Read about it here: Justice for Shaneen Allen!
Now, a small quibble. This wasn't justice.
She's being sent to a "rehabilitative" program? There is nothing to "rehabilitate". She wasn't the one in the wrong. It's like letting a rape victim go to "rehabilitation"- so she can see the error of her ways- because she was raped.
The "arresting" cop needs rehabilitation. The prosecutors need rehabilitation. The evil idiots who wrote and passed the rule she ran afoul of need rehabilitation. Shaneen is the only one involved in this whole mess who doesn't need to be rehabilitated.
I'm glad she isn't being caged. I'm glad she wasn't executed. But this isn't justice. Not even close.
What it is is an illustration of what a bad idea "laws" are- especially when they violate Natural Law. It is an illustration that anything short of being ground up and eaten by The State can be seen as a "win" by those who believe- completely without justification- that The State can be somehow legitimate.
I wish Shaneen had gotten justice. All those guilty of molesting her should be forced to pay her for all the wasted time, energy, inconvenience, "mental anguish", and "legal" trouble their molestation caused. Out of their own pockets, of course, even if it means they and their families have nothing to live in but a cardboard box for the rest of their miserable lives. And, obviously, those guilty vermin should never hold any "public" job ever again- and preferably should die hungry and alone, being shunned to death for their evil acts.
.
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
State-provided security ridiculous
State-provided security ridiculous
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 29, 2014.)
People claim government must provide security- by which they usually mean police and military- because security is much too important to leave to the market to provide (which they confuse with leaving it to chance), or to do without.
Yet, nothing is more important than air. Being so vital, shouldn't we let government inspect, bottle, and ration air to make certain we all get our safe and clean fair share? We'd pay higher taxes for that, right? When someone breaks the rules the government can just cut off their air supply (no, not their easy-listening '70s music, their oxygen; not the Oxygen television network, the life-sustaining atmospheric gas). That would end crime and silence malcontents quickly!
Trees, oceanic algae, and chemists would have to be regulated to prevent unauthorized oxygen production. And something would have to be done to secure the borders to prevent immigrating air from infiltrating American lungs. Not breathing at all would be better than breathing foreign air!
Yeah, it sounds silly. Pretending security must be provided by the State is just as ridiculous.
Guess what- security, like air, is all around you. It is within you and me, and between us. If only we don't pretend it has to be provided by others.
Like it or not, you are the militia, and defending your home and family- and by extension your surroundings- is best done by you. That's real security. Plus, by accepting your militia responsibility you can protect your liberty from the most dangerous of enemies: the "domestic" ones.
When the Second Amendment- the law making the passage and enforcement of "gun control" a serious crime- was being debated, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said, "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
One path leads to security, the other, to tyranny.
So, here we are. They were allowed to get away with it. The militia failed in its duty to prevent the government from establishing its own standing military, the people generally approve and ignore the tragedy, anti-gun "laws" result in much death and suffering, and liberty is dying at an accelerating pace. And still, people clamor for more security to be bottled and distributed. We would do well to remember Gerry's quote and its implications. Or recognize the reality that security shouldn't be handled by those who fear liberty the most. Any security they promise is smoke and mirrors.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 29, 2014.)
People claim government must provide security- by which they usually mean police and military- because security is much too important to leave to the market to provide (which they confuse with leaving it to chance), or to do without.
Yet, nothing is more important than air. Being so vital, shouldn't we let government inspect, bottle, and ration air to make certain we all get our safe and clean fair share? We'd pay higher taxes for that, right? When someone breaks the rules the government can just cut off their air supply (no, not their easy-listening '70s music, their oxygen; not the Oxygen television network, the life-sustaining atmospheric gas). That would end crime and silence malcontents quickly!
Trees, oceanic algae, and chemists would have to be regulated to prevent unauthorized oxygen production. And something would have to be done to secure the borders to prevent immigrating air from infiltrating American lungs. Not breathing at all would be better than breathing foreign air!
Yeah, it sounds silly. Pretending security must be provided by the State is just as ridiculous.
Guess what- security, like air, is all around you. It is within you and me, and between us. If only we don't pretend it has to be provided by others.
Like it or not, you are the militia, and defending your home and family- and by extension your surroundings- is best done by you. That's real security. Plus, by accepting your militia responsibility you can protect your liberty from the most dangerous of enemies: the "domestic" ones.
When the Second Amendment- the law making the passage and enforcement of "gun control" a serious crime- was being debated, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said, "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
One path leads to security, the other, to tyranny.
So, here we are. They were allowed to get away with it. The militia failed in its duty to prevent the government from establishing its own standing military, the people generally approve and ignore the tragedy, anti-gun "laws" result in much death and suffering, and liberty is dying at an accelerating pace. And still, people clamor for more security to be bottled and distributed. We would do well to remember Gerry's quote and its implications. Or recognize the reality that security shouldn't be handled by those who fear liberty the most. Any security they promise is smoke and mirrors.
.
"Animal rights"?
