Failure to communicate

It's easy to speak about liberty to those who understand the words- those who are, or are almost, in agreement.

It's harder to talk about liberty to statists who use similar words to mean opposite concepts.

I don't really like using words like "government", "laws", "patriot", or "America" when I write.  But those who need to hear about liberty the most have to read those words to even begin to understand where to begin- to have a starting point.  Or, at least I have come to believe that's the case.

That's why I try to link to what I mean when I use the words I use.  It doesn't help when someone is one of those who suffer from (or, perhaps enjoy) obstinate ignorance, but it's not my responsibility to fix them.

-

And please don't forget.

The "child porn" attacks

If you follow the news in the world of liberty activism you are probably aware that "someone" is trying to infect the computers of liberty activists with "child pornography".

I am hopeful that spreading the news of this will make the tactic ineffective and "they" will stop bothering.

From Oath Keepers (and from Claire) comes a lawyer's advice on what to do if you are targeted.

However, I think this lawyer is ignoring the reality that the culprit is probably someone associated with the FBI or other feds to begin with.  No one else really has any motive.

I have always been highly suspicious of any attempt to pin "child pornography" charges on those who are against the "government", or have made enemies in some local hive of enforcers, bureaucrats, or puppeticians.  It's just too convenient and silences just about any support for the person.  It makes their (former) friends turn their backs and join the witchhunt.

Use the information as you wish.  Being informed should help protect you from such an attack.

-

And please don't forget.

.

We are not all Mannings

Bradley Manning is a hero.

However, what he did is so incredibly costly to a person that there is no way I expect every employee of the military or other government branch to do the same thing.  It takes a bravery that is rare.

However, I DO expect every person who has principles worth anything to support Mr. Manning's brave and heroic actions.  Anything less is cowardly and just plain wrong.
-

And please don't forget.

.

Plan could save us from socialism pit

Plan could save us from socialism pit

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 5, 2013.  Also here: link)

There are a lot of libertarian books and authors out there. Most of the older examples can be rather dry and difficult for modern readers to wade through. As enlightening a book as Albert Jay Nock's 1935 work "Our Enemy, the State" is, it can't be considered light or leisurely reading. And it will upset a rosy view of government just as surely as any modern writing.

On the other hand, some of the more modern writers can be very entertaining while getting the uncompromising message across.

One such writer is L. Neil Smith, with his book "Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis".

Smith is best known as a science fiction writer, but there's no fiction in "Down With Power". The book is a series of no-holds-barred essays dealing with different, mostly State-created, problems and issues, and with his liberty-respecting solutions.

Smith is more hopeful of using the processes and mechanisms of "government" to affect the changes and correct the problems than am I, but it wouldn't bother me one bit to be wrong on this account. He could also be said to lean a bit more to the "conservative" side of the aisle, although that could just be an illusion due to his strong support of gun rights and his opposition to the modern religion of "Environmentalism".

He spans issues from "animal rights", to government-sanctioned marriage, to the indispensable Zero Aggression Principle, and just about everything in between. If you have a gripe, and it somehow involves people running and ruining the lives of others, he probably has something to say about it. You may not automatically agree with what he has to say, but it will do you good to be exposed to- and consider- his ideas, which are expressed in his own lively and passionate style.

His book wraps up with a chapter called "The Plan", where he lays out what could be done to rescue America from this current (and long in the making) cesspool of Democrat and Republican socialism. If put into action, he claims his plan would turn the country around and put it back on course in six months.

I have to agree that his plan would work spectacularly well, and I would love to see more people have the courage to implement it.

"Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis" runs about 300 pages and is available from Amazon.com for $14.99 or $9.99 for the Kindle version.

.

A bad trade

To all those who object to totally getting rid of "taxes" I have this to say:

If you can't have roads/military/schools/cops/whatever without theft/coercion then "perhaps" you are better off without them. It's not a good trade. Count me out.

-

And please don't forget..

"Don't trust 'em" isn't new

Back about 13 years ago I had just been dropped off in a strange city in a distant state because I had foolishly followed my new (and now long-since ex) wife to her hometownish region.  (Happy birthday to her, by the way.)

