No, not sending me all your money- although if you want to, I won't stop you.
This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.
It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."
That's a pretty good return!
If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps". There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity. I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps. And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps! The possibilities are endless. You can't lose.
Unless what the person claims* isn't true.
Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?
Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?
*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make. Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)
.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Anonymity?
Someone just sent me this message:
I just learned something interesting that you probably don't know, Kent.
You cannot post to your blog using an anonymous proxy.
More piggery from the government!
Perhaps you should inform your readers that posting "anonymous" will still show their IP address to the pigs.
I always assumed there was no such thing as real anonymity on the internet anyway, but you might want to be aware of this tidbit of information.
.
Stay leaderless, my friends
Unlike "liberals" or "conservatives", libertarians don't have real leaders.
Oh, sure, there are those who "everybody knows", and are followed with interest, but they aren't like a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow, or even like Obama or Ron Paul.
I always see others posting the latest talking point from their leaders. But not so much with libertarians.
The "prominent" libertarians tell you what they are thinking, and expect you to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and reject it if it's crap (even if they don't like your conclusions). They may still try to convince you they are right, but it isn't easy for their opinions to become widely accepted among liberty lovers without being picked apart and found to be correct.
The "mainstream" folks don't do that when their leaders tell them what they should think. They suck it right up and repeat it everywhere.
Even of those libertarian thinkers I admire, if they say something full of crap I'll say so. And they do the same for me.
It's because libertarians don't just yap to be saying something. We think first. And we never stop thinking about what we are saying and what we'll say next. We can back up what we say with reality and evidence, even if statists reject the reality for the comfort of their delusions. Makes it very hard for statists to actually disprove what we say, so they resort to other tactics. At that point, the best thing to do is to ignore them- it's not going to end nicely.
If I were offered position of "king of the libertarians" I would turn it down. Nor would I ever blindly follow a "king of libertarians", even if I liked the person. There's no way that could help bring on more liberty. Having a leader would set libertarians back and make us as vulnerable to basic foundational errors as the others are.
.
Oh, sure, there are those who "everybody knows", and are followed with interest, but they aren't like a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow, or even like Obama or Ron Paul.
I always see others posting the latest talking point from their leaders. But not so much with libertarians.
The "prominent" libertarians tell you what they are thinking, and expect you to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and reject it if it's crap (even if they don't like your conclusions). They may still try to convince you they are right, but it isn't easy for their opinions to become widely accepted among liberty lovers without being picked apart and found to be correct.
The "mainstream" folks don't do that when their leaders tell them what they should think. They suck it right up and repeat it everywhere.
Even of those libertarian thinkers I admire, if they say something full of crap I'll say so. And they do the same for me.
It's because libertarians don't just yap to be saying something. We think first. And we never stop thinking about what we are saying and what we'll say next. We can back up what we say with reality and evidence, even if statists reject the reality for the comfort of their delusions. Makes it very hard for statists to actually disprove what we say, so they resort to other tactics. At that point, the best thing to do is to ignore them- it's not going to end nicely.
If I were offered position of "king of the libertarians" I would turn it down. Nor would I ever blindly follow a "king of libertarians", even if I liked the person. There's no way that could help bring on more liberty. Having a leader would set libertarians back and make us as vulnerable to basic foundational errors as the others are.
.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Gadsden flag still resonates today
Gadsden flag still resonates today
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 27, 2013)
You have seen the bright yellow flags sporting the coiled rattlesnake, with the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" boldly emblazoned across the bottom, but have you ever really thought about the phrase, and what it means?
It doesn't say "Don't offend me". It doesn't say "Don't refuse to give me what I feel I am owed". It says "Don't TREAD on me". It warns against an act of physical aggressive violence; an initiation of force.
The "Don't tread on me" flag is properly referred to as the Gadsden flag, and was named after Colonel Christopher Gadsden. The flag is believed to have originated in 1775 with Colonel Gadsden, who presented one of these flags to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. Hopkins then flew the flag from his ship, the Alfred.
Some people consider the Gadsden flag to be the real American flag. It's older than the USA, older than the "Stars and Stripes", and conveys the message that "live and let live" is how America was set up to operate.
It was the flag of an earlier time- a time before the official policy was to attempt to bomb people in other parts of the world into freedom, or to preserve the liberties of Americans by violating liberty here and abroad. A time before an imperial USA came into being. A time and a spirit long since violated by NSA spying, by socialized medicine, by US military bases in the majority of countries around the globe, by never-ending wars, and by an occupied America where "freedom" is an empty word uttered under the watchful eyes of those tasked with enforcing an unknowable number of petty "laws".
A time before being trod upon was official policy.
Perhaps that is why it resonates with so many today.
