The fallen tree just about did me in.
It has been almost a week since I got it all taken care of, but in the process of lifting and loading the big logs I apparently gave myself "tennis elbow". And then the 4 loads of branches I loaded and hauled away the next day just made the problem worse.
So, I am in a lot of pain when I try to straighten my right arm and extend my fingers, or lift anything (even small, lightweight things). Or pretty much use my arm for anything.
Good news for this blog is that typing is about the only thing I can do which is pain-free. But I do have other things I need to do, too. I guess I could use the injury as an excuse to not do them... Ha.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Unicorn Memorial Day
Oh, wait... that's "Peace Officers Memorial Day".
What a laugh.
If "peace officers" ever existed, they are extinct, and what we are told to honor in their place is dead Law Enforcement Officers, I actually saw a story that said: "Peace Officer Memorial Day: Flags to be lowered to honor Law Enforcement" - that's like proclaiming "Unicorn Memorial Day" and worshiping road-killed possums while hoping no one notices the substitution.
I noticed.
If there were ever "peace officers" they still lived on money stolen at gunpoint from its rightful owner. Not an honorable thing to do. Since all we have now are Law Imposement Officers, I'm certainly not going to mourn when they die while doing their vile "job". Good riddance to bad trash.
And what of all their innocent victims, killed because the cowardly scum can murder with near-impunity? Where's their memorial?
Maybe I'll fly my Time's Up flag extra high today to celebrate all the dead LEOs. And then tomorrow to celebrate dead rapists. And the next day to celebrate dead (freelance) muggers. And the next day to celebrate dead dictators.
.
What a laugh.
If "peace officers" ever existed, they are extinct, and what we are told to honor in their place is dead Law Enforcement Officers, I actually saw a story that said: "Peace Officer Memorial Day: Flags to be lowered to honor Law Enforcement" - that's like proclaiming "Unicorn Memorial Day" and worshiping road-killed possums while hoping no one notices the substitution.
I noticed.
If there were ever "peace officers" they still lived on money stolen at gunpoint from its rightful owner. Not an honorable thing to do. Since all we have now are Law Imposement Officers, I'm certainly not going to mourn when they die while doing their vile "job". Good riddance to bad trash.
And what of all their innocent victims, killed because the cowardly scum can murder with near-impunity? Where's their memorial?
Maybe I'll fly my Time's Up flag extra high today to celebrate all the dead LEOs. And then tomorrow to celebrate dead rapists. And the next day to celebrate dead (freelance) muggers. And the next day to celebrate dead dictators.
.
Flags. Everywhere!
Yes, everywhere.
I saw a blurb that listed things about America which those from other parts of the world found very odd, and "flags everywhere" was at the top of the list.
I hadn't really thought about it too much before, but the next time I drove around I counted. Yep. Those things are everywhere.
I guess a lot of people like to celebrate their enslavement and worship the captor.
I know, I know. Supposedly the US flag (which is NOT the "American flag") represents liberty and justice for all. That's a nice dream. Actually I see it more as representing the federal government and all its interests.
Don't believe me?
Refer to the Constitution or (shudders!) the Declaration of Independence, and the feds will consider you a domestic terrorist. Pledge allegiance to their flag and they say nothing- Oh, some of them may look down on the addition of the "under God" part, but on the whole...
Fly the Gadsden flag and they consider you a domestic terrorist. Fly the federal flag and they are fine with it.
If any of them were aware of the Time's Up flag, they would consider you a domestic terrorist for flying one. Their flag? Not a problem.
Now, if you fly the federal flag and do one of the other things mentioned above, flying their flag won't be enough to get you out of trouble, but by itself it is completely government-approved. Think about that for a minute.
.
I saw a blurb that listed things about America which those from other parts of the world found very odd, and "flags everywhere" was at the top of the list.
I hadn't really thought about it too much before, but the next time I drove around I counted. Yep. Those things are everywhere.
I guess a lot of people like to celebrate their enslavement and worship the captor.
I know, I know. Supposedly the US flag (which is NOT the "American flag") represents liberty and justice for all. That's a nice dream. Actually I see it more as representing the federal government and all its interests.
Don't believe me?
