Springtime fun on the Llano Estacado

Springtime fun on the Llano Estacado

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 9, 2014)

The recent "slightly stronger than average" winds wreaked havoc at my house. My only tree- a big ugly elm with which I had expressed displeasure only 24 hours earlier- decided to fall and tried to take my carport down with it. It was only partially successful.

Within minutes help arrived and the worst of the mess was being cleaned up. I had friends, family, and a stranger who just happened to drive by, all pitching in to get the situation under control. The street in front of my house wasn't even blocked for too long. I'm not sure how all those helpful folks had planned to spend their Sunday afternoon, but I'm pretty sure their plans didn't include helping me cut up a big tree in the midst of face scouring, eye-irritating, teeth-coating, ear-filling dirt and sand.

Contrary to the assumptions of those who dismiss the libertarian philosophy of Voluntaryism, I didn't have to threaten, force, or bribe a single person to help me. It was total anarchy- and I mean that in the proper sense of the word: no one giving orders or using coercion. Just regular people pitching in to help; applying their knowledge, skills, and common sense to a situation- and solving it.

It's not the first time I have been involved in a similar work party.

Even though I would prefer to have avoided the wind damage, I enjoy the almost festive atmosphere that spontaneously erupts when people come together to tackle a problem. It's a satisfying kind of fun.

Throughout it all I never saw any representative of local government. Neither to lend a hand nor to dole out fines or warnings for having my tree block a "public roadway". How would we ever survive without their guidance? Just fine, thank you.

"Sure, but this was only small-scale" you might say. Sorry to disappoint the skeptics, but this is how the world always goes 'round. And I'm glad of it. Countries don't do anything, individual people do. Whether it's helping a neighbor, or being tricked into conducting war against other individuals who are being manipulated by officials of a foreign "government".

I admit that I didn't seek permits, check the "laws", or ask permission of anyone in "authority" before doing what needed to be done. I didn't try to discover whether the EPA had declared the downed tree a critical habitat, or see if the local "authorities" insisted I follow procedure before commencing. Because: "Freedom and Liberty!"

I didn't even officially report the individuals I watched "steal" (or so they apparently believed) some of the cut up tree- I wish they had taken it all.

.

Pseudo-racism

It's not "racist" to hate things that are associated (by some people) with a particular "race"- because nothing is really race-dependant. It's culture dependent.

Things like baggy pants sagging below the butt.

Things like NASCAR.

Things like gun ownership.

Things like eating dogs.

Because anyone of any "race", not just the "race"which comes to your mind, could do those things.

You can still hate the behavior, if you want. You can think the culture that values or promotes the thing you think is stupid is ridiculous or "inferior". You can think it's the dumbest thing ever. But don't start pointing fingers at people, just because they are of a particular "race", who aren't doing those things. They may think it's as stupid as you do.

Or people of a "race" not normally associated with that behavior may love it, too.

And others probably think something you do is offensively stupid.

Fortunately, it's not about stupid things other (possibly stupid) people do; it's about initiating force or violating private property. Everything else is just a distraction.

.

So... cops...

Yes,  I hate cops. Cops are cowards who cry "Officer safety", when what they are really showing is Officer paranoia. There are No "good cops", but there are some "Nice" cops. Cops are making the explicit choice to be molesters.

No, I haven't really had any bad experiences with cops. At least, nothing too horrible. There have been the usual experiences. But why wait until then? I haven't been murdered and I still know murder is wrong.

And, yes, I have sat down with cops and I have socialized with some. Still, cops are scum. All of them.

I realize cops sometimes save lives. So do farmers, street peddlers, and hamster breeders, sometimes.

Cops are members of an aggressive gang, no better than any other gang of bullies. You can't be a good person and remain "good" while supporting cops. It simply isn't possible; you are being inconsistent if you try.

What you need to realize is that "cop" isn't a person; "policing" is a set of behaviors which involve violating life, liberty, and property. A person can go from being a bad guy (cop) to a good guy in one instant by quitting the gang and never again initiating force or violating property rights- and then I'll have no problem with him. (He may still owe restitution for past offenses, however.)

Of course, as long as there are copsuckers who refuse to see or speak the truth, they'll keep insisting that cops are special and "necessary"...

