Sometimes as I walk around the park I find change. Usually fifty cents or so.
Yesterday my daughter was wandering around with me and saw me find a penny. She wanted it, so I handed it to her. I told her she could find money, too. So we walked around looking some more and I found another penny.
This gave her an idea. She told me that any money I found I should give to her, and she'd give me any money she found. I told her I thought it was better to just keep what we each found but she didn't like that idea.
The next penny I saw, I casually "pointed" at it with my toe without looking at it, and she "found it" and picked it up. I said "Yay! Now give it to me." She refused even though I reminded her of our deal. A minute later she found a quarter and a penny together. I told her she was still supposed to be giving me the money she found.
She didn't want to. So I said I'd just keep what I found, too.
Then I started finding more change than she was. Quickly she had a "new" idea: She would keep everything she found and I would give her everything I found.
I said I still thought it was better if we just each kept what we found. So, she complained a little at first, but that's what we ended up doing.
She wound up with 29 cents and I had 30.
Communism appeals to 5 year-olds (and those with similar intellects) until the reality of it hits home. Then it doesn't seem quite as appealing anymore.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Saturday, June 08, 2013
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Liberty Lines, June 6, 2013- Farwell's new "Drug Dog"
(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM State Line Tribune, 6-6-2013)
We can debate the merits of the failed War on Politically Incorrect Drugs 'til the cows come home, but my observation is that prohibition- for "the common good", "for the children", or "for your own good"- always brings negative consequences.
In fact, I think the evidence is clear that the current prohibition, and the enforcement efforts related to it, have destroyed more lives (and trampled more liberty in the process) than all the drug abuse that has occurred since humans first discovered that ingesting certain substances made them feel different than normal.
And now I see that Farwell is joining the ignoble ranks of those who use trained dogs to "alert" on these forbidden substances.
It's faulty "science". Yes, the "drug dogs" are trained to alert to the smell of drugs or similar odors, but dogs have a strong desire to please their pack leader. This quickly translates into "I'll say I smell something because I know that's what my Alpha wants". Even imperceptible unconscious signals quickly train the dog to do what is wanted. Just like magic, you get the excuse you needed to violate the Fourth (and Ninth) Amendment- with the dishonest collusion of the Supreme Court.
Can dunking witches be far behind?
In past societies witches were "discovered" using similarly questionable tactics. Burn the accused with red-hot iron, and if they survive unharmed, they are innocent. Or tie them up and toss them in the cow pond; if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty and can then be killed without burdening your conscience. "They had it coming." Everyone "knows" it's reliable, because the authorities insist it is.
Do I think abusing drugs is a good idea? No. I think it's stupid. But abusing "law" and violating liberty in the name of criminalizing drug use is even worse.
These trained dogs are just for the convenience of the police and are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- which are the only justifications any government can ever have for existing. When society is structured for the benefit of police, it is a police state. This has no place in Farwell, or anywhere else liberty is given lip service.
.
We can debate the merits of the failed War on Politically Incorrect Drugs 'til the cows come home, but my observation is that prohibition- for "the common good", "for the children", or "for your own good"- always brings negative consequences.
In fact, I think the evidence is clear that the current prohibition, and the enforcement efforts related to it, have destroyed more lives (and trampled more liberty in the process) than all the drug abuse that has occurred since humans first discovered that ingesting certain substances made them feel different than normal.
And now I see that Farwell is joining the ignoble ranks of those who use trained dogs to "alert" on these forbidden substances.
It's faulty "science". Yes, the "drug dogs" are trained to alert to the smell of drugs or similar odors, but dogs have a strong desire to please their pack leader. This quickly translates into "I'll say I smell something because I know that's what my Alpha wants". Even imperceptible unconscious signals quickly train the dog to do what is wanted. Just like magic, you get the excuse you needed to violate the Fourth (and Ninth) Amendment- with the dishonest collusion of the Supreme Court.
Can dunking witches be far behind?
In past societies witches were "discovered" using similarly questionable tactics. Burn the accused with red-hot iron, and if they survive unharmed, they are innocent. Or tie them up and toss them in the cow pond; if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty and can then be killed without burdening your conscience. "They had it coming." Everyone "knows" it's reliable, because the authorities insist it is.