Refer to the Constitution or (shudders!) the Declaration of Independence, and the feds will consider you a domestic terrorist. Pledge allegiance to their flag and they say nothing- Oh, some of them may look down on the addition of the "under God" part, but on the whole...
Fly the Gadsden flag and they consider you a domestic terrorist. Fly the federal flag and they are fine with it.
If any of them were aware of the Time's Up flag, they would consider you a domestic terrorist for flying one. Their flag? Not a problem.
Now, if you fly the federal flag and do one of the other things mentioned above, flying their flag won't be enough to get you out of trouble, but by itself it is completely government-approved. Think about that for a minute.
.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The gloves are off in Europe
WARNING: NSFW! Sex and violence galore!
Here is a European ad to "encourage" voting. It's more honest about the violence inherent in the process than most- even if it stops at the voting booth and doesn't show the violence that comes from that.
If you still want to view it, here's the link (I don't wish to embed it here): "Voteman"
.
Here is a European ad to "encourage" voting. It's more honest about the violence inherent in the process than most- even if it stops at the voting booth and doesn't show the violence that comes from that.
If you still want to view it, here's the link (I don't wish to embed it here): "Voteman"
.
Unintentional statist humor
A while back I received this inquiry from a local political group's "leader":
"Do you know anyone in [Town X] who would carry the petition for Voter ID to the clerk's office to register it on May 1?"
I responded: "Most of the people I know [with regards to this sort of thing] are pretty opposed to politics, so I'm not sure who would take a petition."
The reply: "This isn't exactly politics.. its about voting and using photo ID's to assure that the person voting is the person registered and qualified to vote."
"Do you know anyone in [Town X] who would carry the petition for Voter ID to the clerk's office to register it on May 1?"
I responded: "Most of the people I know [with regards to this sort of thing] are pretty opposed to politics, so I'm not sure who would take a petition."
The reply: "This isn't exactly politics.. its about voting and using photo ID's to assure that the person voting is the person registered and qualified to vote."
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Immigration control breaks the law
Immigration control breaks the law
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 11, 2014.)
End deportation of illegal immigrants?
Government at every level throughout America needs to obey the U.S. Constitution- the highest law of the land- to the letter. All federal, state, and local governments need to tightly control and regulate who is allowed to enter our country, and make sure those allowed in are complying with all the immigration laws the Constitution establishes in order to make sure our borders are secure. Their papers must be in order, or else!
But, there is at least one problem with that.
The Constitution doesn't allow government to regulate or control immigration at all. It spells out how the states may regulate the importation of slaves, and permits government to establish a way for immigrants to become citizens, but that's all it permits with regard to "immigration". And, the only powers the Constitution permits governments to have are those specifically spelled out in its text.
So how can those who cry most loudly for government to obey the Constitution ignore this inconvenient fact?
Honestly, I don't know, but I have some suspicions.
I support those who gathered last Saturday in Clovis and across the nation to protest deportation policies. Since a law which runs counter to the Constitution is not a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey this pretend "law"- according to an earlier Supreme Court ruling- there can be no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" to deport, Constitutionally speaking.
The claim "but they are illegal" is as meaningless as saying it was illegal to be (or harbor) a runaway slave. "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" is countered with "What part of 'unconstitutional' don't you understand?" Because, as far as written and enforced laws in America are concerned, nothing can trump the Constitution. Not even if you think it's a good idea, or absolutely "necessary". That's the same excuse dredged up by anti-gun activists.
The only mistake the activists make is asking to be equally violated by "drivers license" requirements, which are also not within any government's authority.
If you are calling for "immigration control" and pushing for deportation, you are advocating breaking the law. You become the "illegal" you rally against. See why I love irony?
When any person attacks an innocent, or violates private property, I support unflinching self defense or full restitution. I don't care where aggressors and thieves were born. Being attacked by someone whose family has lived here for generations is not somehow "better" than falling victim to someone who just arrived from somewhere else. To pretend otherwise shows a willingness to ignore the root and focus on the insignificant pettiness that divides people and empowers the state.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 11, 2014.)
End deportation of illegal immigrants?
Government at every level throughout America needs to obey the U.S. Constitution- the highest law of the land- to the letter. All federal, state, and local governments need to tightly control and regulate who is allowed to enter our country, and make sure those allowed in are complying with all the immigration laws the Constitution establishes in order to make sure our borders are secure. Their papers must be in order, or else!