Of course, some people- who don't seem to really understand the message behind the flag- use it to show disdain for the current federal administration, not realizing the message applies just as surely to every US administration since at least Lincoln's.
"Don't tread on me" is the quintessential libertarian message. It is not a statement of aggressive intent, nor is it a passive surrender. It says "I will not come after you to cause you harm, but if you step on me I will take measures to defend myself".
I love seeing the Gadsden flag flying high, but even more than that, I love it when those flying it truly understand what the flag stands for. "Don't tread on me": it's more than just a flag.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 27, 2013)
You have seen the bright yellow flags sporting the coiled rattlesnake, with the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" boldly emblazoned across the bottom, but have you ever really thought about the phrase, and what it means?
It doesn't say "Don't offend me". It doesn't say "Don't refuse to give me what I feel I am owed". It says "Don't TREAD on me". It warns against an act of physical aggressive violence; an initiation of force.
The "Don't tread on me" flag is properly referred to as the Gadsden flag, and was named after Colonel Christopher Gadsden. The flag is believed to have originated in 1775 with Colonel Gadsden, who presented one of these flags to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. Hopkins then flew the flag from his ship, the Alfred.
Some people consider the Gadsden flag to be the real American flag. It's older than the USA, older than the "Stars and Stripes", and conveys the message that "live and let live" is how America was set up to operate.
It was the flag of an earlier time- a time before the official policy was to attempt to bomb people in other parts of the world into freedom, or to preserve the liberties of Americans by violating liberty here and abroad. A time before an imperial USA came into being. A time and a spirit long since violated by NSA spying, by socialized medicine, by US military bases in the majority of countries around the globe, by never-ending wars, and by an occupied America where "freedom" is an empty word uttered under the watchful eyes of those tasked with enforcing an unknowable number of petty "laws".
A time before being trod upon was official policy.
Perhaps that is why it resonates with so many today.
Of course, some people- who don't seem to really understand the message behind the flag- use it to show disdain for the current federal administration, not realizing the message applies just as surely to every US administration since at least Lincoln's.
"Don't tread on me" is the quintessential libertarian message. It is not a statement of aggressive intent, nor is it a passive surrender. It says "I will not come after you to cause you harm, but if you step on me I will take measures to defend myself".
I love seeing the Gadsden flag flying high, but even more than that, I love it when those flying it truly understand what the flag stands for. "Don't tread on me": it's more than just a flag.
.
Mor on cops
How did the police become so bad? How did they become the occupying army that America's founders warned about?
Cops were never intended to have any more liberty than anyone else. No special "rights" above and beyond what you or I have.
It's just not possible for one person (or "class" of people) to have rights not possessed by every other person.
They were first hired to do the low-class, messy work that lazy and irresponsible people didn't want to do for themselves. Things like stop aggressive attacks and theft. And track down those who did such things.
At first, in order to make their job easier, they were allowed to be outlaws- ignoring counterfeit "laws". I have no problem with that- I think everyone should always ignore counterfeit "laws" at every opportunity. But, cops were still told to enforce those "laws" against everyone else. That's not nice, and it's hypocrisy.
This dubious "plan" has gotten out of control. The "license" to be special enough to not be constrained by counterfeit "laws" wasn't enough for them. So, it didn't stop there. Now cops have been allowed to become outright criminals- violating laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.
Combined with the cowardice that defines how cops view you, it's a really dangerous situation. One that can't last.
Interesting times are in store.
.
Cops were never intended to have any more liberty than anyone else. No special "rights" above and beyond what you or I have.
It's just not possible for one person (or "class" of people) to have rights not possessed by every other person.
They were first hired to do the low-class, messy work that lazy and irresponsible people didn't want to do for themselves. Things like stop aggressive attacks and theft. And track down those who did such things.
At first, in order to make their job easier, they were allowed to be outlaws- ignoring counterfeit "laws". I have no problem with that- I think everyone should always ignore counterfeit "laws" at every opportunity. But, cops were still told to enforce those "laws" against everyone else. That's not nice, and it's hypocrisy.
This dubious "plan" has gotten out of control. The "license" to be special enough to not be constrained by counterfeit "laws" wasn't enough for them. So, it didn't stop there. Now cops have been allowed to become outright criminals- violating laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.
Combined with the cowardice that defines how cops view you, it's a really dangerous situation. One that can't last.
Interesting times are in store.
.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Cops are cowards
I have said it before, but it's important enough to say again. Cops are cowards.
This isn't just my opinion- there is plenty of evidence.
"Officer safety" being a giant neon sign, flashing in our faces every time one of those anointed cowards must face one of us, declaring in plain language just exactly how cowardly they all truly are.
