Keep good rules; chuck the rest

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 12, 2014.)

Contrary to what many seem to believe, libertarians are not against rules. In fact, they are defined by adherence to one rule in particular: the Zero Aggression Principle. It simply states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." This basically means "Don't start violence by throwing the first punch, or by sending someone else to throw the first punch."

Live by that rule and you are a libertarian whether you know it or not; don't live by it and you aren't libertarian no matter what you say.

Natural Law aligns flawlessly with the Zero Aggression Principle, including the necessity of respecting the property rights of others.

Other rules are helpful for self preservation.

Following the dosage rules for medication is smart. Rules for proper food preparation or keeping your water safe to drink are necessary. Following rules for safe gun handling helps you survive. Some people don't obey good rules and suffer the consequences.

Still other rules have evolved concerning customary behavior. Pausing at intersections and driving on the right side of the road (where this is the custom) are examples of this. These would be smart things to do regardless of laws dictating them, simply because everyone has come to expect this, and refusing to cooperate will needlessly endanger your life and the lives of innocent people. Of course, these rules vary from place to place, so don't fall into the trap of believing they are universal like Natural Law. Even when these rules find their way into laws, some people will refuse to follow these rules and will cause harm.

The legitimate rules, which are sometimes reflected in invented, statutory law, are the ones which would survive and be followed by most people without being enforced, or even written down. If you don't follow them, you'll probably suffer.

Most libertarians are fine with these rules, and are simply against arbitrary, unnecessary, or harmful rules.

Bad rules would soon die out without armed enforcement keeping them propped up. Rules like coming to a complete stop at stop signs, when no one really believes it is essential to driving safely; or having a license plate or a drivers license. Or arbitrary speed limits. Speed limits are silly, since even the law tosses them aside on a whim; thus "driving too fast for conditions", even when well below the "speed limit".

Other arbitrary, unnecessary or harmful rules would include those regulating the owning and carrying of weapons, rather than the aggressive use of those weapons. Or rules imposing taxation. Or compulsory school attendance.

Keep the good rules; scrap the rest.

.

Comments on The Crimes of Officer Brent Aguilar- UPDATED

I rarely do this, but you really should go back and read the comments posted on The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers.

It shows just how hard statists will try to justify their superstitious beliefs. I'll admit, the guy is good at it.

Funny, though, how many things I bring up that he conveniently ignores- skipping right over that to try another direction.

And, am I mistaken, or did the sorry little butt nugget just threaten me?

I think you'll enjoy reading through the comments, and keep checking back. He may not be done.

-

UPDATED- He's still at it and digging himself even deeper, and getting more desperate.

.

Can't fight reason? Just nuke 'em.

I just finished reading an excellent book, The Market for Liberty, which came highly recommended by one of the commenters here- I'll probably have more to say about it soon.

But, in reading how the authors say a free society would spread, because the States around the world couldn't compete with it, makes me wonder something inconvenient which the authors seem to have ignored.

Would governments join together in an attempt to attack and destroy a free society which was embarrassing them and attracting "their people" and businesses? Rather than trying to compete, and locking down their "borders" and outlawing emigration, would they simply nuke the free area to "solve" the problem?

I'm afraid I believe they just might do it, since there is no other way they could compete.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily be successful, since a free society would probably be filled to the brim with people who were obsessive about defense and weaponry- which no one would be able to criminalize.

And, in such a scenario, "winning" doesn't mean the aggressors were right and that statism is moral or ethical. It just means they were stronger or lucky. Just like any murderer who manages to kill his victim.

But, it's something I have seen in my own life: when statists can't win with reason, they resort quickly to force, which they always believe they have a right to initiate against anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's why they, while ridiculous, are dangerous and need to be watched.

.

Statists telling me what I want...

From where comes the assumption that if someone harms me, I want the guilty person kidnapped and placed in a cage- that I must finance whether I can afford it or not?

