "conservative" or "liberal" friends and family keep subjecting your to their vacuous statist opinions, invite them to get "the other side". I'll bet the conversations will get more interesting.
They won't realize you have handed them "The Red Pill" until it is (hopefully) too late.
.
Maybe not quite as excellent as "Lever Action", but I'm probably prejudiced since the latter book was the one that finally showed me where I fit in the scheme of the world. And pretty much made me who I am today. Whether you consider that a good thing or not being a separate issue altogether.
OK... maybe it is just as good. The only reason I might choose "Lever Action" is purely emotional.
I recommend you get yourself a copy of "Down With Power", read it, and then loan it to people who need to read it. If your "conservative" or "liberal" friends and family keep subjecting your to their vacuous statist opinions, invite them to get "the other side". I'll bet the conversations will get more interesting.
They won't realize you have handed them "The Red Pill" until it is (hopefully) too late.
.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Do what's right, not what's legal
Do what's right, not what's legal
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 19 [4-19!], 2013.)
When a law is silly, good people may break it; when a law is wrong, good people have to.
I wouldn't tell you what to do, beyond telling you that you probably already know the right thing to do. I will tell you that if I see you breaking silly laws without hurting anyone or their property, I will respect you. But if I see you breaking, or even openly defying, bad laws, I will consider you a true hero.
Look at how many heroes from the past are heroes because they broke and defied bad laws. Rosa Parks and Henry David Thoreau come to mind. How many heroes from the past do we look up to strictly because they obeyed laws? I can't think of any right now.
The law only deserves respect as long as it is respectable. "Laws" which attempt to control or regulate things other than theft, aggression, or damaging or trespassing on privately owned property do not deserve respect. In fact, they deserve contempt.
This also means that anyone I see enforcing silly laws is someone I have no respect for, and anyone I see enforcing bad laws I see as the enemy of everything America was supposed to be, and an enemy of liberty and decency.
No excuses involving "the will of the majority" or "just doing my job" hold any water. And any claims of "upholding my oath" are worse than pointless when your interpretation of your oath requires you to do wrong.
This doesn't mean it's always nice to break all silly "laws". Some behaviors are just not polite, regardless of the law. It isn't always smart to do everything you have a right to do. You need to look at unintended consequences that can result. Of course, this applies to proposing and enforcing "laws" too.
This profusion of "laws" has caused a condition I call "law pollution". It has been estimated by attorney Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties advocate who has researched the issue, that each and every one of us commits at least three felonies every day; usually without knowing it or having any ill-intent. That's hilarious.
When everyone is some sort of a criminal it means the laws are wrong; not that everyone is bad.
If I were inclined to give you advice I would say "do what's right, and don't worry about what's legal". Come to think of it, that's the same advice a retired deputy sheriff once gave me.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 19 [4-19!], 2013.)
When a law is silly, good people may break it; when a law is wrong, good people have to.
I wouldn't tell you what to do, beyond telling you that you probably already know the right thing to do. I will tell you that if I see you breaking silly laws without hurting anyone or their property, I will respect you. But if I see you breaking, or even openly defying, bad laws, I will consider you a true hero.
Look at how many heroes from the past are heroes because they broke and defied bad laws. Rosa Parks and Henry David Thoreau come to mind. How many heroes from the past do we look up to strictly because they obeyed laws? I can't think of any right now.
The law only deserves respect as long as it is respectable. "Laws" which attempt to control or regulate things other than theft, aggression, or damaging or trespassing on privately owned property do not deserve respect. In fact, they deserve contempt.
This also means that anyone I see enforcing silly laws is someone I have no respect for, and anyone I see enforcing bad laws I see as the enemy of everything America was supposed to be, and an enemy of liberty and decency.
No excuses involving "the will of the majority" or "just doing my job" hold any water. And any claims of "upholding my oath" are worse than pointless when your interpretation of your oath requires you to do wrong.
This doesn't mean it's always nice to break all silly "laws". Some behaviors are just not polite, regardless of the law. It isn't always smart to do everything you have a right to do. You need to look at unintended consequences that can result. Of course, this applies to proposing and enforcing "laws" too.
