Don't be a bully!

A friend sent me this helpful information from a government website:

Signs a Child is Bullying Others

Kids may be bullying others if they:

• Get into physical or verbal fights
• Have friends who bully others
• Are increasingly aggressive
• Get sent to the principal’s office or to detention frequently
• Have unexplained extra money or new belongings
• Blame others for their problems
• Don’t accept responsibility for their actions
• Are competitive and worry about their reputation or popularity

Watch out for kids who act like that! The government says those kids are probably bullies and .... hey, wait a minute!

Let me take a second look... is that "Signs a Child is Bullying Others" or "...You Might be a Cop"?

Of course, if you are a cop, when sent to the principal's office, he pats you on the head and tells you you did nothing wrong, and the person you bullied (or electrocuted, shot, raped, put into a coma, or murdered) had it coming. You may still be sent to "detention" for appearances, but while in "detention" you'll still get paid, and as soon as everyone is looking the other way, you'll be back in the gang as if nothing ever happened; free to bully with even more confidence next time.

What could go wrong?

.

Right thing not contingent on legality

Right thing not contingent on legality

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 24, 2014)

I may have hinted in the past that I'm not a big fan of voting. I understand the reasoning behind it, and why some liberty advocates still vote- especially in local elections. They argue that they are morally responsible for doing all they can to avoid a fight- even when they believe the fight to be inevitable. When forced to defend themselves or others from the popularly elected police state, they want to know they did everything in their power to seek an alternate outcome.

In my mind this is equivalent to begging a bully to stop hitting you rather than stopping him using self defense. And that's under the best of circumstances. Under the worst, voting is the moral equivalent of ganging up on the unpopular kid to take his lunch money, or force him to be your slave and do your homework. Very few, if any, aspects of life should ever be put to a vote.

Even in cases where voters are allowed to vote themselves a little more liberty, voting avoids responsibility. You shouldn't wait for the laws to change to allow you to do what you already have a right to do, nor to permit you to stop your violators. You should do the right thing now, regardless of permission.

I recently saw someone comparing a national politician's stance on continuing the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs to the Allies in WWII waiting to liberate the death camps until the laws that established them could be overturned. Exactly!

If a person is arrested and imprisoned for something other than aggression or a private property rights violation he is a political prisoner. This doesn't make him bad; it shines the ugly light of truth on those who advocate caging him. Every day he isn't freed, with no conditions put on his release, is another day added to the guilt of those who want him caged.

For the most part, voting led to this situation. If not through an actual vote on the rules that permit political prisoners to languish in a cage, then by electing tyrannical men and women who seek popularity through violating those on some imagined fringe of society.

Liberty isn't generally popular enough to win elections, only fear and hatred seem to have that power. But it is never necessary for the right thing to be made legal before you step up and do it. Waiting for the results of an election to go the right way before you'll do the right thing, especially if you have the power, is cowardly.

.

Thank you to all who have helped out this month.  The first of the year has several additional expenses and all help is very welcome.  Thanks again!

.

Oh, NOW I get it...

Opinion: "A subjective idea about something, or an objective fact you dislike and therefore disagree with".

Fact: "Objective reality, or a wild assertion you like".

.

Herding cats

No, I'm not really talking about getting libertarians to do what I believe they should be doing, I'm talking about literally herding actual felines.

I may not be able to do that, but I sure can lead them around. I can't walk around the house without a herd of cats (OK, there are only 3 of them) following in my wake. And when it's "treat time", there is a stampede.

I wonder what other lessons might be hiding there.

.

"I want to hurt you, you resist, so we have a stalemate!"

Tangentially related to yesterday's commie hilarity is this post which was forwarded to me by a friend.

It amazes me that someone can claim to understand economics and still believe such things.

"Economic systems don’t run themselves."
Well, except for those which work. LOL. It's only when you believe economies "need" to be "run" at all that you see a problem you think you can solve with control.

"Even token-trained cellular automata (“capitalism”) needs someone to set up the rules that the components operate by or the individual nodes have no way of knowing whether they are producing desired outcomes or not."
Ummm.... the rules spontaneously organize and evolve just fine without a dictator (even a "capitalist" one) making them up. If you are making enough money to keep doing what you're doing, you are producing a "desired outcome". If you are not making enough money doing what you are doing, and you quit doing it and go to something else to see it that works better, that is also a "desired outcome". It's how the market meets needs, and keeps meeting changing and evolving needs which can't be predicted by anyone.

