Begging enforcers to molest you no further

I have said before I don't believe in "magic words"- the incantations which will make thugs calling themselves "authority" drop you like a hot potato covered in fire ants infected with plague, and back away to let you live in peace.

A while back, somewhere, I saw a suggestion of the only thing recommended to say to an enforcer who tries to get you to speak. I don't know... maybe it is a good idea. I present it here, along with my parenthetical comments, for your consideration.

"With all due respect, officer ['all due' being zero], I [they inserted 'wish to' here. No, I don't 'wish' anything of the sort. I either do or I do not] assert my 4th and 5th Amendment rights [and, obviously the inalienable Human Rights those are a weak reflection of]. I do not answer questions from 'law enforcement' without my attorney present, nor do I agree to a search of my person or property. I would like to go now. Am I free to go?"

It sounds like groveling and begging to me, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But blood toasted by high voltage might taste worse. Anytime you are dealing with a power-mad coward who is consumed with paranoia, and armed, the slightest hesitation to lick his boots can result in summary execution. Decide for yourself what you are willing to do to survive another day.

.

American power lies in Constitution

American power lies in Constitution

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 17, 2014. This is the column I was referring to as "any chair in a bar fight".)

Have you been taught, or come to believe on your own, that Romans 13 tells you to obey the government official and all the rules he imposes?

If so, you have been tragically misled.

In America, "the powers that be" reside not in any person or group of people, but only in the US Constitution- as written for the average person to understand, not as "interpreted" by judges. If you feel you should follow Romans 13, the Constitution is where your obedience belongs.

Not with the president, congress, Supreme Court, local police, nor any local politician or bureaucrat- no person at all. Nor with the vast majority of "laws".

Those who insist you obey anything or anyone outside the Constitution are exposing themselves as not "of God" nor "ordained of God", but instead as the enemy of everything which is. By becoming a "terror to good works" they expose their true nature and have chosen to side with evil.

If a rule, that which most people would incorrectly refer to as a "law", violates the clear intent of the US Constitution by addressing something not specifically listed in the Constitution as a legitimate area for government authority, that "law" is not a "law" at all, and you are under no moral obligation to obey it. That, unfortunately, encompasses almost every "law" you find yourself facing on a daily basis.

Of course, Natural Law trumps the US Constitution every time the two conflict, but that's a topic for another day.

Real Law is discovered; fake "laws" are written. You already know you shouldn't attack people or steal from them; no law is necessary to tell you those things are wrong. Just about anything else is a fake "law"; what I refer to as a "rule" or "counterfeit law"- it uses legal language, is enforced, but it has no foundation. It is built on sand to violate your liberty for the power and profit of those who seek to control you and your property. You are not breaking Romans 13 by refusing to comply, rather you are scrupulously respecting it.

As long as a government employee is upholding the Constitution and not imposing counterfeit "laws" on you or anyone else, you can obey him with a clear conscience. But, if he is overstepping his authority and demanding you obey arbitrary rules under threat of force, you'd be better off being an "outlaw". When "laws" are wrong, good people break them. If your pastor won't remind you of this truth, I will.

.

Back to those two kinds of people

Continuing on yesterday's topic:

I don't care if you smoke pot, want to marry someone of the same gender, run a meth lab, be a cop, carry an AK-47 through the mall, call yourself the High-Falutin' Potentate of Planet Earth (or the President of the United States), obsess over the evils of the Demon Rum, eat only vegetables or only meat, speak English, Spanish, or Klingon, treat the sick. I don't care what shade of skin you wear, whether you have tattoos, piercings, or horn implants, rent your "favors", watch pornography or Disney cartoons, open a business, drive an SUV, listen to Justin What's-His-Name, or believe in borders, unicorns, and faeries. Those things are of little importance compared to what really matters.

The only thing that matters in the real world is that you don't use force against those who are not attacking you or violating your private property, physically, and that you don't violate the private property of others. Anything and everything else is your business, not mine. Even if I don't like it and it "offends" me.

You can be a Democrat, Republican, Communist, Fluffy-Wuffy, or any other flavor of Statist, and as long as you don't corner me where I need to defend myself (including my property) from your violations (or defend some other innocent person from the same) we can get along OK, whether we like one another or not. Why is that so hard for Statists to accept?