Not only am I expected to want to pay for the cage, the guards, my violator's food and electricity, the upkeep of the cage, his medical bills, and all the bureaucracy to keep him caged "legally", but I am also supposed to want to pay for the cops who "caught" him.

Screw that!

I want justice, not punishment. And justice doesn't come from The State.

Punishing others benefits me in no way, even when you punish the real guilty person, but actually harms me when the punishment is financed by me and others against our will. Heaping violation on top of violation to punish some violators is not a healthy "system".

Yet, I am told all the time that "no victim wants their violator to 'go free'".

Once again, I am "no one".

.

Statism- the self-contradictory superstition

Statism is nothing but a web of contradictory beliefs. It's not internally consistent in any way. You can see an illustration of that anytime you witness a debate between a statist and a non-statist.

People are flawed, so they must be controlled by people. 

"Laws" are good and necessary, even though I disagree with some of them. 

Crime exists, so The State is necessary to stop crime- even though The State has been around for thousands of years and crime still exists.

It's not wrong (theft/"taxation", kidnapping/"arrest") if government does it. 

And on and on it goes.

Sometimes the stupid hurts.

But, I try very hard to have patience with statists. Because I care and I believe their lives will be better if they stop being so stupidly inconsistent and self-contradictory. Some days, though, I think "Are you even listening to yourself?!?"

Without those inherent contradictions, statism simply ceases to be. It evaporates to be replaced by something else. It is replaced by anarchism, voluntaryism, or whatever you wish to call it. It's like a breath of fresh air to those who finally allow themselves to breathe.

.

Understanding; not accepting

I sometimes understand those who initiate force- or want to- while recognizing they have no right to do so.

I am only human and have had the same perverse desires crop up myself.

I admit I was wrong when I wanted to initiate force- why is it so hard for some people to accept the same?

.

Voluntary segregation

I wonder....

Would it be "better" (however you might define that term) if humans segregated themselves by "intelligence"?

Maybe they already do, to some extent, but I'm thinking of people migrating, voluntarily, to asteroids or space colonies that are set up to make people of a particular IQ range "happy".

I do think there are distractions and hobbies and pastimes and careers that people of certain levels of intelligence are more likely to participate in and enjoy, and others they tend to avoid.

At first the idea sounds attractive, especially when I'm aggravated at certain people.

Then I wonder if it would be boring to never be around people substantially dumber or smarter than yourself. Would people seem more irritating without more variety?

Just another reason I am skeptical of Utopia.

.

Five things to know about liberty

Five things to know about liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 5, 2014.)

I see regular articles on the topic of "Five things to know about..." a person, object, or job which some readers might be curious about. Apparently nothing is as poorly understood as liberty- with is strange to admit in a country which was supposedly founded to give regular people the best shot at achieving liberty. Perhaps it is time for a "Five things to know about liberty".

Defending rights:
Just because you admit someone has a right to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you approve of what they do or wish to join them. It simply means you realize when they aren't violating any other person or private property you have no right to prevent them from doing what they are doing, and therefore can't pass this authority you don't possess to anyone on your behalf. You have a right to drink protein shakes, and I'll defend your right to do so, but I'll not be joining you.

Defending scoundrels:
Defending the rights of everyone doesn't mean you agree with or like them. Unless you can stand up for the rights of your worst enemy, you are hypocritical expecting others to defend your rights. H. L. Mencken put it well: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Consistency counts:
Being consistent means you will upset some people who believe you should make exceptions for their favorite rights violations and violators. This is the biggest stumbling block for most people. They easily see why the other guy is wrong, but when they do the exact same thing for "their side" they see nothing wrong with it. Of course, being consistent doesn't mean you are right- a person can be consistently wrong- but being inconsistent is an obvious clue something is wrong with your thinking or behavior.

Anything can be better:
Supporting liberty and opposing those who violate it doesn't mean you "hate America" or should "move to Somalia". It means you know things can always be better than they are, while appreciating the good you already have. Or still have, as the case may be.