But there are other clear signs, even if they all have "officer safety", physical or financial, at their root:
Hiding behind their gang anytime their twitchy trigger fingers get one of them in a bit of hot water. Or when they cause a car accident.
Holding lots of innocent people at gun point, and viciously assaulting them under the pretext of finding a bad guy.
Demanding that everyone around them be unarmed.
The armored vehicles, face-hiding SWAT gear, use of weapons prohibited to you and me, protection of personal information and privacy of cops whose violations make the news... it all adds up to one thing. Cowardice.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost every action a cop takes, when interacting with non-cops, is motivated by cowardice.
This will be a self-fulfilling fear.
The more cowardly cops become (as hard as it is to believe, they probably can become more cowardly) the more real reason they will have to fear you and me.
The more innocent people who are murdered in the course of enforcing counterfeit "laws", the more people who are raped or beaten during a "routine traffic stop", the more people who are held at gun point because someone else in the area shot one of those LEOs- the more people will begin to hate cops.
There is only so much abuse peaceable people will tolerate. You and I are not the problem here. Unless you, too, are a coward and support the cowardly badge thugs. The realists who see cops for what they really are will probably never be a majority- too many copsuckers out there. But it won't take a majority. And then the cops can point to the incidents as justification- claim their cowardice isn't cowardice, but prudence.
Added: And don't forget the reasons I don't like cops, and roll my eyes at those who do.
Also: Mor on cops
.
This isn't just my opinion- there is plenty of evidence.
"Officer safety" being a giant neon sign, flashing in our faces every time one of those anointed cowards must face one of us, declaring in plain language just exactly how cowardly they all truly are.
But there are other clear signs, even if they all have "officer safety", physical or financial, at their root:
Hiding behind their gang anytime their twitchy trigger fingers get one of them in a bit of hot water. Or when they cause a car accident.
Holding lots of innocent people at gun point, and viciously assaulting them under the pretext of finding a bad guy.
Demanding that everyone around them be unarmed.
The armored vehicles, face-hiding SWAT gear, use of weapons prohibited to you and me, protection of personal information and privacy of cops whose violations make the news... it all adds up to one thing. Cowardice.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost every action a cop takes, when interacting with non-cops, is motivated by cowardice.
This will be a self-fulfilling fear.
The more cowardly cops become (as hard as it is to believe, they probably can become more cowardly) the more real reason they will have to fear you and me.
The more innocent people who are murdered in the course of enforcing counterfeit "laws", the more people who are raped or beaten during a "routine traffic stop", the more people who are held at gun point because someone else in the area shot one of those LEOs- the more people will begin to hate cops.
There is only so much abuse peaceable people will tolerate. You and I are not the problem here. Unless you, too, are a coward and support the cowardly badge thugs. The realists who see cops for what they really are will probably never be a majority- too many copsuckers out there. But it won't take a majority. And then the cops can point to the incidents as justification- claim their cowardice isn't cowardice, but prudence.
Added: And don't forget the reasons I don't like cops, and roll my eyes at those who do.
Also: Mor on cops
.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Obama's personal corpse collection
Someone else in the house was just watching a program about a kid with a terrible condition (primordial dwarfism) which usually results in death. One of the related problems is brain aneurysms which needs an MRI to diagnose, but she lives in Great Britain, with their socialized medical "care" that we are all supposed to be so envious of... and the government employees tasked with rationing medical services say she isn't eligible for an MRI because of her age.
So she'll probably die early because some bureaucrat - or a whole flock of them- is doing to health care in the UK what ObamaCare is plotting to do to health care in America.
And socialized medicine is SO wonderful.... "Free health care!" "Shouldn't America provide health care like all the other First World countries do?" "Why do you hate sick people who can't afford health care?"
The corpses will begin to pile up as soon as this "system" goes into effect. Just as they have everywhere else that socialized heath "care" has been imposed. Regardless of the lies told by the advocates of socialism.
Those deaths will be blood on the hands of every government employee who advocates this disaster, and on every congresscritter who just "went along" to appear to be "reasonable". And on every opinionator who parrots the socialist, collectivist lies that make socialized "medicine" seem anything other than barbaric.
Maybe we should start referring to corpses as "ObamaSpawn".
Separation of science, especially medicine, and state!
.
So she'll probably die early because some bureaucrat - or a whole flock of them- is doing to health care in the UK what ObamaCare is plotting to do to health care in America.
And socialized medicine is SO wonderful.... "Free health care!" "Shouldn't America provide health care like all the other First World countries do?" "Why do you hate sick people who can't afford health care?"
The corpses will begin to pile up as soon as this "system" goes into effect. Just as they have everywhere else that socialized heath "care" has been imposed. Regardless of the lies told by the advocates of socialism.