I would be perfectly content to let you go about your business in peace. Yet, that is almost the textbook definition- or at least the primary identifying feature- of a Statist: they can't permit others the same leeway. That is dead wrong.

.

Two Americas? Yes, but not the two some see

I was forwarded an email yesterday which I responded to, but I want to respond here as well.  It is about "The Two Americas"

THE TWO AMERICAS

****************************

By Bob Lonsberry

Email:  Bob@Lonsberry.com

Call:  (585) 222-1180

On air:  8:30am - 12pm

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, 

a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM , 

said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":

*************************************************************
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

So, I responded:

He missed the mark.

Yes, there are "dos and don'ts", but there are a lot of things that shouldn't be done. Doing them isn't right. If your "duty as Americans" includes you supporting aggression or theft, you shouldn't do your "duty". If the "law" is wrong, you are wrong to obey it. The best way to "contribute to society" is to live without theft or aggression and respect the liberty of every other person to do whatever doesn't violate anyone else, even if you hate what they choose to do. Your one and ONLY "civic responsibility" is to respect and promote rightful liberty. The Democrats have not cornered the market as the "political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office... that loves power more than it loves its country"- Republicans are just as guilty.

"That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you." Or Bush. Or the next president/congresscritter/whoever. It doesn't matter if the theft is called Medicaid, SSDI, "National Security", farm subsidies, INS, etc. If you are taking money from those who earned it, and giving it to those who didn't- and that includes anyone working for any government that I did not consent to finance doing anything I didn't explicitly ask them to do on my behalf- you are rationalizing thievery.

"It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values..." You mean like Jefferson's "Rightful Liberty"?

"The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, 'The harder you work, the more you get.'" Unless you are working hard at something that American Christian Sharia Law has decided you shouldn't do. Such as grow and sell certain plants. Or rent your body. Or open a bar without government permission and meddling oversight. Or anything without all that red tape, regulation, and "taxation".

"What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow." Agreed. Just like the different flavor of socialism offered by the Republicans.

So, yes, there are two Americas- two worlds, really. It's not the "haves and have nots" or the "dos and don'ts". It's not the "liberals/progressives and the conservatives" or the "Democrats and Republicans". It is those who seek the power (and believe- falsely- they have the "authority") to control the non-coercive, non-thieving lives of others and those who don't. Robert A. Heinlein may have said it best: "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I stand with Liberty. Even when it's inconvenient.

In other words, the advocacy presented in the email is that of the typical "conservative" socialist.  The collective reigns supreme when its "needs" conflict with the needs of the individual.  A rather disgusting, cowardly world-view, if you ask me.

I realize there were a great many more points I could have addressed.  But, I was needing to hit the road for another project which I will present to you in a day or two- or a few.

Yes, I did CC the author, along with the guy who forwarded the email, in my response. I suppose I'll see if he responds.

.

S.W.A.T.ted, but in a good way.

If any of you subscribe to S.W.A.T. (Survival Weapons and Tactics) Magazine, or if you have a news stand nearby which carries it, you might check out Claire Wolfe's "Enemy at the Gate" column (which isn't online) in the March 2014 issue. It's titled "We, The Rattlesnake" and at the end of the column, in the bottom left corner of page 88, you will find a photo of a rather familiar flag. Just above that, in the last paragraph, there is also mention of a particular scoundrel you may have heard of.

Thanks, Claire!

.

Infighting helps the bad guys

It bothers me when I see liberty advocates fighting among themselves.

It's bad enough when libertarians and "liberty-leaning" statists fight over the things they disagree about rather than coming together where they agree, but when real liberty lovers fight over different personality styles or different areas of focus it is really upsetting. And when one side is tossing liberty aside for "the greater good" (whatever they may call it), it distracts people from watching those who have declared themselves to be the true enemies of liberty (and those who seek it).  In other words, it's dangerous.

I see it happen all the time, as I'm sure you do.

Facebook seems to be the arena where those petty disagreements are publicly aired the most, but I've seen it elsewhere.

I know I have done the same, but it's stupid. I am trying to learn to shut up when one liberty lover publicly disagrees with another, and factions form behind each. It seems so very collectivist, or even statist.

