I just had a horrifying realization!
Some people- maybe most people- have some sort of psychological need to feel proud of "their" government!
Why would anyone be that pathetic?
Do they also need to feel proud of the other robbers and molesters who surround them?
Yeah, I know: Stockholm Syndrome and all that. But still... it's just bizarre!
.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Old, made up, "news" is good news to Prohibitionists
A couple of weeks ago, the local weekly paper, in the column written by the owner/publisher, was gleefully reporting the newest anti-marijuana study by Professor Wayne Hall. The paper's owner has long had a bee in his bonnet about marijuana, believing it to be a good thing to prohibit, and apparently, cage and kill people over. This "news" was exactly the sort he loves to find and pass along.
The thing is, this professor's "findings" are exactly the same sort of things the prohibitionists have been saying for decades.
And, the professor doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not causation, which means he isn't doing science, but only propping up propaganda.
His assertion "it could double the risk of severe psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia" seems to ignore the fact that people with psychiatric disorders are more likely to self-medicate, with whatever they can find, to relieve their discomfort. Even I can figure this out.
According to Hall, "those who try to stop taking the drug can often suffer anxiety, lower appetite, depression and insomnia, and less than half of people who stop taking it can stay off it for six months". And, he says "The important point I am trying to make is that people can get into difficulties with cannabis use, particularly if they get into daily use over a long period."
OK. Anything you get into a habit of doing on a daily basis can get in the way of life, and can be extremely hard to stop doing.
And, there was more bad "science" of the same kind all through his findings. Almost everything he "discovered" as a researcher working as an advisor to a Big Government group (the World Health Organization of the United Nations) is what prohibitionists want to be discovered.
And, guess what: even if everything he claims were absolutely true, it STILL wouldn't invent a right to tell other people what they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. It's totally irrelevant. That "right" doesn't exist, can't exist, and can't be invented. It doesn't matter if it's Nanny Bloomypants trying to forbid you from enjoying salt or a super-sized soft drink, or some dogwhistle trying to kill you so you can't inject heroin. No one has that right, so no one can delegate that nonexistent right. To attempt to do so is evil.
.
The thing is, this professor's "findings" are exactly the same sort of things the prohibitionists have been saying for decades.
And, the professor doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not causation, which means he isn't doing science, but only propping up propaganda.
His assertion "it could double the risk of severe psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia" seems to ignore the fact that people with psychiatric disorders are more likely to self-medicate, with whatever they can find, to relieve their discomfort. Even I can figure this out.
According to Hall, "those who try to stop taking the drug can often suffer anxiety, lower appetite, depression and insomnia, and less than half of people who stop taking it can stay off it for six months". And, he says "The important point I am trying to make is that people can get into difficulties with cannabis use, particularly if they get into daily use over a long period."
OK. Anything you get into a habit of doing on a daily basis can get in the way of life, and can be extremely hard to stop doing.
And, there was more bad "science" of the same kind all through his findings. Almost everything he "discovered" as a researcher working as an advisor to a Big Government group (the World Health Organization of the United Nations) is what prohibitionists want to be discovered.
And, guess what: even if everything he claims were absolutely true, it STILL wouldn't invent a right to tell other people what they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. It's totally irrelevant. That "right" doesn't exist, can't exist, and can't be invented. It doesn't matter if it's Nanny Bloomypants trying to forbid you from enjoying salt or a super-sized soft drink, or some dogwhistle trying to kill you so you can't inject heroin. No one has that right, so no one can delegate that nonexistent right. To attempt to do so is evil.
.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Good post by K on living your Rightful Liberty
Sometimes, someone else's blog post will speak to me in such a way that I just keep returning to it and reading it again and again. This is one such post: Rightful Liberty: Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock
I can't even tell you for certain why it struck such a chord in me. Maybe because it's sort of how I live. Anyway, after reading it for the fifth time or so, I decided I needed to share it.
Enjoy!