Do I think abusing drugs is a good idea? No. I think it's stupid. But abusing "law" and violating liberty in the name of criminalizing drug use is even worse.
These trained dogs are just for the convenience of the police and are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- which are the only justifications any government can ever have for existing. When society is structured for the benefit of police, it is a police state. This has no place in Farwell, or anywhere else liberty is given lip service.
.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Show me yours...
I've seen pictures of Gadsden "Don't tread on me" tattoos, but that has got me wondering...
I'm just curious if anyone out there has a "Time's Up" flag tattoo, yet. With or without the flag border. Do you, or does anyone you know of?
I'm just curious if anyone out there has a "Time's Up" flag tattoo, yet. With or without the flag border. Do you, or does anyone you know of?
If so, I would like to see a picture of it. I'll keep it private if you'd prefer.
Someday, if I ever have the money to waste- and if I could overcome my aversion to needles- I might consider getting one. Not sure where I'd place it, though. Also not sure if I'd want the flat version above, or want a more dynamic "waving" flag design. Or, if I'd only want the striking snake and "Time's Up" without the flag around it.
Probably it's nothing I'll ever have to worry about.
(Just a note: This is my 2,700th blog post. Here I thought I'd run out of anything to say in a week or so- and that was almost 7 years ago.)
(Just a note: This is my 2,700th blog post. Here I thought I'd run out of anything to say in a week or so- and that was almost 7 years ago.)
.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Order without coercion is possible
Order without coercion is possible
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 3, 2013)
I have seen people say that there is no point in being libertarian because there will never be a libertarian society. Or because there will always be bad guys who will take advantage of others, or because someone will always be setting up some form of government.
That seems to be a very myopic view of the situation to me.
I'm not libertarian because of a belief that the future won't have problems.
I am libertarian because I know it is always wrong to initiate force- to throw the first punch. I am libertarian because I know it is wrong to steal. Calling theft something else doesn't make it right.
Perhaps there will never be a libertarian society. No one can really know that for sure. It would be a missed opportunity, but it changes nothing for me. It seems silly to refuse to do what's right because there will always be uncooperative troublemakers who will look for excuses to keep attacking and stealing.
Should you refuse to do anything good because it may never quite arrive where you want to end up? Maybe humans will never live on any other planets, but that doesn't make the study of science, which could be used for space travel and extraterrestrial colonies, pointless. Knowledge is power.
Living by libertarian principles gives an ethical foundation that serves you well here and now, making your life better today; not only in some hypothetical future society.
That there will always be bad guys is obvious. Why let them dictate your choices? Why give them power over your life?
True, some people are addicted to telling others what to do, or being told what to do. Those people will forever be trying to set up some sort of system to force everyone to join, "or else". Some people are simply in favor of being stolen from and being coerced to live by someone else's rules. So? Let them.
When you claim some job can't be done without government, remember that slavery was once considered necessary for farming cotton. You can have organization without coercion and theft. Your organization can be fluid, changing to fit the evolving needs of those who are a voluntary part of it at the moment. If you are afraid of allowing people to opt out, it shows you know how unpopular your scheme really is.
If you wait until there's a bandwagon to jump on you may jump too late. If you wait until everyone else is already doing it, does it really count in your favor?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 3, 2013)
I have seen people say that there is no point in being libertarian because there will never be a libertarian society. Or because there will always be bad guys who will take advantage of others, or because someone will always be setting up some form of government.
That seems to be a very myopic view of the situation to me.
I'm not libertarian because of a belief that the future won't have problems.
I am libertarian because I know it is always wrong to initiate force- to throw the first punch. I am libertarian because I know it is wrong to steal. Calling theft something else doesn't make it right.
Perhaps there will never be a libertarian society. No one can really know that for sure. It would be a missed opportunity, but it changes nothing for me. It seems silly to refuse to do what's right because there will always be uncooperative troublemakers who will look for excuses to keep attacking and stealing.
Should you refuse to do anything good because it may never quite arrive where you want to end up? Maybe humans will never live on any other planets, but that doesn't make the study of science, which could be used for space travel and extraterrestrial colonies, pointless. Knowledge is power.
Living by libertarian principles gives an ethical foundation that serves you well here and now, making your life better today; not only in some hypothetical future society.