Those deaths will be blood on the hands of every government employee who advocates this disaster, and on every congresscritter who just "went along" to appear to be "reasonable". And on every opinionator who parrots the socialist, collectivist lies that make socialized "medicine" seem anything other than barbaric.
Maybe we should start referring to corpses as "ObamaSpawn".
Separation of science, especially medicine, and state!
.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Appearance of non-compliance
Have you ever noticed all the ridiculous "laws" that are passed when people find ways around the previous "laws"? Or, when the previous "laws" fail to do as advertised? Or, when it's more profitable to fine people than to reward the change in behavior that was the excuse for passing the "law" to begin with?
What am I talking about? "Laws" such as ...
Banning electronic "cigarettes".
Ticketing people for "rolling through" a stop sign.
Just for a couple of examples.
It's not about health or safety- it's about compliance. Rather, it's about stopping the appearance of non-compliance. And, it's about using that appearance of non-compliance as a way to steal even more money from even more people. It's the work of disgustingly evil people. From those who clamor for the "laws", to those who agree with them. And those who write the "laws", pass the "laws", and- ultimately- to the worthless maggot fodder who enforces those "laws".
.
What am I talking about? "Laws" such as ...
Banning electronic "cigarettes".
Ticketing people for "rolling through" a stop sign.
Just for a couple of examples.
It's not about health or safety- it's about compliance. Rather, it's about stopping the appearance of non-compliance. And, it's about using that appearance of non-compliance as a way to steal even more money from even more people. It's the work of disgustingly evil people. From those who clamor for the "laws", to those who agree with them. And those who write the "laws", pass the "laws", and- ultimately- to the worthless maggot fodder who enforces those "laws".
.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Signing up with ObamaCare
Do you plan on signing up for ObamaCare?
To me it seems another example of "easier to avoid than to get out of".
Just think what would have happened if people had simply refused, in droves, to sign up for "driver's licenses" back when that was the new government demand.
Or, if most people had simply refused to file "tax" forms with the IRS, and most employers had ignored the demands to withhold "taxes" from their employees.
Now that both of those abominations are old news, long established "traditions", refusing to go along is "radical", and scary to most people. ObamaCare- if it survives- will be the same way. I'm thinking it will be easier to "neglect" to be pulled into the system than it would be to get out once you submit.
I'm not suggesting you announce your intentions publicly, but that you just think about what your choice will be.
.
To me it seems another example of "easier to avoid than to get out of".
Just think what would have happened if people had simply refused, in droves, to sign up for "driver's licenses" back when that was the new government demand.
Or, if most people had simply refused to file "tax" forms with the IRS, and most employers had ignored the demands to withhold "taxes" from their employees.
Now that both of those abominations are old news, long established "traditions", refusing to go along is "radical", and scary to most people. ObamaCare- if it survives- will be the same way. I'm thinking it will be easier to "neglect" to be pulled into the system than it would be to get out once you submit.
I'm not suggesting you announce your intentions publicly, but that you just think about what your choice will be.
.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Rose Wilder Lane in 2013
I've mentioned that I have been reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I just finished it. It's a great book, and I highly recommend it.
It is a very optimistic book. More so than history has shown was justified.
If I could travel freely through time I would love to go back and get Rose (she was quite a hottie!) and bring her back with me to 2013 and show her around, then get her take on what has happened.
She called the belief in authority a pagan superstition, but then she believed that the US Constitution would prevent - well, America in 2013- from ever happening, because of "the people". She thought they would never permit it. I think this is clearly another superstition, pagan or otherwise.
Near the end of the book she spoke of the tragedy of compulsory schooling (I refuse to call the indoctrination "education"). She knew it was anti-liberty and dangerous. Did she know how bad it would turn out to be? I wonder if she'd be surprised at how thoroughly its application has eliminated the expectation of freedom from most of its victims' minds. I also wonder if she'd be shocked that freedom wasn't the only casualty, but that literacy (in all areas) has been severely compromised as well.
The Constitution failed to do as she was confident it would. Few Americans know what freedom and liberty are anymore, and fewer still wish to be "burdened" with them. The pagan belief in "authority" seems to be back with a vengeance, and America's Rulers are pursuing a global empire, not of freedom, but of socialism and aggression.
It would be truly interesting to see if she'd still have the optimism she displayed in the book, or if she'd be looking beyond the next phase of the Revolution for hope.
.
It is a very optimistic book. More so than history has shown was justified.
If I could travel freely through time I would love to go back and get Rose (she was quite a hottie!) and bring her back with me to 2013 and show her around, then get her take on what has happened.
She called the belief in authority a pagan superstition, but then she believed that the US Constitution would prevent - well, America in 2013- from ever happening, because of "the people". She thought they would never permit it. I think this is clearly another superstition, pagan or otherwise.