.
"Revisionist history"
One accusation that has always bewildered me is when someone gets upset and cries "Revisionist history!"
It's as if new information- if it chips away at the official story- is automatically bad.
That's the height of stupidity.
It's like refusing to accept the news that you were adopted. Or that you were born, the product of sex, if you had always been told the stork brought you.
History isn't the same as what really happened. Sometimes it's similar, but it is filtered by those relating the tales, and is often more what they want you to know than how it really went. And, there is a ridiculous focus on States and politicians and other nasty characters, while mostly ignoring the main important things of what normal people did in their normal boring lives. "Boring"- that's the problem.
Disasters, death, and disease are exciting, and nothing can bring those things about like States and bad guys acting on "behalf" of States, so they get the attention, while being extreme cases rather than normal. I mean, how many times has a president actually come into your life and affected you, personally? Me, never. Yet presidents are considered history, while the people who actually affected me (and you and everyone else, except for a tiny sample of people in the world), for good or bad, are ignored.
And, since those bad guys and people who think like them are the ones who relate the tales of the past to the new generation, they don't like it when new information leaks out showing they have cherry picked- or lied about- things that happened in the past.
Especially when it disrupts the narrative they want to push on you.
So, they need you to think that the new information is somehow revising history- by which I guess they mean "changing" the past- rather than what it is actually doing: wiping away lies and misconceptions that protect some people's "legacy" at the expense of others.
And, often, at the expense of the present and future. After all, if you don't understand where you came from, it is often hard to see where you are going.
History- the story of what happened in the past- will never (without a scope that peers through time without disrupting anything) be known with 100% accuracy, but new information will keep coming to light, and shouldn't be tossed aside simply because it doesn't fit with what you wish to believe. History will always need to keep being revised unless you love ignorance.
Of course, I have noticed the same people get upset and think that because the process of science discovers new things that sometimes modify what was previously believed to be the facts, science is unreliable and based upon whims because it doesn't remain chiseled in stone, like religion does.
.
It's as if new information- if it chips away at the official story- is automatically bad.
That's the height of stupidity.
It's like refusing to accept the news that you were adopted. Or that you were born, the product of sex, if you had always been told the stork brought you.
History isn't the same as what really happened. Sometimes it's similar, but it is filtered by those relating the tales, and is often more what they want you to know than how it really went. And, there is a ridiculous focus on States and politicians and other nasty characters, while mostly ignoring the main important things of what normal people did in their normal boring lives. "Boring"- that's the problem.
Disasters, death, and disease are exciting, and nothing can bring those things about like States and bad guys acting on "behalf" of States, so they get the attention, while being extreme cases rather than normal. I mean, how many times has a president actually come into your life and affected you, personally? Me, never. Yet presidents are considered history, while the people who actually affected me (and you and everyone else, except for a tiny sample of people in the world), for good or bad, are ignored.
And, since those bad guys and people who think like them are the ones who relate the tales of the past to the new generation, they don't like it when new information leaks out showing they have cherry picked- or lied about- things that happened in the past.
Especially when it disrupts the narrative they want to push on you.
So, they need you to think that the new information is somehow revising history- by which I guess they mean "changing" the past- rather than what it is actually doing: wiping away lies and misconceptions that protect some people's "legacy" at the expense of others.
And, often, at the expense of the present and future. After all, if you don't understand where you came from, it is often hard to see where you are going.
History- the story of what happened in the past- will never (without a scope that peers through time without disrupting anything) be known with 100% accuracy, but new information will keep coming to light, and shouldn't be tossed aside simply because it doesn't fit with what you wish to believe. History will always need to keep being revised unless you love ignorance.
Of course, I have noticed the same people get upset and think that because the process of science discovers new things that sometimes modify what was previously believed to be the facts, science is unreliable and based upon whims because it doesn't remain chiseled in stone, like religion does.
.
