NSA and Heartbleed

So, if the NSA knew about the "Heartbleed Bug" for years, and used it to spy on people, doesn't that kind of discredit them?

National SECURITY Agency, not protecting security, but exploiting a lack thereof. I'd say that's good enough reason to cancel their budget, sell off their guns and computers, let their employees stand on street corners with signs that say "Will Molest for Food", and see how long they survive in the real world.

.

"Drug warriors" and other evil thugs

Eventually, all those cops, prosecutors, and prison guards who enforce anti-drug "laws" are going to look just as bad to "society" as those thugs who enforced slavery "laws"- particularly and especially like those who captured the slaves who had escaped.

And when I say "eventually" I am talking about how they'll look to people who aren't me. Because to me that's exactly how bad they look right now. I look at cops and I see primitive, ignorant, brutal thugs "earning" their stolen wages by committing evil.

.

The Bundy ranch situation

Do the Bundy's own the land they have been using? Not according to those thugs who claim they work for something they'll call "The State". Who does, then? Well, according to "The State", it does. Sure, they'll say "the taxpayers", but by that they mean they have the authority to control the land "on our behalf". Ha!

Governments aren't real like people are. They are a dangerous mental problem believed in by most people: a mental glitch in the synapses.

Governments can't "own" anything, since everything they (or their agents) possess was stolen or "bought" with stolen (or counterfeited) money.

A thief doesn't own the stolen property he possesses.

The cattle, on the other hand, are clearly owned by the Bundy's. And employees of that "government" are stealing them. And then using violence against people who are trying to not be stolen from. And attacking the people trying to defend the Bundy's from the violence and theft.

That makes the government employees the bad guys in this confrontation.

As they are in any situation they are a part of.

(see also: Who owns the Bundy Ranch?)

.

The sheriff's kneejerk reaction

Here's the local sheriff's hilariously dumb opinion on marijuana legalization, which I suspect was in response to my Liberty Lines column (previous post):

(click on it to see it bigger) 

Hmmm. Am I surprised a local tax addict would object? No. Around here, just about the only possible justification for his useless "tax"-financed "job" hinges on Prohibition*- of one sort or another. Yes, this is also a "dry" county. So, of course he believes (not "thinks") legalization would be "a mistake". He would probably be out of a paycheck and be forced to find honest work or spend more time fishing. 

I see he's worried about "impaired driving"- like it doesn't happen regardless. But, wait... what about the studies and tests which have shown driving under the influence of marijuana actually decreases the risk of being in an accident? I know, that's not helpful to the anti-drug bigots' narrative, so it's ignored. And when have I ever said that someone who harms another or their private property should be excused? What does it matter "why" they caused the accident? It doesn't.

But it would "increase the difficulty of law enforcement to determine who is impaired"! Whine, whine! Yeah, lets keep violating people for your lazy, thuggish convenience! Here's a hint: If you can't tell if someone is "impaired", they aren't. Leave it at that.

Next, he complains how difficult it would be to figure out if the Cannabis was obtained through "legal or non-legal channels". Idiot. That's like saying slavery shouldn't have been abolished because then it would be too hard for slave hunters to figure out if the person had been "freed legally" or had been a runaway. When what you are doing is wrong, you need to stop doing it; don't figure out how to keep doing it anyway.

"Officers would need education concerning the enforcement of legal sales." No, they wouldn't. This is just more statist propaganda aimed at making liberty look "too hard". Just assume liberty and move along without molesting people. It's really pretty easy.

Same thing with all his excuses about needing more enforcers and bigger budgets if there were fewer "crimes" to feed his lust. It is ALL statist** BS and lies.

Read the whole thing. He just drones on and on, coming up with more unthinking statist justifications for continuing to follow his path of evil. 

But, don't worry- he says it's not going to happen in Texas (or especially locally) because people here are "more conservative".

Conservatives are partly right- there are some things worth conserving. But this isn't one of them. Being wrong- advocating evil- is not worth "conserving", and staying "conservative" on this issue isn't something to be proud of. They should instead be ashamed. When you are going the wrong way, it's smart to stop and turn around, but I suppose "conservatives" such as the sheriff think it's OK to close your eyes and chant about why you have to stay the course as you head over the cliff.

Not only are they going to look foolish in a few years, but they'll be seen as the force for evil they actually are. The blood of multitudes is on their hands over this ridiculous prohibition.

*By way of illustration, here's the weekly "Sheriff's Report" from the same issue:

(Click pic for embiggenation) 

**And I mean this is the worst possible way this time.

.