Somewhere I have written it before, but I can't find it right now, so I'll write it here.
I love animals, hate people who abuse them, and I don't "believe in" "animal rights".
How's that?
If "rights" are imaginary, then that's that. End of discussion.
If "rights" are a real thing, then I don't see them as transferable between species. A mouse has no right to not be tortured, killed, and eaten by a cat. A deer has no right to not be shot and eaten by a human. A dog has no right to not be kicked by its owner.
A human also has no right to not be mauled and eaten by a bear.
Any of the victims have the right to fight back however they can, killing their attacker if possible. It's just the way it works.
Any victim of another member of its own species always has the right to fight back, too. Are you listening, enforcers and freelance thugs?
Pretending otherwise will get you in all sorts of trouble, and may surprise you.
I have no right to use force to stop another human from doing anything to an animal which doesn't belong to me (or to some third party who doesn't consent to him using it that way).
I do have the right to shun and publicize what I see as disgusting behavior on the part of the abuser. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so.
Humans have the choice to cause pain and terror, or to not do so. I respect those who choose not to, and I'll avoid those I know who enjoy (or just don't care about) causing suffering. I don't trust animal abusers to stop there, but suspect it would only be a short hop to expanding their activities to human victims. Even if they don't, I think anyone who callously causes suffering isn't someone I want to be around. Not my kind of people.
You also have no ethical obligation to not eat other animals. All life is paid for by death. Don't let anyone try to make you feel bad for what you eat. I do think the way you (or your proxy) treat your food as you kill it shows whether you are a decent person or not. You also have the right to be vegetarian or "vegan" (isn't that also the word for someone/something from Vega?) if that's what you want, but it doesn't make you superior or more moral in the slightest way.
.
I love animals, hate people who abuse them, and I don't "believe in" "animal rights".
How's that?
If "rights" are imaginary, then that's that. End of discussion.
If "rights" are a real thing, then I don't see them as transferable between species. A mouse has no right to not be tortured, killed, and eaten by a cat. A deer has no right to not be shot and eaten by a human. A dog has no right to not be kicked by its owner.
A human also has no right to not be mauled and eaten by a bear.
Any of the victims have the right to fight back however they can, killing their attacker if possible. It's just the way it works.
Any victim of another member of its own species always has the right to fight back, too. Are you listening, enforcers and freelance thugs?
Pretending otherwise will get you in all sorts of trouble, and may surprise you.
I have no right to use force to stop another human from doing anything to an animal which doesn't belong to me (or to some third party who doesn't consent to him using it that way).
I do have the right to shun and publicize what I see as disgusting behavior on the part of the abuser. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so.
Humans have the choice to cause pain and terror, or to not do so. I respect those who choose not to, and I'll avoid those I know who enjoy (or just don't care about) causing suffering. I don't trust animal abusers to stop there, but suspect it would only be a short hop to expanding their activities to human victims. Even if they don't, I think anyone who callously causes suffering isn't someone I want to be around. Not my kind of people.
You also have no ethical obligation to not eat other animals. All life is paid for by death. Don't let anyone try to make you feel bad for what you eat. I do think the way you (or your proxy) treat your food as you kill it shows whether you are a decent person or not. You also have the right to be vegetarian or "vegan" (isn't that also the word for someone/something from Vega?) if that's what you want, but it doesn't make you superior or more moral in the slightest way.
.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Bitcoin question
How can I regain access to my Bitcoin?
Long story- the computer I have been using since I began this blog 8 years ago finally totally died. It had been limping along for years, so I wasn't caught by surprise. I sold something I really didn't want to sell and bought a new one. I had saved the DAT file from the Bitcoin wallet fairly often before the computer died, and have it on a stick, but now I have no idea to translate that into moving the Bitcoin to the new computer. I also don't remember which "brand" of wallet I was using.
Any ideas?
.
Long story- the computer I have been using since I began this blog 8 years ago finally totally died. It had been limping along for years, so I wasn't caught by surprise. I sold something I really didn't want to sell and bought a new one. I had saved the DAT file from the Bitcoin wallet fairly often before the computer died, and have it on a stick, but now I have no idea to translate that into moving the Bitcoin to the new computer. I also don't remember which "brand" of wallet I was using.
Any ideas?
.
How to become a good ATF agent
Have you ever heard someone make the claim that the ATF/BATFE/BATFEces are really just trying to stop "crime"? Well, I have.
Let's think about that.
First of all, they are financed and paid with stolen "tax" money. Not a good start if you want to be "good guys".
Then, not only is their agency not "constitutional" since nothing in the Constitution gives government any "authority" (not even false authority) to meddle with weapons, alcohol, or tobacco (or any other consumables or products), which means it is illegal, it is completely anti-constitutional. The "F" and "E" parts of the name being specifically forbidden to them by the Second Amendment (which I realize is routinely ignored anyway, but just use this to point out the criminal nature of the gang).
So, here's the claim that a criminal gang, financed by theft, and operating outside the statutory law written to prevent them from existing, and in total violation of Natural Law, can somehow be the "good guys", and that they are needed to prevent innocent people from being harmed.