I was staying in a motel for a while, without any transportation (yes, to get there I flew on a commercial plane- with knives and a straggler bullet that I found later) and having nothing much to do, I walked around the area.

Most of the time I spent exploring the woods in the area, following bear sign, hiding from ATVs, and finding strange relics and ruins, but I also discovered a gun store down the street.

I had looked around inside for a while and then left and started walking back to the motel.  Suddenly a cloudburst occurred.

An older man who had also just left the gun store stopped and asked if I would like a ride, and I accepted.  And then he gave me a warning.  He told me that the gun store's owner was a former cop and that a lot of the customers who frequented the store were cops or former cops, so I should be very careful what I said in the store.  A warning?  And I hadn't spoken a word to anyone while in there, other than a "no thanks... I'm just looking"

This was back when I still believed there were probably some "good cops" out there.  Back before I was "online" and before I ever really spoke up about anything.

I thanked him for the warning, and never went in that store again.  Even back then I knew the type I didn't need to risk being around.

-

And please don't forget.

Libertarians protecting people from themselves?

"In a libertarian society, prisons would likely be privatized, but the system would bear little resemblance to today’s prisons; the only people in prison would be violent criminals likely to strike again and people who refused to compensate their victims." ~ Dr. Mary Ruwart (From this newsletter)

In a free society there would likely be no "laws" prohibiting people from being adequately armed, nor from defending themselves (and others) and their property.  

The "repeat offender" would not be expected to have a long career.  Or life.  You can only beat the odds for so long, and when the odds are stacked against you so massively, "for so long" turns out to be very short, indeed.

The only real excuse for a prison in a free society would be to protect unrepentant thieves and thugs from their next victim.  That translates into actually protecting them from themselves.

But wait.  Most of us accept that it is wrong to protect people from themselves, in just about every instance.  So that would mean a free society has no place for prisons.

-

And please don't forget.

Kent's Top Ten List of Cat Names

#10 Fluffy der Litterslinger

#9 Rip Climbcurtain

#8 Whiskers Handbiter

#7 Sleepy Dotchaser

#6 Pukey McHackenbarf

#5 Thing Tut

#4 Fuzzy Lickbottom

#3 Claws McShredder

#2 Hissy Nosetickle

And the #1 cat name that I will never be permitted to give to one of my cats:

                  Spastic O'Speedbump

(Dogs, too)

-

And please don't forget.

Ariel Castro promises Amanda Berry a "fair trial"

The next time some flag-waving "patriot" gets red in the face over Edward Snowden or his Russian asylum, ask them this question:  Why isn't Amanda Berry being pursued by US authorities and being forced to seek temporary asylum in Russia?

After all, Berry did the exact same thing that Snowden did: she reported the crimes of a criminal.  But in her case, only one criminal (or is it two?).  Snowden reported the crimes of thousands of criminals.  Shouldn't the "White House" have offered to give Berry a "fair trial" like it offered Snowden?  Or, would it have been more similar to have Ariel Castro be the one offering Berry the deal?  Why did Castro end up the one sentenced to prison instead of the whistleblower who reported him?

Supporting the prosecution and persecution of Snowden is the moral equivalent of seeking the same treatment for every other crime victim.  Because yes, Edward Snowden is also a victim of the crimes he reported, just as Amanda Berry was a victim with the other 2 women who were enslaved alongside her.

So why isn't Ariel Castro- the criminal- offering Amanda Berry- his whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial", just like the various and sundry spokesvermin of the US Fedgov- the criminals- are offering Edward Snowden- the whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial"?

Oops. I forgot.  The difference is just who the criminal happens to be.

Double standards disgust me, and this is a big one.  Victims should never be the ones put through the ringer of the so-called "justice system".

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Thinking is too hard!"

It is so much easier to be an emotionally-driven "patriot" waving that federal flag, squealing about "The USA!", and hating everyone who seems to show a hint of the "Man behind the Curtain" than it is to actually think things through.

Yes, I've known this for a very long time, and was guilty of it myself years ago.  But the recent events of the Bradley Manning injustice and the Edward Snowden fiasco really brought it home.  Well, it was the reactions of so many "patriots" that really brought it home.