Liberty Lines- April 10, 2014

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

I wonder how many people thought America's morality was at its end when slavery lost its legal footing. Or when the "Jim Crow" laws which followed slavery were done away with. Probably about as many as now think getting rid of anti-marijuana "laws" spells doom to America's moral foundation.

If your "morality" requires you to violate someone else's individual human right to do absolutely anything that doesn't violate your identical and equal rights, your "morality" is empty. In fact, it is the opposite of moral.

The Prohibitionists of an earlier era realized that to make their campaign "legal" they had to pass a Constitutional amendment- because the Constitution didn't permit any authority to enforce any sort of prohibition. It still doesn't. The current anti-drug prohibition never got even this flimsy veil of legitimacy to hide behind. It was, and is, completely illegal at every level, and enforcing it makes a person a criminal.

That is the real moral problem.

Of course, when something is a violation of a person's rights, not even a Constitutional amendment can make it right. This is why Prohibition is always wrong and why a repeal of the Second Amendment can't eliminate the right to own and to carry weapons. Rights have never hinged on laws.

The worst thing about the new marijuana laws springing up across the country is that they establish a tax for doing something people have always had the right to do- "taxation" is a warm-fuzzy euphemism for theft, and taxes always go to finance new violations of life, liberty, and property.

If you don't believe people should use marijuana, then don't use it yourself, and feel free to ridicule or shun those who do. And if anyone harms an innocent person or private property, regardless of whether or not they are "impaired", seek restitution. Those responses to the situation are completely within your rights. Using the blunt force of The State to impose your wishes on others is not. In fact, it is an example of America's version of Sharia Law; universally imposed on True Believer and Infidel, alike.

By doing this to others you are testifying to your belief in the rightness of having someone else do the same to you, no matter who gains power or authority in the future. In that case, don't whine when you find yourself on the wrong end of a future law.

-

Check out my next post to see the sheriff's (probable) response.

.

The bright side of Obama?

I've heard it said that Obama is the greatest gun salesman in history.

I am beginning to wonder if he's not also the greatest recruiter for liberty of all kinds, as well.

Talking with someone yesterday I recognized a theme I have heard a few times from some unexpected places. People who were "Tea Party", quas-libertarian types becoming more firmly libertarian, or even, dare I say it, anarchist- due to things Obama and his cronies have done, and attempted to do. For them the shine seems to be gone from the Tea Party notion of electing "the right people"- at least for now.

Would I be seeing the same if the other, completely interchangeable, statist monster had won the last election? I don't know. It may be that the mess created by ignoring reality and Natural Law has finally gotten to the point that no matter which tyrant sits at the desk and plots to violate you, the results will be the same, and some people are beginning to see it.

I know there are a lot of people who will continue to support what they have convinced themselves is "their side" even as the fangs pump the poison into their flesh, and no amount of reality is going to change their minds. But, for some of those willing and able to see the truth, it just may be that Obama was the kick in the pants they needed.

At least, I hope so. I'd like to be able to see a bright side to Obama (besides the fact he hasn't been able to do most of the worst things he wants to do).

Now, I hope most of these people don't revert back to their old ways and support the next candidate who promises to be the Anti-Obama... I'll do my best to help them stay strong if they feel tempted.

.

Bureaucracy violates your rights

Bureaucracy violates your rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 7, 2014)

Legalized? Decriminalized? Why?

Most things wrongly made illegal should instead be ignored, which is difficult for those infected with the lust to control. They are not proper areas of governance under any circumstances. Even under the most well-meaning situations, "there ought to be a law" is misguided. No new law is necessary; the laws which were unethically imposed just need to be repealed, be ignored, or be defied.

To bother to legalize or to decriminalize anything which isn't aggression or theft would seem to imply some government authority in that area of life- where none exists.

For example, in Colorado under the new legalized marijuana laws (which the federal government refuses to honor, violating both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments), banks have been caught up in the confusion. Even those which want to to do business with the perfectly legal marijuana shops are refusing, mainly out of fear of federal retribution for refusing to walk the prohibition line. The state and federal rules are at odds, and even with very meticulous federal guidelines which banks are promised they can follow without fear, the risk of entrapment is too great for most to dare.

Which illustrates just one reason banks should also be freed from federal meddling.

I disagree with those who say "legalize and tax it". Taxation feeds the state. Don't feed the beast; starve it.

It would be much better to admit the Constitution doesn't give any authority for prohibition- as a previous generation of prohibitionists once admitted, since they knew they had to pass an amendment to make their anti-alcohol crusade legal, if not right.