It's so ridiculous, it's painful.
Well, there is one way they can become "good" ATF agents...
Let's think about that.
First of all, they are financed and paid with stolen "tax" money. Not a good start if you want to be "good guys".
Then, not only is their agency not "constitutional" since nothing in the Constitution gives government any "authority" (not even false authority) to meddle with weapons, alcohol, or tobacco (or any other consumables or products), which means it is illegal, it is completely anti-constitutional. The "F" and "E" parts of the name being specifically forbidden to them by the Second Amendment (which I realize is routinely ignored anyway, but just use this to point out the criminal nature of the gang).
So, here's the claim that a criminal gang, financed by theft, and operating outside the statutory law written to prevent them from existing, and in total violation of Natural Law, can somehow be the "good guys", and that they are needed to prevent innocent people from being harmed.
It's so ridiculous, it's painful.
Well, there is one way they can become "good" ATF agents...
Sunday, September 28, 2014
The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers
Statist copsuckers just can't consider that cops are bad. Even when the evidence is right there in front of them- admitted to in the "official" police version of events.
One, when I stated that the cop was the bad guy- the one who was the aggressor, said to me:
Yet, this statist insists that since I wasn't there I can't know who the bad guy was- who had committed the crime- even though the cops willingly list the crimes committed by Officer Brent Aguilar and can't show a single one (other than the imaginary"crime" of "contempt of cop") committed by Brent Aguilar's victim (whom they quickly "arrested" on "unrelated" charges).
Don't believe me? Let's go through the police version of events. The car was stopped. A passenger in the back seat (Corona) asked why they were being stopped (not a crime or any reason to suspect a crime). Aguilar demanded that passenger's ID (not within his authority and therefore a crime to do so). The passenger refused (not a crime to refuse to obey an illegal order). Aguilar placed the passenger under arrest (not a real arrest, but a kidnapping, since no crime had been committed by Corona. Adding to the crimes Aguilar and the police admit he committed). Then Aguilar added another crime to the crimes he was committing by physically attacking Corona to the point he broke a cheekbone, and to cover this crime, made up the charge of "resisting arrest".
If you copsuckers dispute these events take it up with the police department. The only difference is that you and the police don't consider these things wrong if committed by cops "in the line of duty", which is an unsupportable double standard I do not subscribe to. You can support cops all you want, but they are too dangerous to allow to exist.
The only way to excuse what Officer Brent Aguilar did is to make up an imaginary double standard where a crime can't be a crime if the aggressor wears a magical talisman called a badge. And that's what copsuckers are best at. No double standards.
It's as though we can't pass judgement on a rapist until we know what his victim might have done to "deserve it", even though the rapist admits the rape occurred (but calls it "arresting sex", instead, and says she refused to identify herself, so he had to do it, and she was then guilty of "resisting sex"). We can have video of the rape happening. We can have eyewitness testimony. We can see the physical wounds. But, if we are members of the Brutal Rapist Fan Club, we must reserve judgement until some justification can be manufactured.
If you needed any evidence that copsuckers will contort themselves inside out in support of their badged gods, there you have it.
ADDED: Surprise! This isn't the first time Brent Aguilar has been a brutal thug: "Aguilar used excessive force in taking Melanie Ryan of Clovis to the ground on her concrete porch"
.
One, when I stated that the cop was the bad guy- the one who was the aggressor, said to me:
Your statement suggests you were there, please recount your version of the events. To do otherwise would put you in the same category as some of the "advocates" who incite foolishness for recognition and profit while having no actual knowledge about anything.
Yet, this statist insists that since I wasn't there I can't know who the bad guy was- who had committed the crime- even though the cops willingly list the crimes committed by Officer Brent Aguilar and can't show a single one (other than the imaginary"crime" of "contempt of cop") committed by Brent Aguilar's victim (whom they quickly "arrested" on "unrelated" charges).
Don't believe me? Let's go through the police version of events. The car was stopped. A passenger in the back seat (Corona) asked why they were being stopped (not a crime or any reason to suspect a crime). Aguilar demanded that passenger's ID (not within his authority and therefore a crime to do so). The passenger refused (not a crime to refuse to obey an illegal order). Aguilar placed the passenger under arrest (not a real arrest, but a kidnapping, since no crime had been committed by Corona. Adding to the crimes Aguilar and the police admit he committed). Then Aguilar added another crime to the crimes he was committing by physically attacking Corona to the point he broke a cheekbone, and to cover this crime, made up the charge of "resisting arrest".
If you copsuckers dispute these events take it up with the police department. The only difference is that you and the police don't consider these things wrong if committed by cops "in the line of duty", which is an unsupportable double standard I do not subscribe to. You can support cops all you want, but they are too dangerous to allow to exist.
The only way to excuse what Officer Brent Aguilar did is to make up an imaginary double standard where a crime can't be a crime if the aggressor wears a magical talisman called a badge. And that's what copsuckers are best at. No double standards.