Flint and steel kits for sale
Sven from Hunchback Ironworks has forged some nice fire strikers as a collaborative venture for the two of us, which I have put into "strike-a-light" kits to sell.
I'm going to offer them here, to give regular readers the first shot, before I list them on Dullhawk.com.
All kits come in a tin. The tins can be burned or sanded to remove the paint, for a more primitive look, if you care about that. All, that is, except for kit #5- for reasons which will be apparent.
The kits all include a small piece of flint, some char cloth to catch the spark and make a coal, and a little juniper bark tinder to make the coal become a flame. The rest is up to you.
As of now, I have 5 kits to sell. (UPDATE: I now have only kit #5 available)
I'm going to offer them here, to give regular readers the first shot, before I list them on Dullhawk.com.
All kits come in a tin. The tins can be burned or sanded to remove the paint, for a more primitive look, if you care about that. All, that is, except for kit #5- for reasons which will be apparent.
The kits all include a small piece of flint, some char cloth to catch the spark and make a coal, and a little juniper bark tinder to make the coal become a flame. The rest is up to you.
As of now, I have 5 kits to sell. (UPDATE: I now have only kit #5 available)
- Kit #5
Kit #5 is another special kit. The striker was too large to fit inside an Altoids tin, so it got an International Coffee tin. This one comes with a plastic lid. I made cardboard partitions to keep things inside #5 organized, and to keep the char cloth a little safer- it's fragile stuff. This kit also comes with a few extra pieces of char cloth. Kit #5 costs $25.00
- Kit #1 (Sold)
This is a special kit. The striker has been polished and etched. It says "LIBERTY" on one side, and "STRIKES BACK" on the other. Kit #1 costs $25.00
- Kit #2 (sold)
Kit #2 costs $20.00
- Kit #3 (sold)
Kit #3 costs $20.00
- Kit #4 (sold)
Kit #4 costs $20.00
As a freebie, and to help those who buy the kits, here is a video I made explaining how to make more char cloth when you use up the bit that comes in the kit, and also some hints on preparing tinder.
All kits are offered on a first come, first served, basis (email me, don't rely on commenting here to get the message to me). If this goes over well, there will be more next month. And, of course, you can also contact Hunchback Ironworks directly if there's something else you need forged. Tell Sven I sent you!
And, get your preps in order.
.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
See the gun aimed at you
Just think about it: all speed limit signs might as well come with a gun attached.
They are a threat to rob you- just looking for justification by making up an arbitrary rule you'll probably break. And, make no mistake, it is an armed robbery. You will be murdered if you resist long enough. I'd like to add stickers to those vile signs to make them more honest.
They are a threat to rob you- just looking for justification by making up an arbitrary rule you'll probably break. And, make no mistake, it is an armed robbery. You will be murdered if you resist long enough. I'd like to add stickers to those vile signs to make them more honest.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Kinderprison
Yeah, that's a new word I may have just invented (or more likely, applied in a new way).
To me, a kinderprison is any school- government or "private"- based on the Prussian system of behaviormodification destruction for the purpose of enforcing conformity and obedience- with a possible accidental amount of actual, useful education occurring despite the best efforts of the control freaks in charge.
Abolish the kinderprisons!
.
To me, a kinderprison is any school- government or "private"- based on the Prussian system of behavior
Abolish the kinderprisons!
.
Trying to talk to statists
I've noticed a very consistent pattern when trying to discuss things with rabid statists. This imaginary discussion illustrates what I'm talking about.
Yep. That's how it goes when discussing liberty or rights with a statist. They rephrase their objections, and then complain when they get the same answers over and over.
Liberty is the answer, regardless of how badly they don't want it to be.
.
Statist: "What's the 2nd letter of the alphabet?
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "Well, then, what letter comes after 'A'?"
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "OK, but what letter comes before 'C'?"
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "Why do you keep going in circles?"
Libertarian: "Sigh..."