A similar situation of too much "law" exists in those states where laws are passed to make it less legally risky to do what humans have always had an inalienable right to do, and an explicit Constitutional protection of that right which allows zero exceptions: to own and to carry any kind of weapon they wish, wherever they go, openly or concealed as they see fit, regardless of age or legal status, without asking permission of anyone, ever.

It is simply the government employee's duty to comply with the Constitution and not violate the right in any way. Period. Yet, look at the parasitic compliance and enforcement bureaucracy which has grown around that very simple human right. There are taxes, license fees, transfer fees, background check fees, etc. All feeding the bureaucracy established for no other reason than to break the law that binds them- and violate your rights.

Those who seek to rule your life would do well to butt out and mind their own business, which means not giving everything a legal status.

.

How I think bloggish thoughts

In one of my dozens of spam comments (which Blogger intercepts before you ever see them) the "question" (before the spamiferous link) was posed: "How do you clear your head and center yourself before you write?"

Now that's a spammerbot which deserves an answer.

The way I have found that works best for me is to read my emails, and check posts on Facebook, check out some news stories- and then go do something.

I have blogs write themselves while I shower. Or cut and split firewood. Or do some clothing/hat repair. Or just about anything that gets my mind off writing, without tying my mind up with something else.

It helps if my hands are busy with something (no comments about the shower!) but my thinking brain is unoccupied. I used to find scraping deer or elk hides was a never-ending source of ideas- but that was mostly before I started writing- such a shame (although I did pen a few letters to the editor during those years). Just sitting staring into a fire doesn't work that well for me. Because my hands usually aren't busy, I suppose.

Busy hands; bored brain. When I have trouble finding something to write about, it is usually because one part of that formula is missing. Does that qualify as clearing my head and centering myself?

Now, when I write my Clovis News Journal columns there are two additional steps. After I write what I want to say, I go back and make sure it isn't too long- which always means cutting out an awful lot of words. Then, I go back and find ways to "tone it down" without compromising the message at all- and that's even harder than cutting out words and points I think are important to what I need to say.

So now you know.

.

"Mistakes were made..."

When the first person initiated force or theft and was allowed to live...
And when the first person fell for the belief in "authority"...
Which led to those who survived their initiation of force and theft setting themselves up as "government".
When the first govthug made up a rule that wasn't based upon Natural Law.
When a "standing military" was permitted.
When that military was used in wars of aggression.
When "laws" against owning and carrying certain weapons were imposed and not defied universally.
When those rules were applied to people whose ONE JOB (whether it's a legitimate "job" or not) is to use weapons.
And that leads directly to a government pawn killing government pawns in a "gun free zone"- Ft. Hood.
And, yes, it is a "gun free zone" anytime the right to own and to carry weapons is violated in any way, and there are "authorized" armed people singled out as above the rule.

And, as long as those same old mistakes keep being made, the same thing will keep happening. The enormity of the stupidity is astounding.

.

Warlords

A new post on my Libertopia blog: The fate of the Warlord

.

If smoking pot is wrong...

If smoking pot is wrong, then taking aspirin is wrong. 

If smoking pot is wrong, then taking Prozac is wrong.

I don't believe doing any of those things is wrong. 

Taking too much aspirin or too much Prozac can be bad for your health. Maybe smoking "too much" marijuana might also be unhealthy- or maybe not. But that is a separate issue, not a matter of right or wrong.

The claim that smoking pot is somehow wrong is among the silliest things I have ever heard anyone espouse.

.

Pity the control-freak

I know, and have known, many control freaks. Observing control-freaks at work makes me feel sorry for them. What a frustrating, exhausting way to live!

Just imagine living as though the entire world is your responsibility, and if you don't tell everyone what to do and how to do it, and then watch over their shoulder to make certain your instructions are obeyed, the world will collapse into chaos. And people tend to resist them (or ignore them), making their lives even more frustrating for them.

I have enough to do running my own life, and as long as someone isn't molesting me (in a bad way) I'm content to leave them alone. Even the control-freaks.

.

"Please..."

There, I fixed it even more. From here.

.

Initiate force; complicate the plot

Here's a little homework* for you: Watch movies. See the characters initiate force and also see that even in fiction- where extreme cases are the norm- it isn't "necessary", but could always be avoided. There's always a better way.

Now, apply that to your own life.

Of course, your life isn't contrived to make an engaging story. You'll probably never find yourself in situations like those portrayed on the screen. In which case it should be even easier to see that initiating force isn't the right thing to do.