"there are no 'natural laws' of economics"
Coulda fooled me. I see them in operation all around me- and I also see the disaster which happens when they are ignored. Like, just about everything happening in the "above ground" economy around the world.

"There is no such thing as a 'free market' for example, all markets have rules..."
Well, yeah... all markets have rules, but free markets have rules agreeable to each party in a trade, and no one loses when a trade is agreed upon. Coerced markets (every other form of economic organization has a winner and a loser in every trade- and sometimes- usually- it actually has 2 losers (the people trading) and one winner (the thief stealing "taxes" and profiting from contributing nothing but bureaucracy and interference.

"What we are facing is a huge existential crisis that is going to require substantial changes in how we approach problems and in how we live our lives. Those changes will result in some people having better lives, and other people having worse lives."

"We"? Dictating a worse life for some people isn't within anyone's authority. You don't get to choose the winners and losers according to your preferences and whims. 

"The people whose lives would become worse naturally don’t want that to happen. So we have stalemate."

Well, DUH! A stalemate is usually what happens when you are threatening to harm someone who has gumption enough to say "No, I don't think so!" Good for them, and I hope they shoot you if you continue to insist on molesting them.

So, this is what passes for "socioeconomics"? If this is the sort of people telling themselves (and the gullible) that they are the ones who should be making the rules everyone else will have to live or die by, then it's no wonder things are so messed up.

. 

A Communist America?

Really?

OK, let's take a little closer look at this Utopia.

"Everyone would receive free, comprehensive universal health care."

So, who will provide this service? Will you pay them? How? If not, since everything will be "free" in your Communist America and they wouldn't need to pay for anything they need, why would they ever show up for work? If they realize they don't need to go to work to get food, housing, or whatever, would you force them to go anyway so others can take advantage of all that "free, comprehensive universal health care" they are laboring to provide? If so, you are talking about enslaving doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and all the support staff and technicians "health care" requires.

"Housing would be affordable, safe, and available to everyone."

Who will build these houses or, more likely, apartment blocks? The same questions apply to these laborers as to those you would expect to provide health care. And why is housing only "affordable" while health care is "free"? Is a roof over your head of less importance than a health concern? I also question the assertion that all this "affordable" housing would be "safe". My idea of safe might differ from yours. A concrete block house might be less prone to fire, and thus more "safe" by one definition, but it would be cold and likely to crumble in an earthquake. Or, are you speaking of the neighborhoods the houses sit in? Would you impose universal anti-gun rules to disarm me so that my less nice neighbors could prey on me safely? Why not let me weigh the risks and choose my own particular level of "safety"? Or do I get to dictate my preferences on your life?

"Food would be healthy, fresh, and freely available."

Once again, who will bother doing all the work to grow, process, and distribute this food if there are no benefits to going to all that trouble? If someone is handing you a hamburger with no strings attached, will you automatically show up to paint their house if you get the hamburger no matter what you do? If there are strings attached, then what you are doing is buying that hamburger, and it doesn't matter if you are using dollars, silver, or labor as your money- it isn't "free". And who gets to decide whether something is "healthy" or not? The "food pyramid" and it's various iterations and evolutions illustrates the folly of an imposed standard. And, peanuts might be healthy for me and deadly for someone else. Does this mean one of us has to suffer for the "good" of the other?

"Everyone would be entitled to a quality education, without cost."

I guess the communists believe everyone will just give up a huge percentage of their life, out of the goodness of their heart, to provide what others want. Including professors. But, I wonder what good an education would be if you can get everything you need by sitting on your butt. Sure, you might be smarter, but most college education is aimed at finding a career that will provide you a way to buy housing, cars, health care, food, and all the things you might need to live. If you really want education for its own sake, why bother with the mundane stuff? Learn fascinating stuff with no regard to its economic potential. That's pretty much what I have done anyway.

"Seniors would retire comfortably, in dignity and respect."

Not sure where this claim comes from. From all the free stuff available to everyone? Doesn't seem very dignified to me- except I suppose if everyone is getting everything free, at least there wouldn't be any stigma attached. I really question the "comfortably" assertion. Comfort requires other working to keep the lights on, the heat or air conditioning running, food coming, and the infrastructure in good repair. But who do you imagine will do all that work for you?

"Veterans would receive the treatment they deserve for the sacrifices they made for this country."

Who determines what they deserve? And who pays, or works to provide? How about "we" stop creating veterans, instead?