And when the disagreement- which may be perfectly valid, and one side may be totally wrong- gets to the point where the sides are saying nasty things about the people on the opposing side, rather than about the wrong-headed idea- it makes me sick.

Liberty is important. The ZAP is essential. Theft is wrong. No "job" can justify any of the bad stuff, even if it might seem useful to ignore the Principles for the moment. Keep focused on the real issue. The issue isn't The State"- it's the violation of rights, and whoever violates rights, no matter their flimsy justification.

But, if you are faced with a liberty lover who for some reason seems to be advocating going soft on evil, violating principles, or otherwise throwing liberty under the bus for "pragmatic" reasons, try your very best to not attack him or her while pointing out why their idea is wrong. Give them a chance to learn by your better example. And don't give the real troublemakers something to use against liberty lovers and liberty.

.

Ignoring dumb and dangerous rules

I'm happy that so many Connecticut gun owners are ignoring the new anti-liberty rules. I'm happy that so few New York residents are ratting out their gun owning neighbors to the "authorities" for not complying with that state's new anti-liberty rules. It seems that silly rules are being ignored by growing numbers of people.

I could be bothered that anyone complies at all, but you'll always have a percentage of people who can't bring themselves to disobey what they see as "legitimate orders" coming from "legitimate authority". Poor fools. Watch these people, and don't turn your back toward them unless you are knife proof.

Of course, there may be some people who- due to previous compliance or circumstances- are already in too deep to simply ignore orders. They eyes of the Stasi may already be on them. You'd probably be better off not being too close to these people, either. The State's aim isn't precise, and they really wouldn't mind getting two birds with one shot anyway.

Back to the happy news, it seems that growing numbers of people are finding it easy to ignore new rules.  Or too troublesome to comply. Maybe I'm just seeing it the way I want to, but when more and more people choose to join the Outlaws it makes me happy. Does this mean I want rampant lawlessness? Yes. When those "laws" are counterfeit I like to see everyone ignore them. Real law is discovered; fake "law" is written. Ignore the fake "laws" every chance you get. It will make you a better person.

.

Call for donations (But read this first)

(The newer posts will be below this one for a couple of days.)

If you have donated to me (and this blog and my website) before, this isn't to you. You can stop reading now.

If, however, you haven't ever donated, and you can and would like to, please do. I have a big expense related to this KentForLiberty activism which is coming up next week, and no money.  Use the buttons to the right.  --->

Thank you for your help and consideration.

.

Pontificating on what you don't understand

Every so often, I'll experience the joy of having a statist telling me what I "really believe", or what I "really want".

And they are always terribly off-base in their assessment.

Usually it is because they don't understand the first thing about Rightful Liberty.

Often it is because they also don't understand that protecting the rights of others to do anything that doesn't initiate force or take the property of others doesn't mean I necessarily want to all do the things humans have a right to do. There are some things we each have the right to do that I have no interest in doing- I might even think some of those things are "wrong"- at least for me, personally. But "wrong" doesn't mean it should be "illegal", or that goons with guns should come cage you for doing it.

Because, as much as it may pain some people (down in the comments) to hear it, all "laws" are either unnecessary or harmful. You can't make things better by making up a "law".  Vices can never be real universal wrongs.

But, facing this truth doesn't mean I want to see the destruction of civilization, either.  Quite the contrary.  I want to see the State- the most uncivilized mental problem ever to take root in the brain of humankind- taken out of the equation, so that civilization can flourish.  I don't want everyone running around, given in to their "animal natures"; raping, killing, stealing, etc.  Nope.  I want to end the most disgusting excuse ever dreamed up for doing all those evil things. That is why I advocate liberty. That is why I am an enemy of the (thugs who call themselves the) State.

What about you?

.

Wrong far different than illegal

Wrong far different than illegal

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 10, 2014)

A constitutional amendment defining marriage, in any way, would be wrong; an egregious example of government overreach. It would be the moral equivalent of Sharia Law; just because it happens to support your religious ideals doesn't change that fact. Once you claim it is right to base laws on your religion, and apply those laws to people of different beliefs just because their behavior offends you, you are opening the door for those who have different, or even adversarial, beliefs to do the same to you. Is that really a door you wish to open even wider?