No forcing it:
If someone doesn't hunger for liberty and doesn't want to understand it, nothing you or I can say will change that. In such a case you simply need to live liberty and leave them on their own- and hope they never force you to defend yourself from them. Maybe your example will create curiosity. If not, you'll still have a better life.

.

An imaginary distinction

I just don't get the distinction.

If a guy is trying to rob you, using potentially deadly force, is it wrong to kill him in self defense if you know he's a pastor?

What if he's a cop?

What does his job matter?

Here's a hint: it doesn't.

Violators deserve to die at the hands of their intended victims at the scene of the attack. That doesn't mean the victim is "required" to kill the attacker, but only an evil person would fault him for doing so.

.

Double standards are not worth the cost

If you "hog tie" government employees (particularly cops) by demanding they obey the rules everyone else is expected to obey, the statist complaint is that they can't get anything done.

Too bad.

If you "must" steal or initiate force to do your job, I don't want your "help". I want you to go away- and die if you won't go away voluntarily. Nothing you could ever do in your "official capacity" is worth tolerating your violations. I'm not afraid of those things you want me to ask for your "protection" from. I need nothing from you but to be left to live in Rightful Liberty.

You can't seem to do that- so you declare me your enemy for not going along with your raping and pillaging.

Fine.

I'd hate to have bad guys love me.

If you can't accomplish anything by respecting the Rightful Liberty of everyone else, then I relish your failure.

.

If a cop saves a life...

What if there's a medical emergency? Maybe you don't call 911, but someone else does. Anymore, it's not only the needed medical professionals who arrive- the "Law" shows up, too, for some incomprehensible reason.

Maybe the cop even gets there first. Maybe the cop saves your life.

If a cop happens to show up and saves your life, good. But what does it matter what job your rescuer holds? Wouldn't you be just as grateful if you were rescued by a pimp or an artist? Would you forever worship all artists if one showed up and saved you?

So, why do some people act as though cops are special (no, not in "that" way) because they have the radios that make them aware of crisis situations as they happen?

If I happen upon an emergency scene I may or may not be of help, but I'm also highly unlikely to shoot the person in need due to them being unable to comply with arbitrary orders I bark at them.

Don't fall into the trap of worshiping cops just because some of them happen to show up at the scene of a crisis, and sometimes do the right thing at that moment. Even the cop training can't totally extinguish the ability to do the right thing sometimes.

-

Related: If a thug lends a hand

.

Liberty, but...

 I "love" all the liberty-lovers who are liberty-lovers until they beg the State to save them.

Maybe from "drunk drivers", "illegal immigrants", pedophiles, or just general "chaos".

Either liberty is good and it works, or it isn't and it doesn't. Make up your mind.

I know what experience has shown me.

.

New Link: The Zelman Partisans

Notice the new link over there on the list of blogs and sites: The Zelman Partisans.

It has risen from the ashes of JPFO; may it succeed wildly.

.

Cops- a crutch you don't need

I see the "need" for any externally imposed "government" as a crutch, and the "need" for police is one of the most pathetic examples.

But, let's say you really, honestly "believe" you "need" cops. Fine. But, I don't, so don't impose them on me and then complain when I don't appreciate it.

When I look at people who "need" cops, I see perfectly capable people who look silly using an ill-designed crutch that wasn't even "necessary" to begin with. And, the vanishingly few people who might have a legitimate need for a protector, I see as having to make do with something unsuited to their real needs.

Now, the existence of cops doesn't really affect my behavior- unless one is looking at me. I don't go out of my way to avoid them. Yet. I don't make an effort to be rude to them. It isn't the individual that's the problem, it's the "job". Of course, some of those individuals enjoy the "job" way too much, and use it as a way to be nasty goons without consequence, but those individuals would probably be nasty people no matter what their "job" was. Some of those cop-people would be perfectly fine individuals if they'd burn the uniform, walk away, and get an honest job.

.

Justice for Shaneen Allen!

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.

.

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.

.

"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.

.

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?

.

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...

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:

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"

.