But, there is at least one problem with that.
The Constitution doesn't allow government to regulate or control immigration at all. It spells out how the states may regulate the importation of slaves, and permits government to establish a way for immigrants to become citizens, but that's all it permits with regard to "immigration". And, the only powers the Constitution permits governments to have are those specifically spelled out in its text.
So how can those who cry most loudly for government to obey the Constitution ignore this inconvenient fact?
Honestly, I don't know, but I have some suspicions.
I support those who gathered last Saturday in Clovis and across the nation to protest deportation policies. Since a law which runs counter to the Constitution is not a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey this pretend "law"- according to an earlier Supreme Court ruling- there can be no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" to deport, Constitutionally speaking.
The claim "but they are illegal" is as meaningless as saying it was illegal to be (or harbor) a runaway slave. "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" is countered with "What part of 'unconstitutional' don't you understand?" Because, as far as written and enforced laws in America are concerned, nothing can trump the Constitution. Not even if you think it's a good idea, or absolutely "necessary". That's the same excuse dredged up by anti-gun activists.
The only mistake the activists make is asking to be equally violated by "drivers license" requirements, which are also not within any government's authority.
If you are calling for "immigration control" and pushing for deportation, you are advocating breaking the law. You become the "illegal" you rally against. See why I love irony?
When any person attacks an innocent, or violates private property, I support unflinching self defense or full restitution. I don't care where aggressors and thieves were born. Being attacked by someone whose family has lived here for generations is not somehow "better" than falling victim to someone who just arrived from somewhere else. To pretend otherwise shows a willingness to ignore the root and focus on the insignificant pettiness that divides people and empowers the state.
.
Request for funds
I am in need of $30 (well, technically, $29) because of an unexpected expense. Unexpected as in I forgot it was coming up and the automatic reminder I thought I had set up didn't remind me.
If anyone is so inclined to chip in, I would appreciate it.
UPDATE: It is taken care of. Thank you very much!
.
If anyone is so inclined to chip in, I would appreciate it.
UPDATE: It is taken care of. Thank you very much!
.
Your brain- use it or lose it
I just don't get it when people are so determined to stick with "the party line" that they say idiotic things just because "their side" always takes that side.
Liberals against guns is one example, as is conservatives against drugs.
Think for yourself. Weigh the arguments for yourself. Decide for yourself. Stop listening to other people as a shortcut to avoid doing what you should be doing. Stop parroting what "your side" says automatically whenever a topic comes up.
It will make you smarter.
.
Liberals against guns is one example, as is conservatives against drugs.
Think for yourself. Weigh the arguments for yourself. Decide for yourself. Stop listening to other people as a shortcut to avoid doing what you should be doing. Stop parroting what "your side" says automatically whenever a topic comes up.
It will make you smarter.
.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Yeah, I care
Every time someone is "arrested" on drug charges, my own liberty is violated just a little bit more.
Every time someone is "arrested" on some weapons violation, my own liberty is eroded by a fraction.
Every time someone is "arrested" for "prostitution", gambling, or "tax evasion" my own liberty is being stomped on.
Every time someone is "fined" for some code violation, going faster than some arbitrary speed, for not completely stopping for 4 seconds* at a "STOP" sign, for not licensing their dog, for driving without a "license" or not having the State's tags on their car, for building or remodeling or running a business without a permit, or anything else that doesn't involve aggression or property violations, my own liberty gets chipped away.
And people ask me why I care?
How could I not care?
*One of my ex-wives was told by a cop who pulled her over that she didn't stop "long enough"- his claim was that she was supposed to stop for at least 4 seconds. Seriously.
.
Every time someone is "arrested" on some weapons violation, my own liberty is eroded by a fraction.
Every time someone is "arrested" for "prostitution", gambling, or "tax evasion" my own liberty is being stomped on.
Every time someone is "fined" for some code violation, going faster than some arbitrary speed, for not completely stopping for 4 seconds* at a "STOP" sign, for not licensing their dog, for driving without a "license" or not having the State's tags on their car, for building or remodeling or running a business without a permit, or anything else that doesn't involve aggression or property violations, my own liberty gets chipped away.