Or, as Keith Hamburger put it on Facebook recently:

There is an armed gang stalking the streets of America. Festooned in blue and/or black costumes, wearing costume jewelry denoting their affiliations and rank. Brazenly going wherever they please, always armed with at least a sidearm, often staging home invasions with military weapons and grenades. They regularly position snipers with high powered rifles to help protect one another when carrying out their nefarious deeds. This gang regularly gets away with robbery, assault, sexual assault and even murder, using their affiliations with the judicial system to ensure they virtually never face the consequences of their actions. Look around you, it is certain that this gang is highly active and highly visible in your community.

.

"Do something" and never mind about the consequences!

Recently I encountered a bizarre saying- one that was chilling in its implications:

"Get up, go out, do something even if it's wrong."

What? Why?

Is this a manifestation of that old delusion that you always must be "doing something" or else you are worthless?

Doing something wrong is worse- much worse- than doing nothing at all. It's even worse than neglecting to do the right thing, in my mind. It is more wrong to shove someone in front of a train than to neglect to save him.

Yet, there are people out there among us who apparently think it's so important to "do something" that it doesn't matter if they do evil. I will try to stay far away from those people!

.

The "law-abiding" lie

Any time a politician, a LEO, or a copsucking organization qualifies something they say by prefixing it with "law-abiding"- and especially when they add "citizen"- you know they are lying. The term is utterly without meaning.

First of all, no one is "law-abiding", no matter what they believe.

Secondly, you can go from (supposedly) "law-abiding" to a "criminal" in the blink of a politician's eye. All that takes is for him to make up a new rule.

So, when a police chief or a sheriff says they "support the right of law-abiding citizens" to own and to carry firearms, what are they really saying?

They are saying that if the "law" says you can't carry a gun, you are not "law-abiding" if you do, so they'll not support you.

They are saying that if the "law" suddenly changes to outlaw some of your guns, and you don't immediately turn them in, you are no longer "law-abiding" and are fair game to be killed for lack of compliance.

They are saying your rights depend on permission slips from government bureaucrats, and your "citizenship" status.

They are saying that your rights hinge on what others decide.

They are liars and thugs. Your rights don't depend on "laws", nor on "citizenship". They are immutable. Anyone trying to violate you by using the vile words "law-abiding" is not a friend of liberty.

.

Tattoos, with "parental permission"?

The question was whether children who have parental permission should be allowed to get tattoos.

WITH PARENTAL PERMISSION!

The majority of commenters still said "no".

My comment was:

Who has the supposed "authority" to tell parents and kids (in other words, other self-owning people) what they can do tattoo-wise? How did they get that "authority" and where would it have come from?

So, a guy took offense at that apparently radical opinion and asked:

... is there anything in this world that you think might possibly be wrong or is it just open season for any and every act committed against another human being. animal, plant etc....?

I replied:

So, acknowledging that I have no authority over other peoples' lives means I don't think anything is wrong, and I advocate "open season"?`Using aggression against people is wrong. Violating private property rights is wrong. I also believe you should do all you say you'll do ("keep your word").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLUSWhtPOEo

He responded:

Where do you draw the line Kent and by what authority do you decide where the line should be drawn?

And my answer:

I outlined the "line" above. And I don't claim any authority- that would be those trying to make up rules they want to force everyone else to obey.

Truthfully, I don't even like tattoos very much, but I'm not delusional enough to believe I have the right to dictate to other people about things that can't possibly harm me or any other third person in any way.

And so it goes... check out the other comments at the link if you have a Facebook account and can see them. I seriously have a very hard time understanding how some statists "think".

-

Someone else made another comment after posting his opinion to the negative:

Why do people want to mess up what our Wonderful Loving Father In Heaven Has Made???????????????????????

So, I guess that would rule out planting flower gardens, surgery to correct a heart defect, or wearing clothes. Sigh.

.

Your shrinking opportunities to be "law abiding"

Law pollution gets worse daily.

The sphere of being "law abiding"* is getting smaller and smaller.