In movies, if the hero always did the right thing by refusing to initiate force, the movie would often end before it got started. Initiating force complicates the plot and draws it out longer so you'll be more likely to pay the price- after all, who would bother going to a 15 minute movie?

-

* OK, not "homework", which I despise in all its forms, but a strictly voluntary suggestion you can take or ignore.

.

Take the plunge

One thing that happens to me fairly often is getting a message from someone saying how I have opened their eyes to liberty. There is almost nothing in my experience that feels that good.

The thing is, if I can do it, you can do it.

I have no special skills or training. I am still more comfortable sitting alone at a campfire in buckskin clothes than debating anything online. When I actually have to speak face-to-face with people who don't agree with me I feel out of breath. And even unpleasant exchanges online can fluster me beyond what is reasonable.

Yet, it is all worth it for those occasional confessions from people I have influenced in a positive way.

Some people may claim that writing isn't really "doing" anything. (They are waiting for the shooting to commence.) That may be. But writing down your own thoughts can give you the strength to act on what you know to be right. It sure works that way for me. And living liberty is the most powerful thing you can do to promote it.

If you want to write, do it. Don't worry that you aren't "good enough". You are. For someone out there your writing would be just the thing they need.

If you don't want to write, there are other things you can do. Sing songs. Draw cartoons. Paint. Make videos. Post comments- which is still writing, but bouncing off someone else is something I find easier than coming up with my own train of thought.

I know it sometimes seems as if the internet is made up of nothing but people making their own content and no one actually consuming it, but I actually know of several people who "make" nothing, and simply devour what they find. And, if that's really what makes you happy that is nothing to be ashamed of- but if you secretly desire to produce something for others to "consume", do it. I think you'll find it invigorating.

And who knows who you'll end up influencing, and what hurricane your butterfly wings may trigger on the other side of the planet.

.

Who to serve is business’ choice

Who to serve is business’ choice

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 28, 2014)

In Arizona a new "law" is being considered which would allow business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. This is another case of a law being inflicted because of a misguided past law.

Does a business owner already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Yes. No matter what any "law" to the contrary might say. "Anti-discrimination laws" are all violations of the right of association. Even though discrimination based on most criteria isn't nice, no "law" has the authority to force people to do business with anyone.

It cuts both ways. I am also free to refuse to patronize a business because of whom they refuse, and free to tell everyone why I won't do business there. I don't like bigotry, no matter the excuses.

Will their business thrive, or will it die, due to their choices? Let the chips fall where they may.

But what if the business's product or service is critical to life and limb? Like housing, food, or energy?

It's amazing to me that anyone would believe the type of business matters in this question. Why would I ever choose to open a type of business anyone believes requires the State telling me how to run?

Those who advocate this are endorsing fascism. "Fascism" is the economic system in which businesses are "owned" privately, but are told how they must operate by the State's laws, which also demand a cut of the money ("taxes"). Fascism is here- thus all the permits, licenses, taxes, zoning, regulations, etc. controlling businesses. It's also why corporations have found ways to pull the strings of government.

If you own a business I think is "too important" to deny people, I could open the same kind of business and cater to the people you refuse to serve. Maybe we will both stay in business, serving different groups of people. Where's the "loser" in that?

If it is my business I have the inalienable human right to serve- or not- anyone I choose. "Laws" which seek to violate that right are wrong. My reasons may be stupid, bigoted, or absurd, but no one has the legitimate authority to violate that right.

Be that as it may, I would shun any business (and its owner) which refuses service to people who aren't physically attacking the innocent or stealing from them. I would also reward with my patronage any business I discovered refusing service to people who made a habit of using aggression against the innocent, or of committing theft in any way.

This is just a basic human right- the right of association. Respect it or violate it. Your choice.

.

The murderous ABQ enforcers

I hadn't said anything here about the guy in Albuquerque murdered by enforcers for camping without permission. Because, what do you expect?

It sounds like the guy who was murdered, James M. Boyd, had problems, and may not have been a wonderful person, but at the time he was murdered, he wasn't doing anything to deserve it. At that moment, he was innocent.

He was camping- and found himself faced with aggressive, armed goons who were obviously making credible threats to harm him. Of course he had knives in his hands. He was not a credible threat to anyone not intent on escalating the situation. The cops were in no real danger from Boyd's words. (So he should have had a gun or two.) They were simply on the prowl for an excuse to kill someone that day.