Constitutions should only exist to prevent governments from infringing on individual liberty by limiting what government employees, rules, and laws are permitted to do, not to give them more latitude to violate some minority. To use the constitution to make a political statement or to express your solidarity with religious beliefs is to abuse it.

Nowhere does the Constitution give government the authority to define, ration, or regulate marriage. This is another example of the overwhelming number of things which are not within governmental authority. No one's marriage needs the state as the third, and superior, spouse.

The lack of such an amendment isn't forcing anyone to do anything, which would be wrong, but passing that amendment would result in forbidding others from doing something that doesn't involve you; something purely voluntary and none of your business. Which is also wrong.

It doesn't matter if you write a constitutional amendment to legalize the violation or marginalization of some individuals and their consensual relationships, it will still be wrong. Chattel slavery used to be "legal", too, as were FDR's Japanese Internment Camps.

No law can make right something which is wrong- which, ironically, is the same argument the opponents of the new laws granting marriage freedom seem to be using. This should make it obvious that right and wrong are completely separate from legal and illegal. Aggressive violence and theft are the proper purview of laws; absolutely nothing else is or can ever be. Even if you consider something a sin you have no authority to outlaw it as long as it doesn't violate the person or property of a third person- vices can never legitimately be crimes.

I find it very sad that the idea of writing a new rule defining marriage in the state constitution is so popular around the region. What ever happened to being neighborly and keeping your nose out of other people's business? I guess only radicals such as myself still believe in that virtue.
.

Evil is additive

Most individuals are decent. I have rarely been violated by individuals acting independently.  Sure, it has happened, but it is a rare thing.

On the other hand, almost every time I have been violated in some way, it is by individuals who have joined some group which they believe gives them justification for their antisocial behavior. 

Groups are much more likely to cause evil behavior in the individuals who identify with the group. And, it seems evil is much more likely to be additive.

Would you kick in your neighbor's door in the middle of the night, shoot his dogs, stomp the kitten, slap his wife, hold his kids at gun point, and kidnap him- or murder him if he resists- over a plant?  What about if you join a group that preaches that this is part of "doing your job"?

Doing the exact same thing, with the exact same results, depends on your membership in a cult. As an independent individual you are called a criminal- but as part of the group, you are called a "hero". About the only thing that can overcome the "hero" status is if you happen to be opposed by a more popular violent cult.

You have absorbed and added to the cumulative evil of your gang.

.

Infested!

Just sitting, watching cars drive past, and noticing how many of them are cop cars. Disgusting!

I know no one needs cops. But, pretending for a moment that their "job" (cough, cough) is legitimate and "necessary", I can still say this with confidence: No town* ever needs more than three cops. (Yes, fewer- zero- would be better, but we're pretending here.)

If there were an event that "required" a cop, one would suffice in most instances, and I doubt there would be more than one incident occurring simultaneously in a town where cops didn't violate the fundamental human right to own and to carry effective firearms of modern design- but if the improbable happened, three cops could back each other up in an extreme situation. Not that it would be needed if cops didn't make themselves the enemy of people in the community, because in that case every passerby would be armed and willing to come to the defense of anyone in need- even a cop. Cops are a huge part of the reason that doesn't happen much today.

But, any town where you can sit for a few minutes and see multiple cop cars driving past is infested with them.  It's the opposite of a "civilized" place.

.
*I'm talking about a regular town, not a Super-Sized MegaCity- but the observation still holds true no matter the size of the town- you should never see multiple cop cars in a few hour window of time. They should be an exceptionally rare sight- if you ever see one at all.

Open season on thugs?

I wish.  Because it should be, and in a free society, would be.

But, at least the guy who was arrested for "capital murder" when he shot a dangerous, armed, home invader who happened to wear a badge won't be facing the Texas "justice" (Ha!) system's death squad.

As for the dead badge bully: good riddance to bad trash.  I wish more of your "brothers" would face justice like you did.