It's as though we can't pass judgement on a rapist until we know what his victim might have done to "deserve it", even though the rapist admits the rape occurred (but calls it "arresting sex", instead, and says she refused to identify herself, so he had to do it, and she was then guilty of "resisting sex"). We can have video of the rape happening. We can have eyewitness testimony. We can see the physical wounds. But, if we are members of the Brutal Rapist Fan Club, we must reserve judgement until some justification can be manufactured.
If you needed any evidence that copsuckers will contort themselves inside out in support of their badged gods, there you have it.
ADDED: Surprise! This isn't the first time Brent Aguilar has been a brutal thug: "Aguilar used excessive force in taking Melanie Ryan of Clovis to the ground on her concrete porch"
.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
"Bad words"
I try really hard to keep certain words out of my posts. Part of the reason is that I honestly don't use them in real life (even if working on a car can make me think them), and part of the reason is if someone is going to be offended by this blog, I'd rather they were offended by the concepts and ideas I present rather than the pettiness of finding fault in the words I use to express myself.
But, I don't believe in "bad words".
I even tell my daughter there are no "bad words", even though I explain there are words that will upset her grandparents if uttered in their presence. And I have been amused at the casual way she asks if a certain word is a "bad word" or not. I guess she gets that from someone else.
But, there are words that are like a screwdriver being hammered into my ear.
Words like "patriotism", "vote", "service" (when applied to a government tool of any variety), "citizen", etc. No, they aren't "bad" words, and could even be used in good ways, but since the main way I hear them is in propping up the police state, they hurt my ears.
But I don't whine and insist people stop using those words around me- and even if I wince, no one probably notices.
.
But, I don't believe in "bad words".
I even tell my daughter there are no "bad words", even though I explain there are words that will upset her grandparents if uttered in their presence. And I have been amused at the casual way she asks if a certain word is a "bad word" or not. I guess she gets that from someone else.
But, there are words that are like a screwdriver being hammered into my ear.
Words like "patriotism", "vote", "service" (when applied to a government tool of any variety), "citizen", etc. No, they aren't "bad" words, and could even be used in good ways, but since the main way I hear them is in propping up the police state, they hurt my ears.
But I don't whine and insist people stop using those words around me- and even if I wince, no one probably notices.
.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Cop supporters are dropping the ball
Why do I get so worked up over cops?
Because I don't "need" cops (neither do you, but that's for another time) and if you're going to impose them on me, you'd better hold them to a very high standard. Much higher than anyone who doesn't live on stolen money ("taxes") and doesn't go around meddling in people's private business. To try to let them get away with anything just shows how corrupt and stupid your "system" is.
If you really like and support cops you should come down HARD on those who violate anyone in any way (you know, the "bad apples"). Otherwise you are simply part of the problem- and working hard to make it worse to the point it will explode.
Cops: If you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, Stop living on stolen money, Stop enforcing made-up rules, Stop imposing yourself in purely consensual interactions, Stop molesting travelers for "speed", "licensing", and paperwork violations, Stop beating non-violent people, Stop demanding ID and other information which is none of your business, and Stop standing by while those "bad apples" you claim are "giving you a bad name" do any of these things. You have a choice: you can keep doing what you're doing and keep being a bad guy... or you can walk away from the "job" right now and join the ranks of the productive people you have been feeding off of all this time. It can be an instant turn around from bad guy to good guy- as long as you leave the aggression and theft behind you (doing those things freelance is no big improvement; just a minor one).
Until these things happen I will oppose the very existence of "police". They should never be allowed to roam the streets preying on people. I'd rather take my chances with the "criminals" they pretend to protect me from. There are no "good" cops.
Abolish the police!
.
Because I don't "need" cops (neither do you, but that's for another time) and if you're going to impose them on me, you'd better hold them to a very high standard. Much higher than anyone who doesn't live on stolen money ("taxes") and doesn't go around meddling in people's private business. To try to let them get away with anything just shows how corrupt and stupid your "system" is.
If you really like and support cops you should come down HARD on those who violate anyone in any way (you know, the "bad apples"). Otherwise you are simply part of the problem- and working hard to make it worse to the point it will explode.
Cops: If you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, Stop living on stolen money, Stop enforcing made-up rules, Stop imposing yourself in purely consensual interactions, Stop molesting travelers for "speed", "licensing", and paperwork violations, Stop beating non-violent people, Stop demanding ID and other information which is none of your business, and Stop standing by while those "bad apples" you claim are "giving you a bad name" do any of these things. You have a choice: you can keep doing what you're doing and keep being a bad guy... or you can walk away from the "job" right now and join the ranks of the productive people you have been feeding off of all this time. It can be an instant turn around from bad guy to good guy- as long as you leave the aggression and theft behind you (doing those things freelance is no big improvement; just a minor one).
Until these things happen I will oppose the very existence of "police". They should never be allowed to roam the streets preying on people. I'd rather take my chances with the "criminals" they pretend to protect me from. There are no "good" cops.