This profusion of "laws" has caused a condition I call "law pollution". It has been estimated by attorney Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties advocate who has researched the issue, that each and every one of us commits at least three felonies every day; usually without knowing it or having any ill-intent. That's hilarious.
When everyone is some sort of a criminal it means the laws are wrong; not that everyone is bad.
If I were inclined to give you advice I would say "do what's right, and don't worry about what's legal". Come to think of it, that's the same advice a retired deputy sheriff once gave me.
.
The "only purpose" for cars...
The next time some foamy-mouthed anti-liberty bigot makes the standard claim that guns should be banned because "they only have one purpose: to KILL people!" I think I'll claim that cars only have one purpose: getting food at the drive-through.
That is just as "true" as the other claim.
I have used guns a fair amount, and I have never killed anyone. Never even tried. Yet, I don't have any trouble finding a "purpose" for my guns.
Or I could say a car's only purpose is to be a get-away vehicle after a hold-up. Or as a teenager's motel room substitute. Or as something to watch bikini-clad cheerleaders wash.
Of course, the argument that the "only purpose" for guns is to kill people is only believed by stupid people anyway, so the humor of claiming an "only purpose" for cars- whatever it might be- would go right over their heads. It'll be fun to see the "mental" gymnastics performed by the anti-liberty bigot in response, though.
.
That is just as "true" as the other claim.
I have used guns a fair amount, and I have never killed anyone. Never even tried. Yet, I don't have any trouble finding a "purpose" for my guns.
Or I could say a car's only purpose is to be a get-away vehicle after a hold-up. Or as a teenager's motel room substitute. Or as something to watch bikini-clad cheerleaders wash.
Of course, the argument that the "only purpose" for guns is to kill people is only believed by stupid people anyway, so the humor of claiming an "only purpose" for cars- whatever it might be- would go right over their heads. It'll be fun to see the "mental" gymnastics performed by the anti-liberty bigot in response, though.
.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Lessons from Kokesh's kidnapping
If you can be kidnapped ("arrested") for- and charged with- "assaulting an officer" or for "resisting arrest" when you have clearly done neither, why not fight the cops like your very life depends on it?
Because it does, you know.
.
Because it does, you know.
.
Adam Kokesh's arrest
I am not an advocate of using institutionalized kidnapping- euphemistically called "arrest" when committed by people who work for "government"- to remove "undesirables" from society. But when that kidnapping is used against a person who wasn't doing anything wrong it is even more disgusting.
It doesn't matter if the kidnap victim was Adam Kokesh or that genocidal monster, Abraham Lincoln- if the victim isn't initiating force, stealing/defrauding, or trespassing on PRIVATELY owned property, the "arrest" is wrong. If you won't speak out against the unjust kidnapping of your worst enemy, then you need to reexamine your commitment to liberty.
I have been frankly horrified at the things I have seen written relating to his "arrest" at the Smokedown Prohibition V event. Gun owners, especially those who were not in favor of his planned armed march on DC, have been acting like statists.
The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War Against Gun Owners are not separate issues. They are both aspects of liberty, which can not be cherry picked to make you feel better. You don't have to smoke Cannabis or own guns to support the absolute human right of everyone to do either or both. Among other things. But if you claim to love (and understand) liberty, you don't look convincing when you seem willing to throw someone else to the wolves.
Maybe Kokesh was seeking to be arrested. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe the feds wanted to get him out of the way so they wouldn't have to face the armed march in July. Maybe it isn't smart to put yourself in a position to invite being kidnapped when you are planning something "bigger" for the near future. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
You can always second-guess anyone's actions. You can even disagree with what they are doing. But if a person is not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't ever support their abuse at the hands of government employees. I can't support the abuse of anyone by government employees at any time, but that's just me.
Free Adam!
.