"Sometimes to do the right thing, you have to break a law." ~ Edward Snowden

"Sometimes"? Almost all the time anymore. But that's only a problem if you don't want to be an outlaw. Why would anyone care about that anymore? That you have to break "laws" to do the right thing says nothing bad about you, but exposes those idiots and evil monsters who are responsible for all the "laws"- and those evil monsters who enforce them.

Bad "laws"? Break 'em.

You are already a criminal "in the eyes of the Law", whether you like it or not.

It doesn't bother me at all.

Resolve to not initiate force and don't steal or otherwise violate private property and you are already doing better than anyone who is imposing those "laws" on you.

Then, just perhaps, it won't bother you, either.

-

*I'll have more to say about that disgusting term another day. Update: here it is

.

Drunken driving fixes abound

Drunken driving fixes abound

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 2, 2014)

I hate drunk driving- and the "checkpoints" and patrols excused as attempts to stop it.

The legalistic approaches inevitably violate the rights of all other drivers while trying to catch some of the guilty. The rights violations increase out of proportion to the "success" of combating "drunk driving".

A much better solution would be to prevent the drunk driving from happening in the first place, while leaving everyone else alone.

Don't think it's possible?

I believe that the stigma attached to driving drunk has done more to keep people from driving drunk than the draconian enforcement that is so popular with big-government advocates. With "laws" the guilty always believe "I won't get caught", but you can't as easily escape your own shame. Obviously, this doesn't work with everyone because some people don't listen to their conscience.

There will always be those who slip through the cracks and there will always be tragedies. There is no Utopia. However, there are ways to approach the problem, using reality and human nature as your guide, to reach a better place than anything possible along the current path.

Eventually self-driving cars will make "drunk driving" a moot point. You can't be driving drunk if you aren't driving- some enforcement blunders to the contrary. Until that happens, collision avoidance systems could become standard to reduce the risk for everyone, even beyond the drunk driving issue.

What else might help?

-End zoning "laws" which keep bars out of neighborhoods so drinkers won't "need" to drive.

-Allow home delivery of alcoholic beverages.

-Don't penalize people for realizing they are too drunk to drive and deciding to sleep it off in their car or walk home.

-Don't ration "taxi licenses", and let anyone with a car or rickshaw be hired to haul people around for money.

-Set up a charity that rewards known "drunks" for not driving when they have been drinking (the charity would decide what sort of proof they want).

-Remove the incentives for cops to arrest every drunk instead of simply driving them home (without their car, obviously).

I'm sure others can think of more ideas that reduce the impaired drivers' likelihood of driving, while not violating anyone's rights.

When everything fails and someone is harmed by a drunk driver, restitution (or self defense if harm is imminent) becomes appropriate. Since restitution is a punishment rather than a preventative measure, it is less helpful.

These suggestions won't be popular with those who simply hate alcohol and never want to see, or hear of, anyone drinking, but for those who actually want to make things better, they should make some sense and be a starting point for real solutions.
.

"Deserter!"

So, the "prisoner of war" purchased in exchange for other prisoners of war (sounds like "human trafficking" to me) turns out to be a "deserter".

They used to call them "run-away slaves".

If you can't quit and walk away, you are a slave. And those who would heap scorn on you for trying to escape your slavemaster are supporters of slavery, along with the worst of the same from history.

.

Fame? Success?

I don't want to be famous- I want to be successful. Only... I'm not quite sure how I would define "success" for myself.

When I see my Time's Up flag design used in places completely unrelated to me, often completely unexpectedly from sources who don't have a clue who I am or that I came up with the design, I feel a sense of success.

When I get donations, or get a check in the mail for my newspaper columns, I feel somewhat successful.

When I get supportive emails- and sometimes even when I get hate mail- I feel like I am succeeding. Not that I enjoy the hate mail...

When I run across someone quoting something I have written- whether it is attributed to me or not- I feel a warm glow of success. My words are having an impact!

So, perhaps my standards are rather low.

But, when I try to imagine what "real success" would be, I am not sure. It is hard to imagine more success than I have so far found- maybe actually being able to afford a car again might qualify, but it's not all about the money. (Much to the dismay of some people around me.) I think it has a lot to do with how I feel about myself- whether I think I am doing all I can to promote liberty and making people hunger for it, and making the world a better place. And, I think I am doing that in the best way I know how right now- while always looking for better ways. So, yeah, I do feel somewhat successful.