And people ask me why I care?
How could I not care?
-
*One of my ex-wives was told by a cop who pulled her over that she didn't stop "long enough"- his claim was that she was supposed to stop for at least 4 seconds. Seriously.
.
Labels:
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
drugs,
economy,
government,
guns,
Law Pollution,
liberty,
Permits,
Property Rights,
society,
taxation
Sunday, May 11, 2014
"Don't vote and the other side wins!"
One of the biggest justifications for voting goes something like this: "The enemies of liberty always vote. If we don't vote, they win!"
Voting, and who wins, only matters if you intend to comply and obey. Their "victory" is empty unless you give it the weight of your consent. Stop it!
But, really, when both "sides" are "the other side"- neither any good for liberty- what benefit is there in voting for someone who is your enemy to a slightly lesser degree? The "other side" wins regardless. "They" always win, no matter which guy gets the office.
The people making that claim always assume one side is less dangerous to liberty than the "other side"- in the liberty-lover sphere, the "less dangerous" side being promoted is usually "conservatives" or Republicans. That hasn't been my experience, and isn't borne out by observation.
If you allow an enemy into your house because you are wrongly told it is either him or some other enemy, who is to blame when your throat is cut in the dead of the night? He is, but you share some blame for being dumb enough to let him in. Be responsible and don't invite either guy into your house. If you do, and it turns out he isn't as wonderful as you had hoped, you have no one to blame but yourself. In fact, if I were prone to thinking like a DemoCRAPublican, I might even say "if you vote, you can't complain".
Yes, some bad guy will win the election whether or not you vote. And he will impose "laws" that will violate your Rightful Liberty a little more than the previous "laws" did. Perhaps he may weaken some bad, liberty-violating "laws", too.
That stuff only matters if you let it.
You have an absolute, fundamental human right to do anything that doesn't violate the other guy's identical right. Do it and stop asking permission and stop voting for the next slave administrator.
But, really, when both "sides" are "the other side"- neither any good for liberty- what benefit is there in voting for someone who is your enemy to a slightly lesser degree? The "other side" wins regardless. "They" always win, no matter which guy gets the office.
The people making that claim always assume one side is less dangerous to liberty than the "other side"- in the liberty-lover sphere, the "less dangerous" side being promoted is usually "conservatives" or Republicans. That hasn't been my experience, and isn't borne out by observation.
If you allow an enemy into your house because you are wrongly told it is either him or some other enemy, who is to blame when your throat is cut in the dead of the night? He is, but you share some blame for being dumb enough to let him in. Be responsible and don't invite either guy into your house. If you do, and it turns out he isn't as wonderful as you had hoped, you have no one to blame but yourself. In fact, if I were prone to thinking like a DemoCRAPublican, I might even say "if you vote, you can't complain".
Yes, some bad guy will win the election whether or not you vote. And he will impose "laws" that will violate your Rightful Liberty a little more than the previous "laws" did. Perhaps he may weaken some bad, liberty-violating "laws", too.
That stuff only matters if you let it.
You have an absolute, fundamental human right to do anything that doesn't violate the other guy's identical right. Do it and stop asking permission and stop voting for the next slave administrator.
.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
"They should know better..."
Sometimes I think I'm harder on "conservatives" than I am on "liberals". That may be because I grew up around "conservatives" and I was able to see through the nonsense. I think they should know better, too. But, all too often, they refuse.
I don't really know what goes on in "liberal" social circles and families, so I can't say whether they should know better. I would hope they would be able to. They are human, and possess a physical brain, after all.
But, for all humans, the dangers of holding wrong beliefs have been greatly reduced, which makes it too safe to be stupid. That's not a good thing for the future of civilization- or the species.
But you can't make stupid people reject their stupidity. You can only control yourself. Try to pay attention and avoid being caught up in the stampede into the ravine.
.
I don't really know what goes on in "liberal" social circles and families, so I can't say whether they should know better. I would hope they would be able to. They are human, and possess a physical brain, after all.
But, for all humans, the dangers of holding wrong beliefs have been greatly reduced, which makes it too safe to be stupid. That's not a good thing for the future of civilization- or the species.