As I have said before, every single time one of these home invasions is carried out, at least some of the invaders need to die.  Every single time, even if the raid is based upon some actual wrong and I would support taking action otherwise.  Because the cost of letting these badged thugs get away with this is much too high.  They need to know that one of their group won't be going home after the raid every time they suit up and make the choice to kick in a door.  Only then will they weigh the cost of being thugs and see the cost of their evil behavior is high.  Perhaps some will even recognize the results are worse than what they are fighting, and just maybe, if they are smart- or have a will to survive- they will stop acting like thuggish cowardly parasites and go back to being simply cowardly parasites.  That would be an improvement.

Perhaps then, knowing death awaits would make it not worth the cost to kick in doors and violate people over plants- or meth.  Or guns.  Or anything.  A man's home is his castle, and invaders need to take a boiling oil shower.  If they are doing something actually really bad inside, then it would be worth losing a few rescuers to save someone- and saving an innocent is the ONLY thing that would be worth it.

Of course, in this recent case the nasty and brutish copsuckers still insist that the innocent man's ongoing problems are a result of him choosing to possess plants and guns, and if he hadn't, none of this would have happened, so they intend to punish him as harshly as they can get away with for those non-wrongs.  Which shows that it's not only the home invaders who need to suffer the rightful consequences of their evil behavior.

Hat tip
.

TEA Partiers are so cute and silly!

Ah, the disconnect from reality that some people manage to navigate.

I got this picture from Facebook, and found it hilarious.

Don't "TEA Partiers" realize that if the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually became the "culture" it would negate all the rest of that wish list?

If they actually obeyed those documents it would mean

• the borders would remain as open as they were in 1791, 
• there would be no "official language" and no mechanism for imposing one,
• no prohibition of any kind- along with no "welfare" (no "freebies" for anyone)
• no term limits for any puppetician

I don't believe a "balanced budget" would result, but I know "tax reform" would happen, since the income tax is, and always has been, illegal.

Here would be my alternative wish list:

• Obama:  Who cares?- No president
• Borders: No borders except private property lines
• Language: No "official language"
• Culture: ZAP and Covenant of Unanimous Consent
• Drug Free [sic]: No free drugs unless someone gives them away voluntarily.  No prohibition of any kind, and no welfare; only charity, which you can give or deny for any reason or whim
• No freebies to: Anyone, unless it is given voluntarily
• No budget, unless financed through voluntary donations
• No "taxes"
• No congress or senate

And who cares how many "send this on" or how many I believe "should"?

.

Libertarian humor

I would like some libertarian jokes for an upcoming CNJ column.

That means they have to be "family friendly". I would prefer nothing mean-spirited, either.

It would probably be best not to come up with original material, since it probably won't be credited. I can do a search for some- and I probably will- but have you read any that amused you particularly?

If you'd like to join in, leave a comment with the joke.

Thanks.

.

Stealth wisdom

I saw these quotes yesterday (from here), and they made me think.

“I have always observed that to succeed in the world one should appear like a fool but be wise.” — Montesquieu 

“It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish.” — Aeschylus 

“All wisdom is folly that does not accommodate itself to the common ignorance.” — Montaigne

I have never been good at that- having far too little patience with stupidity. I need to work on that.

I suppose what those quotes are talking about is being sneaky; not standing out to attract negative attention so that- just maybe- people will listen to what you have to say.

It is all about "fitting in", which I have never been any good at.

When I was a teenager I went through a couple of spells where I wanted to fit it. It never succeeded for long. I would make a comment and have people looking at me as it I were an alien whose human mask had just fallen off. Usually the masquerade would end when someone would say "You're weird."

Come to think of it, some people still tell me that.

.

Coercion a human-created problem

Coercion a human-created problem

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 3, 2014)

I have learned that most people don't want solutions. They want temporary stop-gaps that make them feel a little better because they are "doing something" without really examining the status quo. All they are really doing is allowing the problem to grow larger and more dire after having been kicked down the road for someone in the future to deal with. Is that future person you next year, or your kid twenty years from now? Neither situation is good.

This habit of avoiding the issues is very destructive, but doing the exact opposite of what should be done is even worse. If their boat is sinking because it has a big hole in the bottom, most would rather bail with a spoon, or look the other way, than switch boats. And a significant percentage of people insist on drilling more holes in the bottom to "let the water out".

Every week I see news story after news story where a government-created problem is the topic, and the "solution" proposed is invariably more government. Sorry, but reality just doesn't work that way.