It doesn't matter if the kidnap victim was Adam Kokesh or that genocidal monster, Abraham Lincoln- if the victim isn't initiating force, stealing/defrauding, or trespassing on PRIVATELY owned property, the "arrest" is wrong. If you won't speak out against the unjust kidnapping of your worst enemy, then you need to reexamine your commitment to liberty.
I have been frankly horrified at the things I have seen written relating to his "arrest" at the Smokedown Prohibition V event. Gun owners, especially those who were not in favor of his planned armed march on DC, have been acting like statists.
The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War Against Gun Owners are not separate issues. They are both aspects of liberty, which can not be cherry picked to make you feel better. You don't have to smoke Cannabis or own guns to support the absolute human right of everyone to do either or both. Among other things. But if you claim to love (and understand) liberty, you don't look convincing when you seem willing to throw someone else to the wolves.
Maybe Kokesh was seeking to be arrested. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe the feds wanted to get him out of the way so they wouldn't have to face the armed march in July. Maybe it isn't smart to put yourself in a position to invite being kidnapped when you are planning something "bigger" for the near future. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
You can always second-guess anyone's actions. You can even disagree with what they are doing. But if a person is not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't ever support their abuse at the hands of government employees. I can't support the abuse of anyone by government employees at any time, but that's just me.
Free Adam!
.
Why fear "falling" when you can fly?
(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise, May 19, 2013)
Sitting outside, watching some birds swooping around in the sky, gave me some insight recently.
I try to put myself in their place- high above the ground with nothing but air holding me up- but I get vertigo just thinking about it. I try to imagine what it would be like to naturally exist in that environment- without fear. It's hard for me to do.
Yet the birds are no more afraid of heights than I am of horizontal distances. That is because they have the inborn ability to navigate that vertical space. They are in no more danger of falling than I am of "falling" across a field and bumping into the side of a house.
You don't fear that which you naturally navigate.
Which birthed a revelation: Statists are afraid of liberty because they haven't discovered their natural abilities. On the other hand, I'm not afraid of liberty because I can navigate it with confidence- I can't "fall".
Sure, someone can shoot down a bird, and sometimes circumstances shoot down a libertarian, too. That's no reason to sit hunkered over in fear. It's a reason to stay alert and learn to swerve and swoop. And accept that sometimes bad stuff will happen anyway.
Everyone has the potential to "fly" in liberty just as well as you and I do. They just have to try their wings. When you see a statist trying to convince you that you can't fly in liberty, or that he can't, or that too few people could for it to "work", have pity on him. He's just scared, more than anything, of his own untested abilities.
Don't let him convince you that it is impossible to do what you have been doing all along.
.
Sitting outside, watching some birds swooping around in the sky, gave me some insight recently.
I try to put myself in their place- high above the ground with nothing but air holding me up- but I get vertigo just thinking about it. I try to imagine what it would be like to naturally exist in that environment- without fear. It's hard for me to do.
Yet the birds are no more afraid of heights than I am of horizontal distances. That is because they have the inborn ability to navigate that vertical space. They are in no more danger of falling than I am of "falling" across a field and bumping into the side of a house.
You don't fear that which you naturally navigate.
Which birthed a revelation: Statists are afraid of liberty because they haven't discovered their natural abilities. On the other hand, I'm not afraid of liberty because I can navigate it with confidence- I can't "fall".
Sure, someone can shoot down a bird, and sometimes circumstances shoot down a libertarian, too. That's no reason to sit hunkered over in fear. It's a reason to stay alert and learn to swerve and swoop. And accept that sometimes bad stuff will happen anyway.
Everyone has the potential to "fly" in liberty just as well as you and I do. They just have to try their wings. When you see a statist trying to convince you that you can't fly in liberty, or that he can't, or that too few people could for it to "work", have pity on him. He's just scared, more than anything, of his own untested abilities.
Don't let him convince you that it is impossible to do what you have been doing all along.
.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The Kokesh armed march
(Note- Because I write almost everything at least a day in advance, so that I can have it post early for you to read with your morning coffee, I wrote this before his "arrest" [kidnapping] at the Smoke Down Prohibition V event. The "arrest" changes nothing about what I've written below.)