Near the end of the book she spoke of the tragedy of compulsory schooling (I refuse to call the indoctrination "education"). She knew it was anti-liberty and dangerous. Did she know how bad it would turn out to be? I wonder if she'd be surprised at how thoroughly its application has eliminated the expectation of freedom from most of its victims' minds. I also wonder if she'd be shocked that freedom wasn't the only casualty, but that literacy (in all areas) has been severely compromised as well.
The Constitution failed to do as she was confident it would. Few Americans know what freedom and liberty are anymore, and fewer still wish to be "burdened" with them. The pagan belief in "authority" seems to be back with a vengeance, and America's Rulers are pursuing a global empire, not of freedom, but of socialism and aggression.
It would be truly interesting to see if she'd still have the optimism she displayed in the book, or if she'd be looking beyond the next phase of the Revolution for hope.
.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Property rights in their dog days
Property rights in their dog days
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 20, 2013)
The recent anti-property rights ordinance- disguised as a "pest control measure"- should hammer the point home that there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" (many of those advocating for this ordinance call themselves "conservatives") - there are only those who hunger to control others and take their property, and those who have no such compulsion.
You might be shocked to learn I would oppose any "law" that forbade property owners from eliminating prairie dogs on their own land just as passionately as I oppose this ordinance which criminalizes prairie dogs on private property. "Private property"? I suppose we can dispense with that illusion now.
Either "law" is wrong in the same way. Either you are forced to allow animals on your property or forced to kill them if they set foot on it. By advocating one position, you automatically legitimize the other side's position. You can't have it both ways, and trying to do so just furthers the growth of socialism.
It also brings to attention another inconvenient fact: you can't legitimately criminalize indigenous nature- although it has been attempted since the first control freak gained the power to enforce his whims on others, especially in the past century under the guise of "fighting drug abuse". Wild animals are wild. They are not under the control of property owners. No one can tell them to not trespass, and since trespass is a human concept, it would be ridiculous to try. Leave it to government to impose ridiculousness by edict.
Since private property owners are being burdened with the responsibility for the wildlife on their property, lets take a look at "poaching laws". If you are responsible for the wildlife on your land, then that wildlife is yours to do with as you see fit. No need to ask permission from anyone, or to get any sort of "license" or permit. Once again, you can't have it both ways.
Recently, in Colorado, some petty tyrants were thrown out of office for just this kind of legislative abuse. Will you continue to throw your support behind those who would violate your rights, or will you hold them accountable?
In my fondest dreams I imagine that silly overreach of this sort will be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" and get people to see the game for what it is. In reality, I know most people who oppose this violation of property rights will continue to justify the exact same type of acts against other people's property, as long as the stated goal is one with which they agree.
Where will you stand?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 20, 2013)
The recent anti-property rights ordinance- disguised as a "pest control measure"- should hammer the point home that there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" (many of those advocating for this ordinance call themselves "conservatives") - there are only those who hunger to control others and take their property, and those who have no such compulsion.
You might be shocked to learn I would oppose any "law" that forbade property owners from eliminating prairie dogs on their own land just as passionately as I oppose this ordinance which criminalizes prairie dogs on private property. "Private property"? I suppose we can dispense with that illusion now.
Either "law" is wrong in the same way. Either you are forced to allow animals on your property or forced to kill them if they set foot on it. By advocating one position, you automatically legitimize the other side's position. You can't have it both ways, and trying to do so just furthers the growth of socialism.
It also brings to attention another inconvenient fact: you can't legitimately criminalize indigenous nature- although it has been attempted since the first control freak gained the power to enforce his whims on others, especially in the past century under the guise of "fighting drug abuse". Wild animals are wild. They are not under the control of property owners. No one can tell them to not trespass, and since trespass is a human concept, it would be ridiculous to try. Leave it to government to impose ridiculousness by edict.
Since private property owners are being burdened with the responsibility for the wildlife on their property, lets take a look at "poaching laws". If you are responsible for the wildlife on your land, then that wildlife is yours to do with as you see fit. No need to ask permission from anyone, or to get any sort of "license" or permit. Once again, you can't have it both ways.
Recently, in Colorado, some petty tyrants were thrown out of office for just this kind of legislative abuse. Will you continue to throw your support behind those who would violate your rights, or will you hold them accountable?
In my fondest dreams I imagine that silly overreach of this sort will be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" and get people to see the game for what it is. In reality, I know most people who oppose this violation of property rights will continue to justify the exact same type of acts against other people's property, as long as the stated goal is one with which they agree.
Where will you stand?
.