Whenever there is a problem, and government proposes to fix it by passing "laws", you can be sure of two things: The problem will not be fixed, and there will be unintended consequences that create even more problems which will inspire new "laws". Unless you break the cycle it will keep spiraling out of control.

Just a few examples of this destructive cycle in action are the problems of prison overcrowding, drug abuse, violent crime, school shootings, and the economy. Every one of these problems is made worse, if not created entirely, through government action and "laws".

The existence of these problems causes statists (those who believe running other people's lives through legislation and enforcement is a legitimate activity) to call for more "laws" to fix the problems their meddling created in the first place.

At the root, coercion, no matter who uses it, is the one real human-created problem. Of all the problems in the world, the only ones that can really be stopped before they begin are coercion and theft committed by people. Anyone who commits these acts against others needs to be exposed and opposed.

Your part of the solution is to refuse to initiate force and reject theft as a way to get what you want, and remind everyone that self defense is always their right. The only real solution begins with you and me.

.

"Fanging myself"

Wow, I'm miserable today.

Nothing is going right. Every technological thing I touch is giving me trouble. The cats are wreaking havoc in the house. I did everything wrong this morning, according to my daughter. It's icy, misty, and cold and I'm going to have to ride my bike (or walk) to the post office anyway, because today I have to go before the window closes because of an obligation. And I don't really enjoy the journey in town even when the weather is nice.

And there are the same old problems that seem to never vary, unless they get worse.

But, I realize that most of my misery is coming from inside myself.  My attitude probably makes things seem worse than they are.  What do they say?  "Looking at life through s#*t colored glasses"?  It's just "one of those days".

I can almost laugh at myself over this.  Almost.

.

Misjudging your intended target

I have missed out on some things in the past couple of days. I have some weird thing going on where my computer will not display Facebook, Youtube, or Google and this means I have missed out on most of the firestorm over the Coke commercial.

Apparently, during some widely-televised game, Coke aired an advertisement where some State hymn (reports vary as to which one) was sung in some language(s) other than English (Spanish was mentioned with particular vehemence) and had verses added which were apparently "Islam-friendly". Or something... as I say, I haven't seen the ad and am only going by the garbled and semi-literate rants I have managed to read.

So people are bothered by the fact that a State hymn was sung in other languages, and may or may not have tried to include adherents of various religions in the worship- but not that the hymn was sung at all? Strange critters, these humans.

I don't watch sports of any kind. Never cared for them at all- even manage to hate them when they get rubbed in my face. Neither do I worship States of any sort. The enemy of all humans is coercion and theft- any coercion and theft- and since goons who work for States are the worst offenders (though not the only ones) I hold a particular dislike for those nasty and brutish organizations.

I drink Coke on occasion, although Dr Pepper is my vice of choice. I have found their advertisements to be amusing in the past- although not all were to my taste. I understand they were trying to reach out to the State worshipers with State hymns, but to do it in "other languages" when those State worshipers are going through a phase (which has outlasted its humorous life by several years) wherein they hate and despise anyone not a Red-Blooded "American" (by which they mean a USAcan who speaks only American English in the popular way, waves the federal flag, cheers the invasion of other places- and the murders of the defenders- around the globe by federal troops, and wants the borders to protect him from "those people") probably was a bad call- they didn't understand their target demographic at all.

It's like trying to speak to anarchists by telling us voting is our patriotic duty.

Or, maybe I'm missing the whole point by being somewhat out of touch due to my computer's whimsical behavior.

.
Thanks for your support, and please consider helping if you can.

.

Changing rules

Playing games with my daughter is an educational experience.  She likes to win (as do I).  So she makes up rules arbitrarily as we play. The rules keep changing to give her the advantage.  And I violate those rules as fast as she makes them.

I hope she learns something.

Not that I "cheat", but that rules which are arbitrary and changed on a whim have no validity.

If we both agree on the rules of the game, or a rule change, I go along willingly.  The other rule changes I ignore while she declares herself the "winner" because I violated her "rule".  I would expect her to do the same if our roles were reversed, and some day I may try to introduce my own arbitrarily changing rules in the hopes she does the same to them.

.

Thanks for the support, and please consider it if you can.
.