But you can't make stupid people reject their stupidity. You can only control yourself. Try to pay attention and avoid being caught up in the stampede into the ravine.
.
Thursday, May 08, 2014
Statist attempts to discredit the alternative
I'm sure you've heard some of these:
"Anarchists are 'useful idiots' for totalitarians."
"Anarchists are 'useful idiots' for totalitarians."
Sure, because statism has been so successful at keeping totalitarians at bay for thousands of years.
"Anarchists are childish."
Because it's not like any backwards tribe 20,000 years ago- or any schoolyard bully today- could have come up with the bright idea of ordering others around and taking their stuff.
"Anarchists just hate everything civilization has given them."
Hmmm. The way I see it I hate The State for interfering and preventing civilization from developing even more good stuff. Society and civilization are held back by the State- every time, everywhere States arise.
If you examine a statist objection to liberty, it always falls apart quickly.
.
"Anarchists just hate everything civilization has given them."
Hmmm. The way I see it I hate The State for interfering and preventing civilization from developing even more good stuff. Society and civilization are held back by the State- every time, everywhere States arise.
If you examine a statist objection to liberty, it always falls apart quickly.
.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Everything I needed to know about life, I learned from "The Twilight Zone"
Maybe that's because I never went to kindergarten.
But, really, from The Twilight Zone I learned important things such as always have spare glasses.
And: Don't panic- the situation may not be what you believe.
Plus: Fitting in may not be the best thing.
Or: You may be the monster.
And, I also learned many of the characters made their own trouble by looking at things the wrong way. In one episode a guy has made a deal with the Devil to be immortal- and ends up facing life in prison. So he uses the "escape clause" to have a heart attack and die. That was completely pointless. He wanted life and excitement, and there was a perfect opportunity. Why not use his immortality to seek adventure in escape attempts and planning? I know, because that ruined the irony of the situation for "entertainment purposes". But, really...
.
But, really, from The Twilight Zone I learned important things such as always have spare glasses.
And: Don't panic- the situation may not be what you believe.
Plus: Fitting in may not be the best thing.
Or: You may be the monster.
And, I also learned many of the characters made their own trouble by looking at things the wrong way. In one episode a guy has made a deal with the Devil to be immortal- and ends up facing life in prison. So he uses the "escape clause" to have a heart attack and die. That was completely pointless. He wanted life and excitement, and there was a perfect opportunity. Why not use his immortality to seek adventure in escape attempts and planning? I know, because that ruined the irony of the situation for "entertainment purposes". But, really...
.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Costco missed chance for good will
Costco missed chance for good will
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 4, 2014. Here's the background.)
Like just about everyone else around here, I was dismayed to see 58 truckloads- 950,000 jars- of perfectly good Sunland peanut butter, packaged for Costco Wholesale, go into the Clovis landfill. That is a tremendous waste.
Facilitating the sale of the bankrupt Sunland Inc. was one of the justifications given. I'm not aware of all the skulduggery required to "expedite" a bankruptcy sale of this magnitude, but if the "law" makes things like this necessary, the "law" is clearly wrong. How can laws trump common sense and still have any meaning?
There were other excuses given as well. It seems the jars had leaked some peanut oil. Was this the reason the peanut butter was rejected? If so, it seems awfully petty, especially considering the alternatives the company had.
Maybe this oil damaged the labels, and would not have appeared professional. Maybe the Costco decision makers thought the oil meant inadequately sealed jars. Perhaps Costco was worried about liability and didn't trust all the tests which indicated the peanut butter was perfectly safe. Can't a product be donated "as is", with those who accept it doing so at their own risk? I would have eaten it. Well, not all 25 tons.
Costco wouldn't even allow the peanut butter to be repackaged to remove their name from it and then donated.
I really don't know much about Costco, having never been in one. Now I will never again hear the name "Costco" without thinking of this waste.
The peanut butter was Costco's property, to be used- or not- as they wished. However, the company's choice has forever tainted the way I will view them, and if I am ever in a position to do business with Costco, I will remember the peanut butter, and I will most likely not spend my money there.
Sometimes doing something you have every right to do is not the wisest path you can take, for reasons you may not even see at the time.