Yep. That's how it goes when discussing liberty or rights with a statist. They rephrase their objections, and then complain when they get the same answers over and over.
Liberty is the answer, regardless of how badly they don't want it to be.
.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Government stops real solutions
Government stops real solutions
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 19, 2014.)
It is said "No man is an island". This seems undeniable, yet libertarians are frequently accused of believing individuals are islands. As if we see humans as isolated and alone, unable to join with others to fix problems which are beyond one person's ability, unless they form that most persistent of Utopian ideas: a government.
People coming together in a completely voluntary and consensual manner, to accomplish something they are in unanimous agreement on, is a wonderful thing to be a part of.
What we do oppose is anyone being forced to join projects they would rather not, and being forced to pay for things they either don't want, or believe they are getting a bad deal on.
Government is currently the main barrier preventing individuals from working together and finding voluntary solutions which don't violate any individuals. Its employees say they must approve, license, regulate, or coordinate every big project, and most small ones as well. Which means, in essence, "no private solutions allowed". Everything must be shoved through the meat grinder of bureaucracy and coercion before being implemented- which destroys any chance of a rational solution being put into action.
Let's say a group of individuals- perhaps ranchers, dairy owners, farmers, and any other concerned people- came together to take on some hypothetical area's ongoing water problems.
The only limitations are that no one may violate the private property of another- which means, in part, no one can be forced to pay for it against their will through taxation- and no force can be used against those who opt out of the plan. It doesn't mean those who opt out can still get the full benefits of any solution without chipping in, though.
Would I trust those individuals to find the best chance at a real, lasting solution for this crisis? If government were not allowed to interfere in any way whatsoever- yes, I would.
Could a solution actually be found? I don't know for certain.
What I do know with certainty is that government solutions to this problem have never worked. They can't. Most are analogous to having the water shut off to your house, so you decide to use the water in your water heater and toilet tanks while pretending it's a permanent solution. And buying, with your neighbor's bank account, a solid gold dipper to serve it with.
Some problems have no real solution, no matter how you treat others. But, if you commit to respecting the rights and property of all concerned, at least you haven't added to the pain. or done the wrong thing for supposedly noble reasons.
It's the mature and ethical way to approach problems.
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 19, 2014.)
It is said "No man is an island". This seems undeniable, yet libertarians are frequently accused of believing individuals are islands. As if we see humans as isolated and alone, unable to join with others to fix problems which are beyond one person's ability, unless they form that most persistent of Utopian ideas: a government.
People coming together in a completely voluntary and consensual manner, to accomplish something they are in unanimous agreement on, is a wonderful thing to be a part of.
What we do oppose is anyone being forced to join projects they would rather not, and being forced to pay for things they either don't want, or believe they are getting a bad deal on.
Government is currently the main barrier preventing individuals from working together and finding voluntary solutions which don't violate any individuals. Its employees say they must approve, license, regulate, or coordinate every big project, and most small ones as well. Which means, in essence, "no private solutions allowed". Everything must be shoved through the meat grinder of bureaucracy and coercion before being implemented- which destroys any chance of a rational solution being put into action.
Let's say a group of individuals- perhaps ranchers, dairy owners, farmers, and any other concerned people- came together to take on some hypothetical area's ongoing water problems.
The only limitations are that no one may violate the private property of another- which means, in part, no one can be forced to pay for it against their will through taxation- and no force can be used against those who opt out of the plan. It doesn't mean those who opt out can still get the full benefits of any solution without chipping in, though.
Would I trust those individuals to find the best chance at a real, lasting solution for this crisis? If government were not allowed to interfere in any way whatsoever- yes, I would.
Could a solution actually be found? I don't know for certain.
What I do know with certainty is that government solutions to this problem have never worked. They can't. Most are analogous to having the water shut off to your house, so you decide to use the water in your water heater and toilet tanks while pretending it's a permanent solution. And buying, with your neighbor's bank account, a solid gold dipper to serve it with.