It seems everyone is talking about Adam Kokesh, and his peaceful armed march on DC. And it seems everyone who is talking about it is casting stones at those who take a position different than their own. I'll try to not do that.
So, what would I do?
I wouldn't go.
But maybe not for the reasons you might think.
Is what he's planning to do wrong? No!
Will it draw negative attention to gun owners, make the anti-liberty bigots say bad things about us, and might it lead to more "laws" and crackdowns from hoplophobic bigots with political power? Probably, but who cares?
I hate to tell you this but the enemies of liberty aren't impressed when you try to make them like you. Or when you try to not offend them, or when you play by their rules; when you obey their counterfeit "laws". They will be offended by anything you do, short of turning in ALL your guns, and then politely dying to remove yourself from the gene pool. Do you really want to appease people like this?
Personally, I make an effort to stay away from places where political scum pools. Courthouses, city hall, police stations, state capitols, and especially DC. I don't want to be in that toxic environment, armed or not. Those who congregate there don't care what you or I have to say unless it is in line with what they are already planning to do. Contrary (peaceful) voices are ignored, and there's nothing you can do to change that. If you show up to petition them they assume you still consent to their Rule, if you show up armed they assume you are dangerous/crazy and should be caged- and killed if you resist.
I think it's mostly better to stop acting like these are people you need to influence and just let them play their little rigged game while you prepare to deal with the inevitable results of their tyranny.
I have had my differences with Adam Kokesh in the past, but he has done things that changed my opinion of him since then. He may be more of a showman than I am generally comfortable with, but that's just his way. Will I put Kokesh down for his planned march? Not at this time. I think there are lots of ways to exercise your liberty- his way, or yours, might not be mine (and vice versa). But I don't think this event is any more harmful in the long run than voting or writing congresscritters. Anything that pretends that politicians' opinions or "law tantrums" are valid just doesn't seem to be the best use of talents and energy to me. You may think differently.
I don't understand those who object to his march on the basis of it being "illegal". I have no intention of ever being "law abiding" when those "laws" are wrong, or even when they are null and void. And I don't have much respect for people who make being a "law abiding citizen" their goal. But if you are talking "legality", then his march is perfectly legal. No legitimate law can violate the Constitution, which was amended by the Bill of Rights to say that the right to own and to carry guns "shall not be infringed". Any "law" to the contrary is null and void. His march couldn't possibly be more legal. That doesn't mean the badged thug/criminals of DC won't murder people for doing the right thing, though.
I have my doubts that anyone actually plans to go through with the march, but I could be wrong. From the first I suspected it might be more of a shot across the bow to get some attention. If it happens, I hope no violence occurs- but I also hope any initiation of force, if it happens, is met with appropriate self defense. I do not believe I can be armed and yet stand by and watch "law enforcement" violate peaceful people without doing something to stop the violation. Sorry, but I am NOT a pacifist. And that is another reason for me to stay away from such events. I do not want to intentionally put myself into a position where I either need to kill someone or make myself a part of the problem by not killing someone.
That's just my take on it.
.
It seems everyone is talking about Adam Kokesh, and his peaceful armed march on DC. And it seems everyone who is talking about it is casting stones at those who take a position different than their own. I'll try to not do that.
So, what would I do?
I wouldn't go.
But maybe not for the reasons you might think.
Is what he's planning to do wrong? No!
Will it draw negative attention to gun owners, make the anti-liberty bigots say bad things about us, and might it lead to more "laws" and crackdowns from hoplophobic bigots with political power? Probably, but who cares?
I hate to tell you this but the enemies of liberty aren't impressed when you try to make them like you. Or when you try to not offend them, or when you play by their rules; when you obey their counterfeit "laws". They will be offended by anything you do, short of turning in ALL your guns, and then politely dying to remove yourself from the gene pool. Do you really want to appease people like this?