It reminds me of a bunch of angry baboons- ruled by their aggressive emotions, and loyal to the troop "leaders" no matter what they are doing.  It's really sad.  Humans should be smarter than this.  We have brains.  Use them.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Free-market roads concept possible

Free-market roads concept possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 28, 2013.  First of the neutered columns.)

Are you under the impression that free market roads would be impossible, or at least impossibly complicated?

Then I have good news for you.

There are many possible ways for roads to be provided in a free society, even assuming unfettered technology wouldn't make roads obsolete.

Business owners could voluntarily join forces to provide roads and bridges that service their area so that customers could reach them comfortably. Neighbors could band together voluntarily to service the roads they use to get where they need to go. Companies could spring up to provide roads for a fee on your car insurance, or in some similar way. There could be toll road companies that bill you monthly for your use of their roads. You don't think road use is currently free, do you?

You'll still pay to use the road, but there will be accountability. The advantages of that should be obvious.

Privately owned roads had better be good, since the owner could be liable for any damage to your person or property due to poor maintenance or other road hazards like snow, ice, or tumbleweeds. Restitution would be a powerful incentive. Still, potholes happen.

Cars in a free society would probably be better at avoiding or dealing with problems than those we now drive. Perhaps they will automatically avoid that pothole to prevent the impact completely. If this fails and your car is damaged anyway, the road's owner may be able to recover some portion of the restitution he pays you from the car's manufacturer because of this malfunction.

Perhaps cars would immediately contact a database to report a road hazard, and its exact coordinates, so that other drivers (or their cars) could be alerted to avoid it, and repair crews could be dispatched.

If someone refuses to pay, either for use of the road or for damages from flawed maintenance, arbitration could be sought.

There could still be patrols to make sure no one is driving dangerously, but they would never have authority above any other individual, and would be held accountable if they violate your rights; they and their employer would be personally liable for any abuse or harm you suffered at their hands.

I can't go into every possibility even I can think of in a column this short, and the solutions might be completely different, anyway. In a free society there wouldn't be a "one-size-fits-all" way to provide roads. Anyone would be free to experiment and compete with roads he found inadequate in some way. How might you do it, if you had the opportunity, without coercion?

.

The Bradley Manning verdict- irony in action

Let's engage in some far-out fantasy for a moment and pretend that there is such a thing as "treason" or such a person as a "traitor" in relation to a "country".

Yeah, I did warn you that this is fantasy.

In such an imaginary scenario, the only reason the government of the US existed was because of the Constitution.  The Constitution created it from nothing.

The Constitution was the government that those so inclined were loyal to.  Not the president, congress, Supreme Court, generals, "superior" officers, bureaucrats, or "laws".  Not even "the country".  Any orders or "laws" that violated the Constitution were "treason" and the person issuing those orders, a "traitor".

So, when a person took an oath to uphold, support, or defend the Constitution of The United States (as opposed to America), that person was swearing loyalty to the US.  Whether or not that is a good thing is a subject for another day.

So Bradley Manning took that oath, and is now being punished under the pretext that he violated it, for upholding it.  For being honorable enough to knowingly risk his life, liberty, and property by doing the right thing.  Because, by his actions he exposed the evil deeds of those who violated their identical oaths, but who were doing so in a way that others (their "superiors" and "patriotic Americans") wanted them to.  And for this he is being called the "traitor", when he is the only one, between him and his accusers and persecutors, to whom that word can't apply in any way.  The same goes for Edward Snowden.

Those calling for Manning's head on a platter are seriously confused.  They mistake the criminals who violated their oaths for the good guys "serving their country", and the guy who actually honored his unwise oath for the "traitor" deserving of harsh punishment.  The actual bad guys are being confused for the good guys by a purposely confused population of illiterates who can't think past their emotionalism.

Well, confused or just plain evil.  Just which it is will be exposed by their words or actions in the next few days.

-

And please don't forget.

Writing about the room while pretending the elephant isn't stinking up the place

There are some facts that it is almost impossible to ignore when speaking honestly about the religion of Statism.  For example: that their imaginary god is supported by theft and coercion- and is, in fact, nothing but theft and coercion when you dig right to the root of the matter.