It seems that of all the murderous police gangs infesting America, the one in Albuquerque may be among the worst.

I suppose "the people" of ABQ are getting fed up, but (foolishly) instead of demanding abolishing the police department and replacing that tumor with nothing, they'll be content to "clean it up" in some touchy-feely way. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results...

I can't help but believe the protests could have been averted if the terminally corrupt and stupid police chief hadn't gone on TV and lied and excused his murderous goons so quickly. At least give the illusion of impartiality, moron. I think this was the insult that triggered the backlash. Law enforcers should NEVER be allowed to investigate or decide on punishment for law enforcers. That is the very definition of "conflict of interest".

It is funny to me that most of the "mainstream" news reports about the protests mention the protests "turning violent" when the riot-gear clad cops showed up. I wasn't there, so I can't say whether the protests were violent beforehand, but I know cops always- always- escalate any situation they are added to. And, no, I don't think it was "wrong" to trap some enforcers in their own (stolen) car and try to forcibly remove them. They should have been standing with "the people"- their superiors and bosses- and against their "brothers in blue" and they would have not found themselves in that predicament. In other words, they could have shown that there are some of those "good cops" I keep hearing about.

I don't know whether private property was being damaged in the protests- I suspect it was. That is wrong. If you are going to protest, you need to focus your attention on the police department "property" and employees. You don't gain legitimacy by targeting the wrong people. Hang the guilty, not the guy who just happens to be walking past when you are angry.

And, if Anonymous really wants to help, they should delete- permanently- all files and records on the APD computers, rather than just shutting them down for a while. And then they could move on to the rest of the police departments all over the world.

It's a big mess, but it can be fixed. Disarm on-duty cops, never let enforcers (or anyone connected to any government) investigate enforcers, and then abolish all police departments. Eh, just skip the preliminaries: abolish police. It's the only reasonable course.

No, I'm not "April Fooling".

Added: I keep seeing mention of the protest becoming violent and confrontational WHEN THE MILITARIZED RIOT POLICE SHOWED UP. Now, I keep in mind that almost everything reported by the media is wrong in some way, but I think it is very likely that the cops showed up specifically to turn the protests violent. Probably thought they'd discredit the protesters that way. It failed.

.

What? No blog post?

I was doing some stucco repairs yesterday, and tools weren't doing the job and only fingertips would work, so I have 3 raw/bloody typing fingers today. And, for once I had no scheduled blog posts, so this is what you get for the moment.

.

"Well, what do you expect?"

A while back I read Albert J. Nock's "Our Enemy, The State" and thought it was excellent. Well, I found something else he wrote that is more concise and possibly even better. It is "The Criminality of the State", and here's an excerpt:

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." Albert Jay Nock - The Criminality of the State (1939)

I love his suggested reaction to every expression of outrage at something "the State" has done- "Well, what do you expect?"

I highly recommend reading the whole thing, while keeping in mind that "the State" isn't real- it is a belief, and every single thing "it" does is in actuality done by flawed, and vulnerable humans who can be beaten.

.

Adventures with Slave Numbers

Wanna piss me off? Complicate any simple procedure by insisting I provide "my" Federal Slave Number/Social Security Number.

My first reaction is invariably "You want what?"

I don't have such a thing. Some branch of the fe(de)ral gooberment assigned one to me long ago- but it most certainly isn't "my" number. It is strictly the "federal government's" number- and since "government" isn't even a real thing...

I have never learned it, and I don't carry the silly scrap of paper it is printed upon with me. I remember what the first 3 digits are (not even sure why I remember that much), and I know some of the digits- but not their order- in the rest of the number.

But to claim it is "my" number? Yeah, right.

If I am standing in line at McDonald's, and they have given me a ticket number, that makes sense. I can watch or listen for that number, and it is easier than trying to hear them mispronounce my name when my order is ready. And then the number has served it purpose and goes away, never to be required again. But to number a person for life?

Let's say I decide to assign a number to every reader of this blog- or anyone I interact with in any way. That doesn't make the number "your" number, it's just my number for you, and you should laugh at me if I tell you that you must use that number for identification purposes for the rest of your life. The whole concept is ridiculous.

Didn't it used to be "illegal"- for whatever that is worth- to use that number for identification purposes? Did that "law" change, or did it just become too inconvenient for tracking and controlling the cattle?

I never even run into the demand to give that number except when doing supposed favors- usually financial in nature- for other people. And I am rather tired of it.

And, I managed to do what I wanted eventually, anyway, without giving anyone "my" number. Suck that, collectivists.

.