You've lost the luxury of time
If you were a Jew (or any other "undesirable") in late 1930s Germany, would you have had the luxury to take the time to decide on an individual basis whether each person wearing a Nazi uniform, or displaying the swastika was your enemy? Not all were. But, as I say, would you have had the luxury of time to not make that assumption?
Would you have had time to sit down and talk to each one, individually, to see if perhaps they were really on your side before judging them? Or, would the uniform have been a pretty clear sign where their loyalty lay? Would you have been right to use that in-your-face display as justification for slitting uniformed throats in a back alley?
The time is past where you and I have the luxury of waiting around to see where the loyalty of each person in a cop uniform may lie. They have already chosen sides by continuing to wear the badge.
Many of those in military uniform may feel trapped and be afraid to quit, due to threats of violence that are the only way the military can keep many of its slaves enslaved, but a cop can quit his job this minute just by walking away, like from any other job- so each and every day he is on the "job" is another declaration of where he stands. Each day he shows up for work he is spitting in your face and holding a gun to your kids' heads.
They are only human, so don't let them get in the way of living your life, but keep track of where they are and don't let them sneak up behind you- so that if/when it becomes necessary, you will know where the threat lies and will be able to take care of it in a proper manner.
.
Would you have had time to sit down and talk to each one, individually, to see if perhaps they were really on your side before judging them? Or, would the uniform have been a pretty clear sign where their loyalty lay? Would you have been right to use that in-your-face display as justification for slitting uniformed throats in a back alley?
The time is past where you and I have the luxury of waiting around to see where the loyalty of each person in a cop uniform may lie. They have already chosen sides by continuing to wear the badge.
Many of those in military uniform may feel trapped and be afraid to quit, due to threats of violence that are the only way the military can keep many of its slaves enslaved, but a cop can quit his job this minute just by walking away, like from any other job- so each and every day he is on the "job" is another declaration of where he stands. Each day he shows up for work he is spitting in your face and holding a gun to your kids' heads.
They are only human, so don't let them get in the way of living your life, but keep track of where they are and don't let them sneak up behind you- so that if/when it becomes necessary, you will know where the threat lies and will be able to take care of it in a proper manner.
.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Keeping information safe
What are the bits of knowledge that you feel should be kept safe, written on actual paper in your home, just in case Google or other search engines decide (or are ordered to) suppress them?
I mean stuff like the "formula" for gun powder:
I mean stuff like the "formula" for gun powder:
75% potassium nitrate (KNO3), 15% charcoal, 10% sulfur.
Are there any things of that nature that you have written down just in case?
.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
A "care", I do not give
I find myself caring less each and every day about what the bad guys who call themselves "government" are doing.
It's odd, in a way, because I still enjoy writing about their stupid and evil ways, but for my own personal life, I'm really not caring too much what their silly demands are.
I try to avoid them, and if I can't I just view them as I would any other thief, thug, or bully. A fact of life, but one that I don't have to like or cooperate with.
I still notice the parasites when I see them out preying on their supposed bosses, of course.
But, I find myself less inclined to even consider their wishes.
Just a couple of days ago I shook my head in disgust at one of the local cops as he sat by my house, lying in wait for travelers who make the mistake of driving near the school in the mornings. After I did so (I was crossing the street near him) I thought "he might have seen that", but then I realized I just didn't care.
And, I had glared at this same cop- only a week or so on the "job" [sic] in this town- after he almost pulled right out in front of me as he was leaving the "cop shop" a week or so earlier. He had a dazed "deer in the headlights" look as he sat there about half way in the road and I had to drive around his Mobile Oppression Unit.
But, as far as what "laws" the vermin choose to try to impose- or occasionally relinquish- I can scarcely muster a "meh".
Part of that may be due to reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I really recommend the book- even if I do find it absurd that she starts out by speaking of how necessary government is, and then spends the rest of the book very effectively demolishing her own claim. And her descriptions of the "outlaw" heritage of humanity, doing what is right and necessary in spite of "laws" and Rulers, really speaks to me.
Part of it may be that life is more important than those who try to stand in its way. I have other things to worry about.
I'll keep exposing their failure, laughing at their absurdity, ignoring them when it pleases me, going along with their demands "just enough" when necessary, and defying them when I need to.
I think they are doomed. I really do.
.
It's odd, in a way, because I still enjoy writing about their stupid and evil ways, but for my own personal life, I'm really not caring too much what their silly demands are.
I try to avoid them, and if I can't I just view them as I would any other thief, thug, or bully. A fact of life, but one that I don't have to like or cooperate with.
I still notice the parasites when I see them out preying on their supposed bosses, of course.
But, I find myself less inclined to even consider their wishes.