"Workers [sic] Rights would be fully protected, and they would receive the full value of their labor."

So taxation would end? Or do you consider that the way you plan to pay for all the "free" stuff, so it would be what the "full value" is based upon? But, since there would be no workers unless you forced them at gun point (and wouldn't the enforcers also be getting forced to work?), which would violate their rights more than anything else, I guess that's irrelevant.

"There would be equal pay and benefits for men and women."

Who's being paid, for what? Where does that money or those benefits come from? So, if I'm a man, working at a job I am incompetent in- or just napping the hours away, I can celebrate the fact that I am getting paid the same as the woman who's been doing this job at expert level for 10 years? I'm sure that will make her very happy, too. If either of us bothered to get, or keep, a job, that is. And I sure wouldn't. Of course, "equal pay" can be zero... I would prefer to be paid based upon my ability (or lack thereof) and the value of my work than just because a woman (or a man) is making a certain amount, so I must, too. Yes, it means the other guy isn't earning more than I am, but it also means I can never earn more than her. 

"There would be no wealth inequality anymore, and the class system would be abolished."

That is probably true, as far as wealth goes, unless you look too deeply. If no one has anything, there is no wealth inequality. Of course, I have knowledge that would let me survive without modern conveniences more comfortably than someone else might- so my knowledge would be my wealth, and the only way to equalize that is to kill me. If you get to make that decision, then you obviously are of a "higher class" than me, or I could choose to kill you instead. I guess this one falls apart under examination pretty quickly.

"Everyone would have equal rights and freedoms regardless their orientation."

Everyone already has equal rights. That's the realization that drives libertarians. And, everyone also has equal freedoms- it's just that government employees always restrict those freedoms, and exempt themselves from those restrictions they enforce on the rest of us who are not so connected. Zero freedom (which isn't really possible) is still equal freedom. I would rather see everyone's liberty respected, than focus on freedoms.

"Women would have full reproductive rights upheld by law."

Which "law"? Real Law- Natural Law- is discovered; counterfeit "law" is made up in the minds of flawed humans and then written down. Whose beliefs get to be written into "law"? I have noticed that "full reproductive rights" tend to only mean one very narrow thing: unlimited access to "free" abortions. While I don't believe this to be an area that any third party should be sticking their nose into, others disagree. Who do you allow to make up the rules? I'd rather not let the State stick its camel nose under that particular tent at all. It leads to Sharia Law either way.

"Everyone would receive equal protection under the law, and an end to racism and racial profiling."

"Equal protection under the law" is a libertarian concept, not a communist one. As I say, everyone has the identical rights as everyone else. The real Law respects that- written "laws" never can. You can never dictate an end to racism. That's because it lives in the mind. The more you "prohibit" it, the more it will fester and grow- but it will do so secretly and cause more harm than if it were in the open. Your efforts will not "end" it, but will wind up increasing it. I think racism may some day fade away, on its own, but trying to forcibly crush it only keeps it propped up long after it would have otherwise died. And "racial profiling" is not a problem unless you have counterfeit "laws" and enforcers imposing them. That has a libertarian solution, too.

So ends my observations on this silly little poster. Communists are so cute- or would be if their poorly thought out ideas weren't so attractive to stupid people who can't think beyond the sound bites. 

.

Avoid consideration of liberty at all costs

I wrote this to be this week's CNJ column- it was rejected. So here ya go- a freebie.

-

I always enjoy reading the polls in the Clovis News Journal, but I rarely answer them. I can't. They don't offer an option I could choose.

The current question as I write this is: "If an airline offered passenger service to Dallas-Fort Worth would you be more or less inclined to fly directly from Clovis?"

I am offered the options of "More", "Less", or "Depends on the cost".

How about "None of the above"?

Taken in a vacuum, I could say I would be more likely to fly if there were direct flights, if the cost were affordable, and if I ever had any reason to go to Dallas or Fort Worth, but that would give a false impression. The truth is I won't ever fly again unless it is a life or death situation, or unless the airport security silliness which is currently forced upon airline passengers dies a well-deserved death.

Yes, I will be "inclined to fly" again once the TSA and its security theater dog and pony show have gone the way of the dodo, have not been replaced by anything, and I am allowed to fly while appropriately armed. And no, a bullet hole in the skin of a plane will not cause a catastrophic decompression as movies would have you believe, but if you (or the airline) are concerned about it anyway, there is always "frangible ammunition".