Some problems have no real solution, no matter how you treat others. But, if you commit to respecting the rights and property of all concerned, at least you haven't added to the pain. or done the wrong thing for supposedly noble reasons.
It's the mature and ethical way to approach problems.
.
The foundation of civilization
Guess what, every bad guy you have ever met or heard of has some "libertarian" leanings or qualities. Every single one. And that doesn't negate libertarianism in any way.
Everyone has some libertarian positions.
Society would collapse if that weren't true. No one would be able to work together to accomplish anything, because the first disagreement would bring out the baseball bats, brass knuckles, and guns to force everyone else to do it "my way". Any price that was "too high" would result in theft- every time- unless the seller held the buyer at gun point as long as he was shopping.
Every civilized action is libertarian by nature.
Statism is only supportable as a minority, limited condition practiced in very limited ways, and not by too many people too much of the time in too many situations. It turns on itself otherwise.
It's utterly bizarre that some people get this truth exactly backwards.
.
Everyone has some libertarian positions.
Society would collapse if that weren't true. No one would be able to work together to accomplish anything, because the first disagreement would bring out the baseball bats, brass knuckles, and guns to force everyone else to do it "my way". Any price that was "too high" would result in theft- every time- unless the seller held the buyer at gun point as long as he was shopping.
Every civilized action is libertarian by nature.
Statism is only supportable as a minority, limited condition practiced in very limited ways, and not by too many people too much of the time in too many situations. It turns on itself otherwise.
It's utterly bizarre that some people get this truth exactly backwards.
.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Hooked on being abused
It seems like so many people support the State because they enjoy doing things they believe they can only do through The State.
I'm not just talking about cops and military who want that "job" so they can use aggression without consequence- I'm talking about people with otherwise harmless hobbies and interests, who fall into a government-funded niche they don't want to give up.
The researcher who believes her job can only be supported by "tax" money.
The librarian who believes only government can fund libraries.
The "ham radio" enthusiast who loves getting the permits that validate and authorize his hobby.
The machine gun owner who chills at the thought that anyone else might have a gun like his without having to jump through the hoops he is proud to have gotten entangled in.
I am odd in that if government thugs have violated me in some way, I am not in favor of everyone else being violated in the same way, and if I love a job or hobby, I invariably want to see it freed of State control, so that it can thrive.
Why is that so hard?
.
I'm not just talking about cops and military who want that "job" so they can use aggression without consequence- I'm talking about people with otherwise harmless hobbies and interests, who fall into a government-funded niche they don't want to give up.
The researcher who believes her job can only be supported by "tax" money.
The librarian who believes only government can fund libraries.
The "ham radio" enthusiast who loves getting the permits that validate and authorize his hobby.
The machine gun owner who chills at the thought that anyone else might have a gun like his without having to jump through the hoops he is proud to have gotten entangled in.
I am odd in that if government thugs have violated me in some way, I am not in favor of everyone else being violated in the same way, and if I love a job or hobby, I invariably want to see it freed of State control, so that it can thrive.
Why is that so hard?
.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Rigged games
I recently had some more self-awareness sneak up on me.
I realized I have a very low tolerance for rigged games. No only the political game, but in every area of life.
Once I figure out it's rigged I stop playing. I won't do what's expected. I may ignore the game altogether, or if prevented from doing that, I may refuse to abide by the rules invented by the players, and imposed on me, the one who doesn't want to play at all.
And, those who rigged the game, or insist everyone keep playing anyway, don't like it when their plot fails to trap someone. Good. Upsetting them seems a low price to pay for more liberty.
.
I realized I have a very low tolerance for rigged games. No only the political game, but in every area of life.
Once I figure out it's rigged I stop playing. I won't do what's expected. I may ignore the game altogether, or if prevented from doing that, I may refuse to abide by the rules invented by the players, and imposed on me, the one who doesn't want to play at all.