Just a couple of days ago I shook my head in disgust at one of the local cops as he sat by my house, lying in wait for travelers who make the mistake of driving near the school in the mornings. After I did so (I was crossing the street near him) I thought "he might have seen that", but then I realized I just didn't care.
And, I had glared at this same cop- only a week or so on the "job" [sic] in this town- after he almost pulled right out in front of me as he was leaving the "cop shop" a week or so earlier. He had a dazed "deer in the headlights" look as he sat there about half way in the road and I had to drive around his Mobile Oppression Unit.
But, as far as what "laws" the vermin choose to try to impose- or occasionally relinquish- I can scarcely muster a "meh".
Part of that may be due to reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom". I really recommend the book- even if I do find it absurd that she starts out by speaking of how necessary government is, and then spends the rest of the book very effectively demolishing her own claim. And her descriptions of the "outlaw" heritage of humanity, doing what is right and necessary in spite of "laws" and Rulers, really speaks to me.
Part of it may be that life is more important than those who try to stand in its way. I have other things to worry about.
I'll keep exposing their failure, laughing at their absurdity, ignoring them when it pleases me, going along with their demands "just enough" when necessary, and defying them when I need to.
I think they are doomed. I really do.
.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
SHTF advice from Dirttime
Dirttime has had some excellent SHTF-type posts recently- and I suspect they may have more coming. Check these out, and watch for more.
Has The SHTF? You Betcha!
Hidden Inflation plus Greed equals Screw you
Subsistence Survival Re: The Stealth Poacher.
Added: another good one! In a Grid Down World
And another: Bartering
.
Has The SHTF? You Betcha!
Hidden Inflation plus Greed equals Screw you
Subsistence Survival Re: The Stealth Poacher.
Added: another good one! In a Grid Down World
And another: Bartering
.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Excuses, excuses.
I'm angry at myself right now.
I have come to realize I am the King of Excuses.
Do I make excuses for things I don't really want to do, or do I make excuses to keep from doing things I want to do but I'm afraid of trying because I am scared to succeed or fail?
Either way it makes me mad.
.
I have come to realize I am the King of Excuses.
Do I make excuses for things I don't really want to do, or do I make excuses to keep from doing things I want to do but I'm afraid of trying because I am scared to succeed or fail?
Either way it makes me mad.
.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Rejecting people’s negative vortex
Rejecting people’s negative vortex
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 13, 2013)
Negativity is a real problem in a lot of people's lives. If it's a sunny day they'll complain about sunburn or drought. If it rains, that's no better because it ruins their plans.
But sometimes a person will be blamed for being negative when all they really did was reject someone else's negative outlook. Don't mistake a person's rejection of your doom and gloom for negativity on their part. They may be seeing a better way.
Libertarians face this phenomenon all the time.
Which is more negative: to wallow in imagined victimhood, or to tell people they have the power to run their own lives? The apparent answer, judging by the response you'll get for pointing out the obvious, might surprise you.
For pointing out the negativity of the culture of helplessness and victimhood, and offering an uplifting alternative; for reminding people they don't have to wait for "laws" to change, or for politicians to lead them, but can start being more free right now; for insisting that voluntary choice is better than coercion, libertarians are condemned for being too "negative".
It would be funny if it didn't expose such a serious problem.
Is it "negative" to point out that if you don't eat, you'll eventually starve to death? Not at all. It's reality, and accepting reality can save lives.
Too many people seem to have an emotional attachment to their perceived problems. They don't want a solution; they want sympathy, or company in their misery. Their problems are familiar and comfortable.
If it makes you feel better to wallow in hopelessness and despair, I won't try to stop you. If you want to continue chasing your tail in an endless cycle of doing the same thing and expecting a different result, who am I to try to convince you to do something more constructive, or to even sit down and relax? But I don't want to join you, either.
If you see the futility of propping up the status quo, and would prefer to try something that can actually make life better today and into tomorrow, take a chance and reject coercion, reject theft, and embrace voluntary association and self-responsibility.
On the other hand, if you do make a positive change and refuse to get sucked into other people's negative vortex, you'll be called "Utopian". The truth is somewhere between Utopia and Washington DC, but that isn't dramatic enough, I suppose.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 13, 2013)
Negativity is a real problem in a lot of people's lives. If it's a sunny day they'll complain about sunburn or drought. If it rains, that's no better because it ruins their plans.
But sometimes a person will be blamed for being negative when all they really did was reject someone else's negative outlook. Don't mistake a person's rejection of your doom and gloom for negativity on their part. They may be seeing a better way.
Libertarians face this phenomenon all the time.
Which is more negative: to wallow in imagined victimhood, or to tell people they have the power to run their own lives? The apparent answer, judging by the response you'll get for pointing out the obvious, might surprise you.