Abolish the police!
.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The modern "God For All Seasons"
People used to blame the gods for illness and weather disasters. Now many of them blame "the government".
Ebola, "chemtrails", hurricanes, blizzards, AIDS, "crack cocaine"... the list could go on and on: I have seen all of those things attributed to actions by government.
The State's worshipers who believe government is good or "necessary" aren't the only ones who have elevated The State to godlike status. Many people who hate "government" are unwittingly doing the same thing by making The State stand in for Satan.
The State isn't that powerful. It is made up of nothing more than regular criminals who are working together against your interests while hiding behind an imaginary veil of legitimacy, but they have no magic you don't give them.
So, stop giving it to them.
.
Ebola, "chemtrails", hurricanes, blizzards, AIDS, "crack cocaine"... the list could go on and on: I have seen all of those things attributed to actions by government.
The State's worshipers who believe government is good or "necessary" aren't the only ones who have elevated The State to godlike status. Many people who hate "government" are unwittingly doing the same thing by making The State stand in for Satan.
The State isn't that powerful. It is made up of nothing more than regular criminals who are working together against your interests while hiding behind an imaginary veil of legitimacy, but they have no magic you don't give them.
So, stop giving it to them.
.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
There’s always time to be civil
There’s always time to be civil
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 22, 2014.)
It is really easy to misunderstand other people; to misinterpret their words, tone of voice, and actions. That's why you should be careful about how you react toward anyone. Don't say or do things which can't be taken back if you discover you took something wrong. It makes for fictional comedy, but real life misery.
Recently I was going to the post office, and on the sidewalk in front of me was a person who was going slowly; having some difficulty and walking with a cane.
I wanted to be nice and open the door for her, so I stepped around her to get the door. As I did so, she made a comment about being sorry she was blocking my path and making me go around her. The comment sounded sarcastic, which shocked me, since that was the furthest thing from my mind.
I told her I was just trying to get the door, and she said that was very nice of me.
But the encounter kept bothering me.
I thought about the assumptions involved, and how everyone appeared to be assuming the worst of the other person.
It certainly seemed to me that she assumed I was impatient about being behind her, and rudely leapfrogged past to get to the door. But was that what she really thought?
I wondered if instead the assumption was mine, and she hadn't actually intended anything sarcastic by her words. Maybe I was reading something into it which wasn't there.
Either way, I'm glad that I didn't impulsively say something rude in response to my interpretation of what she said. If she had meant the sarcasm I thought I heard, it would have only escalated the situation; if she hadn't intended sarcasm, then I would have been the jerk.
Unless someone is physically attacking you, there is always time to be civil. It doesn't hurt you at all to refuse to return rudeness for rudeness, even when it's real.
Which ties in with being an ambassador for liberty.
Most people who advocate theft and aggression- or support those who employ one or the other- don't do it to be nasty. Most of them don't even realize what they do. Almost everyone becomes defensive when their errors are pointed out to them, choosing to dig in their heels and ignore contrary evidence with even more determination. That's just human nature. It's also human nature to never want to see yourself or your loved ones as the bad guys.
When possible, assume the best of people until they give you clear reasons not to, or are an immediate threat. Give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Maybe they'll surprise you.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 22, 2014.)
It is really easy to misunderstand other people; to misinterpret their words, tone of voice, and actions. That's why you should be careful about how you react toward anyone. Don't say or do things which can't be taken back if you discover you took something wrong. It makes for fictional comedy, but real life misery.
Recently I was going to the post office, and on the sidewalk in front of me was a person who was going slowly; having some difficulty and walking with a cane.
I wanted to be nice and open the door for her, so I stepped around her to get the door. As I did so, she made a comment about being sorry she was blocking my path and making me go around her. The comment sounded sarcastic, which shocked me, since that was the furthest thing from my mind.
I told her I was just trying to get the door, and she said that was very nice of me.
But the encounter kept bothering me.
I thought about the assumptions involved, and how everyone appeared to be assuming the worst of the other person.
It certainly seemed to me that she assumed I was impatient about being behind her, and rudely leapfrogged past to get to the door. But was that what she really thought?
I wondered if instead the assumption was mine, and she hadn't actually intended anything sarcastic by her words. Maybe I was reading something into it which wasn't there.
Either way, I'm glad that I didn't impulsively say something rude in response to my interpretation of what she said. If she had meant the sarcasm I thought I heard, it would have only escalated the situation; if she hadn't intended sarcasm, then I would have been the jerk.
Unless someone is physically attacking you, there is always time to be civil. It doesn't hurt you at all to refuse to return rudeness for rudeness, even when it's real.
Which ties in with being an ambassador for liberty.
Most people who advocate theft and aggression- or support those who employ one or the other- don't do it to be nasty. Most of them don't even realize what they do. Almost everyone becomes defensive when their errors are pointed out to them, choosing to dig in their heels and ignore contrary evidence with even more determination. That's just human nature. It's also human nature to never want to see yourself or your loved ones as the bad guys.