That there will always be bad guys is obvious. Why let them dictate your choices? Why give them power over your life?
True, some people are addicted to telling others what to do, or being told what to do. Those people will forever be trying to set up some sort of system to force everyone to join, "or else". Some people are simply in favor of being stolen from and being coerced to live by someone else's rules. So? Let them.
When you claim some job can't be done without government, remember that slavery was once considered necessary for farming cotton. You can have organization without coercion and theft. Your organization can be fluid, changing to fit the evolving needs of those who are a voluntary part of it at the moment. If you are afraid of allowing people to opt out, it shows you know how unpopular your scheme really is.
If you wait until there's a bandwagon to jump on you may jump too late. If you wait until everyone else is already doing it, does it really count in your favor?
.
Storm chasing: "Too dangerous"?
This past weekend's deaths of the storm chasing scientists in Oklahoma, and the injuries of the crew of a second car manned by Weather Channel storm chasers, has spawned some really stupid comments about how there needs to be "a conversation" about whether storm chasing is "too dangerous".
When people say there needs to be "a conversation", what they are really saying is that you and I should shut up and allow authorities to discuss and decide among themselves whether more liberty needs to be violated, by "law", for our own good. Oh, you and I can chime in as long as we encourage those violations or are begging for someone to come save us.
The "consensus" will undoubtedly be that government-approved scientists and other authorized people will be "allowed" to continue storm chasing, but people like you and me must be discouraged from doing so- probably subject to some "fine" or other violations if we don't take the hint.
Storm chasing- even the most "irresponsible" kind- is an invaluable tool for learning more about storms and how other people (those who don't want to risk chasing the storms) can survive or avoid the storms. The near-religious belief that only authorized scientists can make valuable discoveries and contributions seems to be widespread among believers in The State. But it's wrong.
People know chasing tornadoes is dangerous. That is why they do it. They know, intellectually, that there is a risk of death (even if emotionally they feel invincible). NASCAR is dangerous. Over-eating is dangerous. Driving is dangerous. Thinking for yourself is dangerous. Without danger, what is life?
I would bet that everyone does something that someone else, somewhere, would consider "too dangerous".
Don't force people to do things that they feel are "too dangerous", but don't prevent those to whom boredom is the biggest danger from doing what gives them enjoyment. Especially when it can benefit the rest of us so much.
.
When people say there needs to be "a conversation", what they are really saying is that you and I should shut up and allow authorities to discuss and decide among themselves whether more liberty needs to be violated, by "law", for our own good. Oh, you and I can chime in as long as we encourage those violations or are begging for someone to come save us.
The "consensus" will undoubtedly be that government-approved scientists and other authorized people will be "allowed" to continue storm chasing, but people like you and me must be discouraged from doing so- probably subject to some "fine" or other violations if we don't take the hint.
Storm chasing- even the most "irresponsible" kind- is an invaluable tool for learning more about storms and how other people (those who don't want to risk chasing the storms) can survive or avoid the storms. The near-religious belief that only authorized scientists can make valuable discoveries and contributions seems to be widespread among believers in The State. But it's wrong.
People know chasing tornadoes is dangerous. That is why they do it. They know, intellectually, that there is a risk of death (even if emotionally they feel invincible). NASCAR is dangerous. Over-eating is dangerous. Driving is dangerous. Thinking for yourself is dangerous. Without danger, what is life?
I would bet that everyone does something that someone else, somewhere, would consider "too dangerous".
Don't force people to do things that they feel are "too dangerous", but don't prevent those to whom boredom is the biggest danger from doing what gives them enjoyment. Especially when it can benefit the rest of us so much.
.
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.
.
Labels:
Counterfeit Laws,
drugs,
future,
government,
healthcare,
Law Pollution,
liberty,
responsibility,
Rights,
society
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.
.
Labels:
Free speech,
libertarian,
liberty,
personal,
responsibility,
society,
tyranny deniers
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.)
Labels:
DemoCRAPublicans,
drugs,
Free speech,
government,
guns,
liberty,
responsibility,
Rights,
society,
tyranny deniers
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.
.
Labels:
Free speech,
future,
government,
libertarian,
liberty,
personal,
responsibility,
society
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