Well, and that it is imaginary.  There is nothing behind the priests and worshipers.

And those are the facts I am not allowed to mention in my CNJ columns, at least for the time being.  Which makes for a much more difficult task.

So, I am trying to go at it from a different angle, which is taking a lot more thinking energy, and a lot more time, for the same amount of pay.  Funny what that does to the ol' motivation.

But I'm taking it one column at a time, and seeing where it goes from here.  I hope you are tagging along.

-

And please don't forget.

"Libertarian Money" blog

I was first made aware of "Libertarian Money" blog after its author left a comment on this blog.  And I immediately subscribed by "The Old Reader", have been reading it ever since, and am really impressed.

You would do well to also subscribe, but first read this excellent post to see what I'm talking about.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Kent's Top Ten List of Dog Names

#10 - Rabies O'Piddler
#9 - The Flea RV
#8 - Stinky de Gasblaster
#7 - Destructinator
#6 - The AntiCat
#5 - Puddles McBitebite
#4 - Sir Fartsalot
#3 - Barack
#2 - Begger Lee Drooldripper

And the #1 name for any dog I might someday have- Bitey "The Barker" McPoopenpisser

(Cats, too)

-

And please don't forget.

.

Complicating the simple

Consider this "puzzle":

Suppose we agree that everyone has a right to life, but that a person forfeits this right when he threatens the life of another — in that case it’s permissible to kill him.

Now consider three people, A, B, and C. A aims a gun at B, B aims a gun at C, and C aims a gun at A. When A takes aim, he’s threatening another person, so he loses his own right to life. Normally in that case C would be justified in killing him, since this defends B. But B is aiming at C, which means he forfeits his own right to life … which means that A can kill him, and that C can’t kill A.

There seems no way to resolve this under the rules we’ve laid out. “Each actor has a right to life if he or she lacks a right to life and lacks a right to life if he or she has a right to life,” wrote University of Tulsa law professor Russell Christopher, who offered the puzzle in 1998. He uses it to suggest that subjective factors such as motive, belief, and knowledge must be considered when making these judgments.
(Russell Christopher, “Self-Defense and Defense of Others,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Spring 1998)

But, it doesn't confuse me.  Because I don't think anyone can forfeit a right.  It's just that each of us has a right to defend himself (and his property), and that means that sometimes aggressors (and thieves/vandals) get killed.

When you consider a problem "under the rules we’ve laid out", but your rules are flawed, you will have difficulty resolving it, if you can resolve it at all.  Which is why liberty will never be found using the political method.  You are working under flawed "rules".

-

And please don't forget.

.

Liberty Lines- July 25, 2013 (Updated publication date)

(Oops!  This was originally posted here on the 18th, but it got bumped from the paper until the 25th.  That means it appears in the special Border Town Days edition of the paper.  That might be a good thing.

Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico State Line Tribune, July 25, 2013)

-

Frederick Bastiat pointed out in 1850, in his book "The Law", that each of us has the individual right to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights predate any idea of law or government.

Because these rights exist, people discover Natural Law to protect them.

Once the laws have been discovered (not "written", as is every counterfeit "law") people often join together to form government, based upon the protection of life, liberty, and property, through those laws.

Anytime laws are written that do anything other than protect these individual rights, the laws have become perverted and harmful.

Anytime a government begins to pass and enforce these upside down and backwards "laws", the government has been corrupted; it has become a State.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in his 1935 book "Our Enemy, The State", once a society has rejected the social institution of government (which exists solely to assist in the protection of individual rights) for the inherently anti-social monstrosity of a State (which is based upon "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property for its own benefit), nothing can prevent its destruction.

The only thing that can be done at that point is to give the warning so that wise people can prepare.

Sadly, America is far down this path with the whole-hearted enthusiasm of most of its residents; supporting myriad "laws" that violate the nature of legitimate law and natural rights in more ways than it is possible to count. Look around and you will see property codes, taxes, prohibition, anti-gun "laws", requirements for licenses and permits, "national security"... the list could go on and on. Each and every one of these abominable counterfeit "laws" does the opposite of what legitimate government would do, and plays right into the hands of The State.