When possible, assume the best of people until they give you clear reasons not to, or are an immediate threat. Give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Maybe they'll surprise you.
.
I'll hate whom I decide to hate
There are bad guys out there. Probably fewer than Rulers and their mouthpieces in the media want me to believe. They work really hard to make me fear or hate those they want me to fear or hate for their own purposes.
And, invariably, that purpose is to make me want to be protected, or to have government punish those bad guys on my behalf. Through more "laws", stricter enforcement of those "laws", or War.
I hate to tell them- it's not working.
I'm not inclined to fear freelance bad guys.
Even if I decide to hate ISIS/ISIL, or child molesters or dog abusers or whoever, the "solution" isn't "laws" or The State. In fact, those bad guys can be dealt with better, more justly, and more ethically without relying on the bad guys of The State, their enforcers, or the "laws" they wield. They need to just get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else they do is just protecting the other bad guys out there.
.
And, invariably, that purpose is to make me want to be protected, or to have government punish those bad guys on my behalf. Through more "laws", stricter enforcement of those "laws", or War.
I hate to tell them- it's not working.
I'm not inclined to fear freelance bad guys.
Even if I decide to hate ISIS/ISIL, or child molesters or dog abusers or whoever, the "solution" isn't "laws" or The State. In fact, those bad guys can be dealt with better, more justly, and more ethically without relying on the bad guys of The State, their enforcers, or the "laws" they wield. They need to just get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else they do is just protecting the other bad guys out there.
.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Coddling aggressors
When is it OK to hit a woman?
Whenever- and under the same conditions- it is OK to hit a man. And, I'd say the same applies for using force against- spanking- a child.
Whenever- and under the same conditions- it is OK to hit a man. And, I'd say the same applies for using force against- spanking- a child.
You have no right to initiate force, and if you do, you can expect defensive force to be used against you. Grow up and accept it and don't act shocked when it happens.
Your sex/gender, age, IQ, "job", "intentions" or anything else have zero bearing on the matter. You don't wish to be struck? Don't strike first.
I understand those who say "never hit a woman" have good intentions, and they are not under any obligation to strike back, but I think they are doing women a disservice. Treating them as if they as not capable of ethical behavior, so we must overlook this sort of thing, is insulting.
Look at it this way: would you strike a woman to save the life of a kid she was beating to death? Would you shoot a woman who was aiming a gun at you or an innocent person?
I certainly hope so.
If it's OK under those circumstances (and it most certainly is OK), then it's also OK to strike a woman who is hitting you. If you are stronger and hit harder... well, an aggressor needs to take that into account before initiating force.
If it's OK under those circumstances (and it most certainly is OK), then it's also OK to strike a woman who is hitting you. If you are stronger and hit harder... well, an aggressor needs to take that into account before initiating force.
It doesn't mean "society" or "The Law" will agree with you, but those institutions (or the individuals claiming to represent them) are frequently falling all over themselves to align with the wrong side, anyway. Many libertarians will probably disagree, too. Every action will have consequences- accept that and be prepared to deal with them.
Stop giving aggressors a free pass because of their sex. It only encourages them.
.
.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Truth About ''Immigration''
From The Libertarian Enterprise, 9-21-2014
Basically, it's just some of my recent blogs, combined into one piece, submitted to TLE after Cathy Smith asked for submissions on the subject.
.
Basically, it's just some of my recent blogs, combined into one piece, submitted to TLE after Cathy Smith asked for submissions on the subject.
.
Track down and drown... who?
(Let's imagine a world where voting mattered, and where the ZAP didn't...)
We should track down and drown Republican voters for always throwing the election to the Democrats! If they would just vote Libertarian like they should they wouldn't end up with Democrats in office! They need to just hold their nose for the liberty they don't want, and vote for Libertarians anyway, to keep the Democrat from winning. They always bleed votes away from the Libertarian candidate, and look where that gets us!
Well, if it were true for Republicans (and good enough for their harpy) it would be true for Libertarians.
.
We should track down and drown Republican voters for always throwing the election to the Democrats! If they would just vote Libertarian like they should they wouldn't end up with Democrats in office! They need to just hold their nose for the liberty they don't want, and vote for Libertarians anyway, to keep the Democrat from winning. They always bleed votes away from the Libertarian candidate, and look where that gets us!
Well, if it were true for Republicans (and good enough for their harpy) it would be true for Libertarians.
.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
"Innocent until proven guilty"?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is (was?) a concept designed to try to keep a "justice system" from becoming a corrupt rubber-stamping of the government's will.
That doesn't mean that when you know someone did something evil you have to wait until "the system" declares him guilty to know he is guilty. That's just silly.
But that's what copsuckers demand when one of their gods gets caught. Check out some of the badgefluffing comments. Looking for any justification for thuggishness, no matter how flimsy. It's really sickening.
I don't support double standards for aggressors. It is the same if you are a freelance thug. But, freelancers have a better chance of being held accountable than their "professional" counterparts, so it is especially important to not be distracted and let the "system" excuse or justify aggression by cops.