Thank you for helping!

.

Boundaries enforced by the power-crazed

In an exchange online with a relative of mine, over the "necessity" (or lack thereof) of cops, she made this comment: "Ever been around a toddler without any boundaries? ... Society, to me, is similar to a toddler."

I replied that what she is advocating is putting some toddlers in charge of the other toddlers, and that this won't ever work well.

It reminds me of the Robert LeFevre quote:

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

Just where do supporters of cops think the police recruits come from, if not from among the rest of the individuals in "society"? And just how do they believe cops are "better" than the "society" from which they come?

If cops are "good" enough to do the right thing, then so are the majority of people, and since "we" vastly outnumber the bad guys, "we" don't need cops.

However, the sad truth is that cops and freelance bad guys share the same kind of personality, as multiple studies have discovered. They are much worse- less ethical and more prone to aggression- than most people. The power and illusion of "authority" that goes with the "job" attracts psychopaths who see the "job" as an opportunity to molest you without much risk of facing real consequences.

So, yeah, lets give them power and bow to their imagined "authority" to set and enforce our "boundaries"- and see how it works out.

.

Emotions drive away reason

Is there any issue that makes you get really emotional?

I'm sure there is- and that should be a warning to you. Emotional issues are difficult to think rationally about. Maybe even impossible.

Almost everyone has been hurt, emotionally, in some way.

I have had dear friends murdered by people using a gun as their tool of death. Should my emotions at losing my friends override my rational brain and cause me to advocate against gun ownership? That does seem to be the standard reaction.

I hate litter so much I can almost lose reason when I see it. Do I support "laws" against litter? No. If your litter ends up on my property, I may consider you a trespasser of sorts, but that is for me to deal with. Advocating for more "laws" will only litter my world worse.

Other people's emotional triggers can be things like rape, drunk driving, or protecting the helpless or damaged.

This seems to be one of the "buts" that trip up many people. Coercive government and its "laws" are wrong, "but I'll support the government's enforcement against [emotional issue] because I hate it!"

That plays right into the bad guys' hands.

.

Take the first step

People are always saying they want to fix this or that, but they are rarely willing to take the first step. If you really love and understand liberty, and you want there to be more of it, and a safer environment in which to live it, then there is a first step: Abolish police- replace them with nothing. Or at least stop thinking of cops as "good" and "necessary", and begin seeing them as the standing army you were warned about, and as the gravest threat to your individual liberty.

Sure, you can exercise your liberty now, with the police/bad guys all around you. There will always be bad guys trying to violate you in one way or another- if you are scared to live in liberty now, you'll probably always find an excuse.

But... cops are "special" in that they are mistaken for "the good guys" by so many of your friends, family, and neighbors. If you fight back when they come to molest you- or worse- most of the people around you will blindly think of you as the problem. Do what you can to solve that mental glitch, and the war will be half won.

Cops are where the boot-heel meets the face. There is no excuse for them. Abolish police and replace them with nothing.

.

What kind are you?

What "kind" of libertarian am I? The "me" kind, I guess.

Thick, thin, brutalist, bleeding heart... I don't try to figure out which I am because I don't care. I don't even bother keeping up with the debates about it. It seems a very silly distraction, and a dangerous way to divide people.

Follow the ZAP, and don't violate private property. Do that and you are a libertarian. Don't do that and you're not.

Beyond that: be nice, but that doesn't make you libertarian or not- it just keeps you from being an insufferable @ss#ole.

.

So, you're already against the next war?

Congratulations.

I'm already ignoring the next president.   

.

Violating individual rights inexcusable

Violating individual rights inexcusable

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 25, 2014.)

I've seen some amusing illustrations going around the internet showing 1920s era prohibition enforcers, or their freelance supporters, smashing barrels of stolen "contraband" alcohol. The photos compare and contrast the earlier alcohol Prohibition with the current drug prohibition. The caption reads "Imagine how silly you'll look in ten years".

Silly, yes, but that's not the worst of it. It's much more serious than that.