You've been warned. Prepare to ride it out and sit back and enjoy the show.

-

And please don't forget.

.

An offer you MUST refuse

My head spins.

I just saw on the news that "The White House" says Edward Snowden should be returned to the US where he can be given a "fair trial".  (Like Bernard von NotHaus?)

Let's skip right past the part where a building is speaking, and focus on the part where a criminal's spokespuppet is insisting that the person who pointed out the criminal acts of the criminal is the one who is to be given a "fair trial".  What Snowden did wasn't wrong, can't therefore be really "illegal", and for the criminal to be offering Snowden a "fair trial" is absurd.

I guess that next, burglars will be offering to sell back stolen goods for a "fair price", and rapists can give their victims a chance to give consent after the attack.  And if the victims refuse, then we can all throw stones at them.

If anyone should be offered a "fair trial" it is those whose evil acts were exposed by Snowden.  The thugs have it backwards yet again.

Then, I also saw John McCain emitting rancid verbal flatulence about how what Snowden had done was "a slap in the face of the USA".  Good!  The "USA" is the anti-America, and it's thugs, scam artists, crooks, and spies should face consequences for the acts of evil they have been committing with stolen "tax dollars".  A slap in the face is too good for them.

Yeah, I have a problem with anyone making an oath to a group of thugs to begin with, but some people have to start there.

-

And please don't forget.

.

What happens when liberty is violated?

In the past few days I have watched people pointing to the bankruptcy of Detroit as an indictment of "progressive" politics.

In response, I see others point to the "Deep South", and its lack of economic opportunity, as an indictment of "conservative" politics.

Both sides are right, to a point, but both sides are wrong because they are missing the "Big Picture".  What's the common denominator?

The violation of individual liberty through the political method.

In other words, both cases are an indictment of Statism as a whole, not of a particular form of statism.  But that doesn't fit in with the obsolete and falsified "left vs right" paradigm.  So statists of either stripe will keep throwing rocks at their ideological twins while studiously ignoring the root of the problem.

Liberty would fix both places.  Stop letting the cowards set the agenda and frame the debate.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Purpose of laws is protection of life

Purpose of laws is protection of life

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 21, 2013)

Based upon my columns you might believe that libertarians oppose all laws. That isn't true at all. I am only opposed to "laws" that should never have been imposed in the first place, which therefore should never be enforced. Unfortunately, that just happens to be the vast majority of "laws" imposed and enforced today.

Freedom exists in reverse proportion to laws. Every law destroys a bit of freedom. Yet it is perfectly possible for liberty to be unaffected by law. A law against theft doesn't affect your liberty at all because you never had the right to steal. A law is only legitimate as long as it leaves liberty untouched.

The only purpose of the law- and by extension, government- was protection of life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness", including property rights. Any application of law that violates this- again, the vast majority of today's "law"- is a counterfeit substitute for real law and must be eliminated if the individuals who make up society are to ever again thrive.

But don't driver's licenses, for example, protect life and property somehow, even as they violate liberty? Hardly. Look at all the fatal accidents and vehicular property destruction caused by "licensed drivers". The safest drivers I have known were people who had managed to stay under the radar and drive without "official permission".

That license is a clear violation of liberty, especially as it gives The State an excuse to track you with another number, and because it provides another behavior modification weapon to be used against the people. How does the requirement for a driver's license protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness and property rights? It doesn't. It fails- hard. It is a net loss for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As is every other legal act imposed for our own good, for the common good, or for that current boogieman in the news: "national security".

Do I ever think a new law is a good idea? A "good law"?

Perhaps. If it ONLY exists to restrict the actions of government employees by limiting what they are allowed to do. A good law would hobble government employees and forbid them from violating you and me- in our persons or our property, or in our pursuit of happiness- and have the teeth to back up the threat. But the same results could be better achieved by eliminating the counterfeit "laws" that give them the false "authority" to violate us.

There hasn't been a good "new law" in hundreds of years. Maybe thousands.

.