It didn't work, but I understand why it was done.
That doesn't mean that when you know someone did something evil you have to wait until "the system" declares him guilty to know he is guilty. That's just silly.
But that's what copsuckers demand when one of their gods gets caught. Check out some of the badgefluffing comments. Looking for any justification for thuggishness, no matter how flimsy. It's really sickening.
I don't support double standards for aggressors. It is the same if you are a freelance thug. But, freelancers have a better chance of being held accountable than their "professional" counterparts, so it is especially important to not be distracted and let the "system" excuse or justify aggression by cops.
.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
"For profit" prisons
I see a lot of people complaining about the vile concept of "prisons for profit". The implied "solution" they seem to be suggesting is to make governments run them all again "non-profitably".
That's a non-solution.
That's like saying since murder-for-hire is a bad thing, we should have "tax"-funded murders instead (oh, wait...). Or charity murders. The root problem isn't always how you pay for something; sometimes it's the thing you are paying for.
Prisons are the problem, not whether they are for profit or "tax" funded.
.
That's a non-solution.
That's like saying since murder-for-hire is a bad thing, we should have "tax"-funded murders instead (oh, wait...). Or charity murders. The root problem isn't always how you pay for something; sometimes it's the thing you are paying for.
Prisons are the problem, not whether they are for profit or "tax" funded.
.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Updated: Officer Brent Aguilar of Clovis (NM) PD- newly registered Liberty Offender
Since this event is local to me, I feel I should help spread it around:
Passenger Asks Police Why They Were Stopped, So They Handcuffed Him Then Broke His Face
The Clovis Police department's Facebook page is doing damage control (in other words, lying and excusing and trying to deflect attention to this aggression by tax addict), and the copsuckers are helping- although at this time they are vastly outnumbered by the people who simply aren't buying the "justifications" anymore.
So, I think we have another addition to the Liberty Offender Registry: Congratulations Tax Parasite Officer Aguilar. I'll update this with your full name, you spineless pig, once I find out more information.
I'll also name your disgusting accomplices (Still believe in "good cops"? LOL)
I'll say it again: "resisting arrest", especially when it is an illegal "arrest- more accurately called a kidnapping- can NEVER be a "crime". You have an absolute right to defend yourself from kidnappers with any amount of force it takes to stop them- yes, even deadly force. Every single time a kidnapping of this sort is attempted I would love to see the kidnapper dead.
Watch below for updates and more links.
UPDATE: Seems it was Officer Brent Aguilar who was the brutal pig: link
"Corona was charged with concealing his identity and resisting arrest"
Passenger Asks Police Why They Were Stopped, So They Handcuffed Him Then Broke His Face
The Clovis Police department's Facebook page is doing damage control (in other words, lying and excusing and trying to deflect attention to this aggression by tax addict), and the copsuckers are helping- although at this time they are vastly outnumbered by the people who simply aren't buying the "justifications" anymore.
So, I think we have another addition to the Liberty Offender Registry: Congratulations Tax Parasite Officer Aguilar. I'll update this with your full name, you spineless pig, once I find out more information.
I'll also name your disgusting accomplices (Still believe in "good cops"? LOL)
I'll say it again: "resisting arrest", especially when it is an illegal "arrest- more accurately called a kidnapping- can NEVER be a "crime". You have an absolute right to defend yourself from kidnappers with any amount of force it takes to stop them- yes, even deadly force. Every single time a kidnapping of this sort is attempted I would love to see the kidnapper dead.
Watch below for updates and more links.
UPDATE: Seems it was Officer Brent Aguilar who was the brutal pig: link
"Corona was charged with concealing his identity and resisting arrest"
So, if I demand to know who someone is- without any cause whatsoever- and they refuse, it's a "crime". Good. So now let's see Brent Aguilar charged with the same crime since he and the police chief concealed his identity. Abolish the police.
UPDATE 2: You knew it was coming: Officer Brent Aguilar's victim has been kidnapped, charged with "felony aggravated assault and battery". Expose the crimes of a cop, expect retaliation. And, he didn't simply "accuse" Brent Aguilar- video evidence and eyewitness testimony backed him up. Even if he had said nothing, the evidence would have been there- in fact, he wasn't the one who recorded or released the video of the crime.
UPDATE 3: Apparently Aguilar has a history of brutal, thuggish behavior. How many other Clovis cops simply haven't yet been exposed for the same thing? All of them?
.
UPDATE 2: You knew it was coming: Officer Brent Aguilar's victim has been kidnapped, charged with "felony aggravated assault and battery". Expose the crimes of a cop, expect retaliation. And, he didn't simply "accuse" Brent Aguilar- video evidence and eyewitness testimony backed him up. Even if he had said nothing, the evidence would have been there- in fact, he wasn't the one who recorded or released the video of the crime.
UPDATE 3: Apparently Aguilar has a history of brutal, thuggish behavior. How many other Clovis cops simply haven't yet been exposed for the same thing? All of them?
.
An impossible "free society"?