In fact, just like the slave traders and those who enforced fugitive slave laws of the 19th century, the current prohibitionists will also eventually look downright evil to practically everyone. It may not be ten years, but it will happen.

Brave drug warriors in the same category as vile human traffickers? How is that possible? Because the "laws" they enforce are no more legitimate than the "laws" that made escaping slavery illegal. You can't excuse a violation of individual rights no matter how many "laws" you pass or how long you get away with enforcing those "laws".

In the name of health and safety, the earlier prohibitionists added poison to alcohol and killed thousands of people; around 50,000 died as a direct result of the government's unpublicized poisoning program. Many more were blinded or paralyzed. Actually, prohibitionists are still poisoning alcohol for the same perverted reason- that's what "denatured" means. Their crusade also created a culture of organized crime, and brought about police corruption that is still pervasive, and getting worse, in America today.

In the name of health and safety the current prohibitionists kill uncountable numbers, enslave many times more than that, and trample the rights and liberty of each and every one of us. Their crusade has fostered gang violence and a culture of police brutality. There is almost no part of the Constitution which hasn't been violated in the name of fighting the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs. This war is actually a war on Americans and their Rightful Liberty.

It's disturbing how many believe it's worth it.

When slavery was legal the excuse against abolition was often phrased as "But without slaves how will the cotton be picked?" Today it is "Without drug laws, who will protect society from drug users?" Well, if it is really necessary (which the experience of Portugal shows as a lie), then you'll just have to find a way which doesn't use made up rules which violate the human right of self determination. Prohibition, just like slavery, is an idea whose time has passed.

Why is opposing prohibition so important to me? Because it is the main justification for the police state which endangers liberty today. On a daily basis prohibition may even be worse than the war on terror.
.

Statism is all about inconsistency

All forms of statism are based on granting exceptions to some people at some times. They are not consistent.

Murder is wrong...unless you are a cop and can claim you just wanted to make it home at the end of your shift. So, statists grant the murderous cop an exemption while he's "on duty". His victim "deserved" it, you know.

Theft is wrong...unless you call it "taxation" and let some people take what isn't theirs while in the performance of their "job". How else can government afford to keep running (and ruining) our lives?

Kicking in someone's door while they sleep is wrong... unless you are an enforcer looking for scary little plants or chemicals. Or guns. Then, as long as you are doing the home invasion "on the job", you get an exemption for doing wrong- oh, you can't call it "wrong" either. And if the residents of the house manage to blow your worthless brains right back out the door, they get kidnapped and called murderers. So, even the defenders in this case get an exemption, but it's a bad one. They are told they are exempted from Natural Law and that they have no right to defend themselves from aggressors.

Statism is based on illegitimate exemptions, granted- or forced upon- some people in some circumstances. Consistency is statism's silver bullet- something it just can't abide.

.

A Government Day message

The foam on the sewage

Sure, I hate all cops, but some I hate more than others.

I hate traffic cops the most because almost every encounter I have ever had with cops involved them. Most cops won't "engage" you unless you call them- or someone else calls them on you. They are fairly easy to avoid in most cases.

Not so with those who prey on travelers.

There are innumerable ways you can attract their unwanted attention. Drive too fast, too slow, or "too cautiously". Don't stop "enough" at stop signs. Have something about your car that gets them excited about robbing you- and then maybe even finding an excuse to murder you while they think up other ways to violate you.

So, while I applaud the deaths of those badgethugs who kick in doors in the middle of the night while looking for "drugs", I am just as happy about the deaths of those who get justice while robbing and molesting travelers. Bad guys need to pay a price for their acts.

.

Extreme? Hardly

It amuses me when liberal/progressives get up in arms over Tea Party folks (whom they often call "Teabaggers"*). They act like those guys are so extreme.

But the truth is they are just barely- almost imperceptibly- "different" than the rest of the mainstream DemoCRAPublicans.

Just imagine if those upset "progressives" discovered the rest of us who are actually "radical" and thought we were a threat. They'd get the vapors, for sure!

-

*I don't get this either- why do the liberals use a term associated with homosexual behavior as an insult? Isn't that like claiming there's something wrong with it? It's like me insulting someone by calling them a "Shooter", a "pothead", or, yes, "gay".

.