Back to the subject of polls, I have noticed that there is rarely an option that provides for the absence of regulatory or confiscatory action, along with the ever-present threat of enforcement, by The State.

I am asked what level of taxation I agree with, or how I want to see tax money spent, but not whether I want my friends and neighbors' money left with those who earned it rather than being taken from them under some pretext.

Or I am asked "Have you signed up with the New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange?" Where's the "I won't" option? Once again, "None of the above" would suffice.

As in all things political, I am given the option to choose between statist choice A or statist choice B, while the option to choose liberty is never offered. Fortunately, no one needs permission to begin to exercise their liberty- just courage and determination.

This is why I have been informed I am an "outlier", and my opinions- the only opinions which actually respect your inalienable human right to control your own life and property- don't count in the political arena and are hidden from view to avoid confusing the people.

.

Review: PMC 9mm ammo from AmmoForSale.com

A while back AmmoForSale.com asked me if I'd like to do an ammo review for them. I have never done anything of that sort, but it sounded like it might be fun, and with the price of ammo- and my financial situation- I haven't been able to shoot as much as I'd like recently, so I accepted the offer. (Yes, I received some free ammo, but no other perks or considerations for this review.)

So I received 150 rounds of PMC Bronze 9mm 115 grain FMJ from them a while back, but waited until the weather was a bit nicer to actually hit the "range". As it turned out my son came to visit and brought his Hi-Point C9, so things worked out really well.

We went out Saturday, early afternoon. The temperature was close to 80, and there was a light west wind. Which got less light later.

As you see, our target was really high-tech. This photo is facing south. 

Top is my son's Hi-Point C9 and his 8 round magazine (yes, he needs more!), and below that is my Ruger P95DC and my 10 round (Ruger- came with the gun), 15 round (unmarked, manufacturer unknown), and 18 round (Ram-Line "Mag 9085") magazines.

I marked off 10 paces and 20 paces, and with my extra long legs, that's more yards than you'd think. 

I let my son take the first shots, and he emptied the magazine from the 20 pace mark with no problems and variable accuracy.

Then it was my turn. I was using the 10 round magazine for the test. The target was spared. Completely; not a scratch. Hmmm. So I moved up to the 10 pace mark with similar results. Not encouraging. But there were no problems with the ammo. I soon discovered my shots were all going to the left and slashing the left wall of the box- I didn't have an allen wrench to adjust my sights, so I just compensated with much better results. The wind was picking up as well, coming from the right, which may have added to the problem, but there was no other safe direction to fire, so I didn't get to test that wishful theory.

The first firing problems occurred when my son and I traded firearms. He was getting failures to eject and failures to feed with every shot. I took my gun back and had no problems at all, so I suspect it was an unfamiliarity with the pistol more than anything else.

However... After the first box, things got "interesting". In almost every magazine I was experiencing a failure to eject and/or a failure to feed. Or two. 

My son had one failure to eject/feed in his pistol- but only one out of an entire box.

Wanting to check every possibility I put some old ammo I had brought along for comparison in the magazine and shot it. No problems. (I was still having to compensate for my shots all going left, though.) I put the test ammo in different magazines and had the same experience. Then I fired my old ammo from those same magazines and didn't have a single failure. I tried every combination possible and kept having the same results. The new, test ammo was having failures and the old stuff I had on hand didn't have a single failure to either eject or to feed.

I was trying everything I could, because as I told my son "I want to be able to say really good things about the ammo..."

The first box performed much better in my gun than the other box (we both shot out of the third box). 

My conclusion is that this ammo was having some problems ejecting- or my pistol was having trouble ejecting it. I believe the failures to eject were the primary problem and the failures to feed almost always followed a failure to eject (but not always).

The accuracy from my son's pistol was quite acceptable, and is was very consistent with the accuracy I was getting from the ammo in my gun.

Cleanup was nice- the ammo seemed to shoot pretty clean. I should have taken a picture down the barrel, but there really wasn't anything to see. And the same goes for the surrounding areas. Not much fouling. So that was a plus.

For a plinking ammo, I'd say it is a decent deal. I wouldn't want to depend on it for personal protection- at least not in my Ruger. 

All in all, I'm thinking my Ruger just didn't like the ammo that well, while my son's Hi-Point seemed to like it just fine. I'm glad I had more than one gun to test it in.

I'd really like to thank AmmoForSale.com for the opportunity to review this ammunition. We had a great day and got in some much needed practice.

.

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.