The next time you hear some "pragmatic" person tell you there will never- CAN never be a "free society", just remember how few years it took to adopt a collectivist, socialist system in America.
A really bizarre, unnatural and broken "system" which can't work- never has worked any time it has been tried, and never will work unless humans evolve into some sort of drone organism, has been "successfully" imposed on people who still believe they are the "anti-socialists". And even though they suffer the failures on a daily basis, they still refuse to see what has happened.
But we're the crazy ones for suggesting a free society is possible, and working to make it happen.
So, yes, a free society is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem today. And it can happen a lot faster than you imagine if more people simply start implementing it in their own lives instead of worrying that it will never be and seeking reasons why.
.
A really bizarre, unnatural and broken "system" which can't work- never has worked any time it has been tried, and never will work unless humans evolve into some sort of drone organism, has been "successfully" imposed on people who still believe they are the "anti-socialists". And even though they suffer the failures on a daily basis, they still refuse to see what has happened.
But we're the crazy ones for suggesting a free society is possible, and working to make it happen.
So, yes, a free society is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem today. And it can happen a lot faster than you imagine if more people simply start implementing it in their own lives instead of worrying that it will never be and seeking reasons why.
.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Self control highest responsibility
Self control highest responsibility
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 15, 2014.)
Liberty, responsibility, and happiness are intimately entwined.
Liberty is the freedom to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate anyone else's identical and equal liberty. It really is that simple; it's how responsible people behave.
Living by liberty can lead to happiness if you're not careful.
Some disturbed people aren't content with living their own liberty because it means staying out of the way of others. These people seem driven to meddle and prevent others from living a life of full liberty.
Often they take issue with the choices others make; calling them "libertines" or pointing out that some people will always be irresponsible. Until a person's choices violate the liberty of someone else, it's no one's business, and not within anyone's authority to interfere. You have no right to violate the liberty of others simply because some people might act irresponsibly or make choices which offend a "majority".
Your highest responsibility is to control yourself, not to enforce your ideas of responsibility on others- which seems to be very difficult for a lot of people in today's meddlesome society.
Every human interaction should be strictly voluntary. When someone breaks that indispensable rule of civilization and forces themselves or their way upon you, self defense becomes a legitimate option- even if the other person feels they were right in their actions toward you. They may point to "laws" they claim allow them to impose on you, or say they are doing it for your own good, or even worse, "for the children" or "for the good of society". Those excuses are always lies.
Some people get an empty substitute for happiness- and may even believe it's the real deal- from violating people. Don't be those people. You can't truly be happy while violating others and restricting their happiness.
If you honestly worry about someone else's choices, you have every right to warn them and try to convince them to see things your way. They may listen and change course, of their own free will, or they may keep doing what they are doing. It is then your responsibility to walk away. Later, you may choose to help them if your warnings were not heeded and their choice leads to problems, but you're not obligated to save them. And forcing yourself on others, even if motivated by genuine love and concern, is wrong.
Your responsibility is to do only those things you have a right to do. Respecting liberty means you must accept the right of everyone to make their own mistakes and either learn from them, or not, without overstepping your bounds. I know you can do it!
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 15, 2014.)
Liberty, responsibility, and happiness are intimately entwined.
Liberty is the freedom to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate anyone else's identical and equal liberty. It really is that simple; it's how responsible people behave.
Living by liberty can lead to happiness if you're not careful.
Some disturbed people aren't content with living their own liberty because it means staying out of the way of others. These people seem driven to meddle and prevent others from living a life of full liberty.
Often they take issue with the choices others make; calling them "libertines" or pointing out that some people will always be irresponsible. Until a person's choices violate the liberty of someone else, it's no one's business, and not within anyone's authority to interfere. You have no right to violate the liberty of others simply because some people might act irresponsibly or make choices which offend a "majority".
Your highest responsibility is to control yourself, not to enforce your ideas of responsibility on others- which seems to be very difficult for a lot of people in today's meddlesome society.
Every human interaction should be strictly voluntary. When someone breaks that indispensable rule of civilization and forces themselves or their way upon you, self defense becomes a legitimate option- even if the other person feels they were right in their actions toward you. They may point to "laws" they claim allow them to impose on you, or say they are doing it for your own good, or even worse, "for the children" or "for the good of society". Those excuses are always lies.
Some people get an empty substitute for happiness- and may even believe it's the real deal- from violating people. Don't be those people. You can't truly be happy while violating others and restricting their happiness.
If you honestly worry about someone else's choices, you have every right to warn them and try to convince them to see things your way. They may listen and change course, of their own free will, or they may keep doing what they are doing. It is then your responsibility to walk away. Later, you may choose to help them if your warnings were not heeded and their choice leads to problems, but you're not obligated to save them. And forcing yourself on others, even if motivated by genuine love and concern, is wrong.
Your responsibility is to do only those things you have a right to do. Respecting liberty means you must accept the right of everyone to make their own mistakes and either learn from them, or not, without overstepping your bounds. I know you can do it!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)