For pointing out the negativity of the culture of helplessness and victimhood, and offering an uplifting alternative; for reminding people they don't have to wait for "laws" to change, or for politicians to lead them, but can start being more free right now; for insisting that voluntary choice is better than coercion, libertarians are condemned for being too "negative".
It would be funny if it didn't expose such a serious problem.
Is it "negative" to point out that if you don't eat, you'll eventually starve to death? Not at all. It's reality, and accepting reality can save lives.
Too many people seem to have an emotional attachment to their perceived problems. They don't want a solution; they want sympathy, or company in their misery. Their problems are familiar and comfortable.
If it makes you feel better to wallow in hopelessness and despair, I won't try to stop you. If you want to continue chasing your tail in an endless cycle of doing the same thing and expecting a different result, who am I to try to convince you to do something more constructive, or to even sit down and relax? But I don't want to join you, either.
If you see the futility of propping up the status quo, and would prefer to try something that can actually make life better today and into tomorrow, take a chance and reject coercion, reject theft, and embrace voluntary association and self-responsibility.
On the other hand, if you do make a positive change and refuse to get sucked into other people's negative vortex, you'll be called "Utopian". The truth is somewhere between Utopia and Washington DC, but that isn't dramatic enough, I suppose.
.
"The Discovery of Freedom"
I've been reading Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom" and made a discovery of my own.
The entire book can be distilled down to one Malcolm Reynolds quote: "That's what governments are for- get in a man's way".
You're welcome.
.
The entire book can be distilled down to one Malcolm Reynolds quote: "That's what governments are for- get in a man's way".
You're welcome.
.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Libertarian badassery
I believe it's already "badass" to be libertarian, but others may not quite see it that way. So what would libertarian badassery look like?
First, there would be adherence to the Zero Aggression Principle- that part is non-negotiable- but beyond that would be a determination to not stand for any violations of non-aggression in your presence. An effective knight in shining armor for anyone around who is being violated by an aggressor or thief.
Next would be a determination to not violate property rights of others in any way. The ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.
However, both the above should always be tempered with the wisdom to know that while you don't have a right to initiate force nor to trespass, you must do what you think you need to do in the present situation and accept the consequences that come when you step beyond your bounds. This means that if you see a kid about to be hit by a falling tree on someone else's property, you go ahead and boldly trespass and grab the kid and then accept the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. Let others second-guess and criticize.
There would also be the confidence to do what you know you have a right to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary, but combined with the wisdom to pick your battles. Don't martyr yourself unnecessarily or in a wasteful manner. If you get caught up in the State's "system" due to doing right and good things they forbid- or failing to do stupid and wrong things they mandate- have a decision already made concerning how you will respond to that possibility. Submit or fight as you see fit, not as others would tell you to do. Either strategy can be the right course, and whichever you choose will be criticized by those not in your shoes.
Then, and I hate to say it, would be the incorporation of an inner strength to not preach at statists. A quiet confidence that "thugs will be thugs", and yapping about it to them isn't likely to change their nature.
Yeah, that's not me, either.
.
First, there would be adherence to the Zero Aggression Principle- that part is non-negotiable- but beyond that would be a determination to not stand for any violations of non-aggression in your presence. An effective knight in shining armor for anyone around who is being violated by an aggressor or thief.
Next would be a determination to not violate property rights of others in any way. The ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.
However, both the above should always be tempered with the wisdom to know that while you don't have a right to initiate force nor to trespass, you must do what you think you need to do in the present situation and accept the consequences that come when you step beyond your bounds. This means that if you see a kid about to be hit by a falling tree on someone else's property, you go ahead and boldly trespass and grab the kid and then accept the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. Let others second-guess and criticize.
There would also be the confidence to do what you know you have a right to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary, but combined with the wisdom to pick your battles. Don't martyr yourself unnecessarily or in a wasteful manner. If you get caught up in the State's "system" due to doing right and good things they forbid- or failing to do stupid and wrong things they mandate- have a decision already made concerning how you will respond to that possibility. Submit or fight as you see fit, not as others would tell you to do. Either strategy can be the right course, and whichever you choose will be criticized by those not in your shoes.
Then, and I hate to say it, would be the incorporation of an inner strength to not preach at statists. A quiet confidence that "thugs will be thugs", and yapping about it to them isn't likely to change their nature.
Yeah, that's not me, either.
.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
If not "Stand your ground"- what?
The opposite of stand your ground? Crawl away like a bitty little bug.
That's what your enemies- the anti-liberty, anti-LIFE bigots want you to do. And if you die... well, too bad. At least you didn't use a gun.
.
That's what your enemies- the anti-liberty, anti-LIFE bigots want you to do. And if you die... well, too bad. At least you didn't use a gun.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)