Costco wasn't obligated to share their property- that would be socialism. However, they missed an opportunity for a windfall of good will and positive publicity, trading it instead for a black eye on their reputation.
If one person in the company was responsible for the decision, then that one person has single-handedly damaged the company's good name and may need to be looking for a new job soon. If the "law" gave him no choice, which seems unlikely since the peanut butter had been cleared for sale, then the law is where the blame lies. Either way, each and every one of us can pay attention to this situation and remember.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 4, 2014. Here's the background.)
Like just about everyone else around here, I was dismayed to see 58 truckloads- 950,000 jars- of perfectly good Sunland peanut butter, packaged for Costco Wholesale, go into the Clovis landfill. That is a tremendous waste.
Facilitating the sale of the bankrupt Sunland Inc. was one of the justifications given. I'm not aware of all the skulduggery required to "expedite" a bankruptcy sale of this magnitude, but if the "law" makes things like this necessary, the "law" is clearly wrong. How can laws trump common sense and still have any meaning?
There were other excuses given as well. It seems the jars had leaked some peanut oil. Was this the reason the peanut butter was rejected? If so, it seems awfully petty, especially considering the alternatives the company had.
Maybe this oil damaged the labels, and would not have appeared professional. Maybe the Costco decision makers thought the oil meant inadequately sealed jars. Perhaps Costco was worried about liability and didn't trust all the tests which indicated the peanut butter was perfectly safe. Can't a product be donated "as is", with those who accept it doing so at their own risk? I would have eaten it. Well, not all 25 tons.
Costco wouldn't even allow the peanut butter to be repackaged to remove their name from it and then donated.
I really don't know much about Costco, having never been in one. Now I will never again hear the name "Costco" without thinking of this waste.
The peanut butter was Costco's property, to be used- or not- as they wished. However, the company's choice has forever tainted the way I will view them, and if I am ever in a position to do business with Costco, I will remember the peanut butter, and I will most likely not spend my money there.
Sometimes doing something you have every right to do is not the wisest path you can take, for reasons you may not even see at the time.
Costco wasn't obligated to share their property- that would be socialism. However, they missed an opportunity for a windfall of good will and positive publicity, trading it instead for a black eye on their reputation.
If one person in the company was responsible for the decision, then that one person has single-handedly damaged the company's good name and may need to be looking for a new job soon. If the "law" gave him no choice, which seems unlikely since the peanut butter had been cleared for sale, then the law is where the blame lies. Either way, each and every one of us can pay attention to this situation and remember.
.
The price of being correct
It's a shame there has to be a price for being right when "the majority" is wrong. But, there is, so...
Since that's the case, I would rather be shunned for being right, than to be accepted for being wrong along with "the majority".
Of course, there are worse things. Worst of all is to be shunned for being wrong when "the crowd" is actually right, and being too stubborn to see it. I've probably been there, too.
.
Since that's the case, I would rather be shunned for being right, than to be accepted for being wrong along with "the majority".
Of course, there are worse things. Worst of all is to be shunned for being wrong when "the crowd" is actually right, and being too stubborn to see it. I've probably been there, too.
.
Monday, May 05, 2014
“Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”
I admit I haven't watched this video. I may later.
I don't quite believe Ron Paul is the guru of liberty that some seem to see him as, but I do think he's better than just about anyone else who has been a part of Leviathan. How much better could he have been if he had stayed out of that gang and spent his energies in more constructive ways? I don't know, since maybe no one would have ever listened to him in that case.
Still I have often enjoyed what he had to say, even if I rolled my eyes when some statism was clinging to what he said.
Anyway, here's the video: “Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”
.
I don't quite believe Ron Paul is the guru of liberty that some seem to see him as, but I do think he's better than just about anyone else who has been a part of Leviathan. How much better could he have been if he had stayed out of that gang and spent his energies in more constructive ways? I don't know, since maybe no one would have ever listened to him in that case.
Still I have often enjoyed what he had to say, even if I rolled my eyes when some statism was clinging to what he said.
Anyway, here's the video: “Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”
.
Cops, lawyers, and their child porn violations
Cops are not "special"- well, unless you are discussing the fact that a normal (or higher) IQ disqualifies applicants from police "work". Cops were never intended to have "special rights" (if such a thing could even exist)- if a "law" applies to you it also applies identically to a cop.