Personally, I make an effort to stay away from places where political scum pools. Courthouses, city hall, police stations, state capitols, and especially DC. I don't want to be in that toxic environment, armed or not. Those who congregate there don't care what you or I have to say unless it is in line with what they are already planning to do. Contrary (peaceful) voices are ignored, and there's nothing you can do to change that. If you show up to petition them they assume you still consent to their Rule, if you show up armed they assume you are dangerous/crazy and should be caged- and killed if you resist.
I think it's mostly better to stop acting like these are people you need to influence and just let them play their little rigged game while you prepare to deal with the inevitable results of their tyranny.
I have had my differences with Adam Kokesh in the past, but he has done things that changed my opinion of him since then. He may be more of a showman than I am generally comfortable with, but that's just his way. Will I put Kokesh down for his planned march? Not at this time. I think there are lots of ways to exercise your liberty- his way, or yours, might not be mine (and vice versa). But I don't think this event is any more harmful in the long run than voting or writing congresscritters. Anything that pretends that politicians' opinions or "law tantrums" are valid just doesn't seem to be the best use of talents and energy to me. You may think differently.
I don't understand those who object to his march on the basis of it being "illegal". I have no intention of ever being "law abiding" when those "laws" are wrong, or even when they are null and void. And I don't have much respect for people who make being a "law abiding citizen" their goal. But if you are talking "legality", then his march is perfectly legal. No legitimate law can violate the Constitution, which was amended by the Bill of Rights to say that the right to own and to carry guns "shall not be infringed". Any "law" to the contrary is null and void. His march couldn't possibly be more legal. That doesn't mean the badged thug/criminals of DC won't murder people for doing the right thing, though.
I have my doubts that anyone actually plans to go through with the march, but I could be wrong. From the first I suspected it might be more of a shot across the bow to get some attention. If it happens, I hope no violence occurs- but I also hope any initiation of force, if it happens, is met with appropriate self defense. I do not believe I can be armed and yet stand by and watch "law enforcement" violate peaceful people without doing something to stop the violation. Sorry, but I am NOT a pacifist. And that is another reason for me to stay away from such events. I do not want to intentionally put myself into a position where I either need to kill someone or make myself a part of the problem by not killing someone.
That's just my take on it.
.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Considering conspiracies
Chem trails, fluoridation, vaccines, GMOs- these are some of the conspiracy theories that I am highly doubtful about.
I'm not saying that those in government/corporations wouldn't harm people for their own evil purposes- just that I'm not convinced that these are examples of that being put into action.
I don't denigrate those who pursue the exposure of their particular conspiracy- it's just that I wonder if more important things are being ignored while focusing on these.
I can't go through life terrified that everything I eat, breathe, drink, or do is killing me, and trying desperately to avoid exposure to all those things. That doesn't mean the theories aren't true, of course. Life is a fatal condition, and people do seem to be living longer today than they did 100 years ago before any of those things were around. Maybe that trend will reverse because of all the conspiracy issues listed above. Maybe that trend will reverse due more to socialized medicine.
If the evidence is ever sufficient to convince me... well... I'm not sure what I'd do because those things are things I am not in a position to do anything about other than complain or get completely stress-ridden over. And I don't need to stress myself out over things I am not convinced are real, or are a real problem. There are too many other things I can do something about.
.
I'm not saying that those in government/corporations wouldn't harm people for their own evil purposes- just that I'm not convinced that these are examples of that being put into action.
I don't denigrate those who pursue the exposure of their particular conspiracy- it's just that I wonder if more important things are being ignored while focusing on these.
I can't go through life terrified that everything I eat, breathe, drink, or do is killing me, and trying desperately to avoid exposure to all those things. That doesn't mean the theories aren't true, of course. Life is a fatal condition, and people do seem to be living longer today than they did 100 years ago before any of those things were around. Maybe that trend will reverse because of all the conspiracy issues listed above. Maybe that trend will reverse due more to socialized medicine.
If the evidence is ever sufficient to convince me... well... I'm not sure what I'd do because those things are things I am not in a position to do anything about other than complain or get completely stress-ridden over. And I don't need to stress myself out over things I am not convinced are real, or are a real problem. There are too many other things I can do something about.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)