So, any cop (and by this I mean any enforcer working for government at any level, magically granted the "authority" to kidnap and/or murder people who break the "laws" they are enforcing) who finds and confiscates "child pornography"- as well as the court's prosecutors and judges- is also guilty of looking at and possessing it. And the state's databases which compile "child porn" for "research purposes" or for prosecutorial purposes are gigantic stashes, and everyone who works for them is guilty of possessing and distributing child porn. I don't care how they attempt to justify it, how "necessary" they claim it to be, or what kind of "safeguards" they say are in place.
Now, if a person is convinced they are doing the right thing prosecuting child porn, then they should be willing to pay the penalty that goes along with their "job". If not, they are a hypocrite.
I have a suspicion about people who go into that line of work, though. I suspect most of them are people who are drawn to child pornography and were smart enough to figure out a way to get to look at all they want, "legally". Just like child molesters are drawn to "jobs" like the TSA where they get to molest hundreds of people a day- including children and teens- and anyone who resists or objects can be "smote" with the full power of the federal gooberment.
It's why even this justification for "The State" doesn't wash with me.
And, speaking of child abuse, has anyone else noticed that the people who squawk loudest about this issue are often very enthusiastic advocates of spanking? Just one of those things I notice.
.
So, any cop (and by this I mean any enforcer working for government at any level, magically granted the "authority" to kidnap and/or murder people who break the "laws" they are enforcing) who finds and confiscates "child pornography"- as well as the court's prosecutors and judges- is also guilty of looking at and possessing it. And the state's databases which compile "child porn" for "research purposes" or for prosecutorial purposes are gigantic stashes, and everyone who works for them is guilty of possessing and distributing child porn. I don't care how they attempt to justify it, how "necessary" they claim it to be, or what kind of "safeguards" they say are in place.
Now, if a person is convinced they are doing the right thing prosecuting child porn, then they should be willing to pay the penalty that goes along with their "job". If not, they are a hypocrite.
I have a suspicion about people who go into that line of work, though. I suspect most of them are people who are drawn to child pornography and were smart enough to figure out a way to get to look at all they want, "legally". Just like child molesters are drawn to "jobs" like the TSA where they get to molest hundreds of people a day- including children and teens- and anyone who resists or objects can be "smote" with the full power of the federal gooberment.
It's why even this justification for "The State" doesn't wash with me.
And, speaking of child abuse, has anyone else noticed that the people who squawk loudest about this issue are often very enthusiastic advocates of spanking? Just one of those things I notice.
.
Labels:
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
government,
responsibility,
society,
tyranny deniers
Sunday, May 04, 2014
My favorite desert hermit
I see nothing wrong with Joel's idea of interior decorating, nor with his laundry. It all looks good to me! What do you think?
.
.
Day by Day- Times up May 4, 2014
(Also, Happy Star Wars Day! May the 4th be with you!)
Thanks, Chris! I think I'd like that girl... LOL
.
Is statism an admission of cowardice?
I see statism as an admission of cowardice. The excuse for some form of State (externally imposed government) always revolves around the state's armed goons protecting someone from something. And it's not even always personal. Sometimes it's the justification that "someone" must protect "someone else" from something.
On the home territory that "something" is often "drunk drivers" or "drug abusers". Or child molesters. Or "rich capitalists" and dishonest businesses. Or guns, illness, poverty... the list is endless.
Thinking "globally" that "something" is often "terrorists" or "foreign invaders" who are just waiting for any sign of weakness to come to your home and take over unless the US government keeps a standing military.
I really can't identify too well with either type of fear. It just didn't take root if anyone ever tried to implant it in my head. But, I can't blame people for what they are afraid of, either- it's not a rational decision which they made. I do feel sorry for them.
But, I can't let other people's fears rule my life.
If you are afraid of what would happen under liberty, then no one is forcing you to be free. However, I am under no obligation to pretend your fears are related to reality, either. Nor any obligation to allow you to box me in to make you feel better.
.
Labels:
Counterfeit Laws,
DemoCRAPublicans,
drugs,
economy,
government,
guns,
liberty,
personal,
police state,
responsibility,
Rights,
society,
terrorism,
welfare
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)