And, those who rigged the game, or insist everyone keep playing anyway, don't like it when their plot fails to trap someone. Good. Upsetting them seems a low price to pay for more liberty.
.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
The predictability of statism
Statists of all sorts get very upset by the truth and reality. Those who support cops are probably the worst.
They don't wanna hear it. They'll deny. They'll dream up objections, look for exceptions. They'll look for the hard cases that nothing can fix.
As if any of that props up their superstition.
Then, when all this doesn't convince you to embrace their ways, they'll call you names, say you have to be pragmatic, tell you to "move to Somalia", or threaten aggression.
Because, since they can't handle the truth, that's all they've got on their side.
It's predictable, and sad, really.
.
They don't wanna hear it. They'll deny. They'll dream up objections, look for exceptions. They'll look for the hard cases that nothing can fix.
As if any of that props up their superstition.
Then, when all this doesn't convince you to embrace their ways, they'll call you names, say you have to be pragmatic, tell you to "move to Somalia", or threaten aggression.
Because, since they can't handle the truth, that's all they've got on their side.
It's predictable, and sad, really.
.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
The Religion of Aggression
Statism is the real "religion of violence"- and not just violence, but aggression. It's what the believers always fall back on when their tactics don't make you yield to their wishes.
ISIS is aggressive mostly because it is following the path of being a State. Without trying to be a State the aggression would be much less dangerous, and easier to counter.
Israel is aggressive because it is a State.
The US is aggressive because it is a State.
All States are aggressive by the very nature of being States.
Yes, there are non-State aggressors out there. But the worst ones often try to gain the appearance of legitimacy by joining (or becoming) a State of some kind.
But States are only dangerous because of their Believers.
.
ISIS is aggressive mostly because it is following the path of being a State. Without trying to be a State the aggression would be much less dangerous, and easier to counter.
Israel is aggressive because it is a State.
The US is aggressive because it is a State.
All States are aggressive by the very nature of being States.
Yes, there are non-State aggressors out there. But the worst ones often try to gain the appearance of legitimacy by joining (or becoming) a State of some kind.
But States are only dangerous because of their Believers.
.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Cops- the price of legitimacy
I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
IF police are to have any legitimacy whatsoever, and that's a mighty big "if", they must be reminded that they have no "authority" that you or I don't have.
They were supposed to be nothing more than the butler who does what you or I didn't feel like doing right now. Just like you have the authority to haul your own trash to the dump, but you hire someone else to do it because you don't want to be bothered. And if trash collectors start acting like they can order you around, use aggression against you if you decide you can no longer afford or risk their "services", they'll become uppity, dangerous goons just like cops have become, and I'll fire them, too. If I am forced to keep paying them, I am being robbed.
That's right- cops are lowly servants, not masters.
They say "jump"; we ask "Why?" If they can't give a reasonable answer, we walk away after firing them.
We say "jump"; they ask nothing until after they jump. Their immediate, grovelling obedience comes as a price of the "job". If they don't like it, they can go get an honest job.
That's the price of legitimacy. If they refuse to pay it they can continue to be nothing more than the thieving, aggressive bad guys more and more people are recognizing them to be.
I have no "need" for servants who have become uppity and abusive and murderous. I take back responsibility for my own life (as if I ever handed it over to such pathetic people).
.
IF police are to have any legitimacy whatsoever, and that's a mighty big "if", they must be reminded that they have no "authority" that you or I don't have.
They were supposed to be nothing more than the butler who does what you or I didn't feel like doing right now. Just like you have the authority to haul your own trash to the dump, but you hire someone else to do it because you don't want to be bothered. And if trash collectors start acting like they can order you around, use aggression against you if you decide you can no longer afford or risk their "services", they'll become uppity, dangerous goons just like cops have become, and I'll fire them, too. If I am forced to keep paying them, I am being robbed.
That's right- cops are lowly servants, not masters.
They say "jump"; we ask "Why?" If they can't give a reasonable answer, we walk away after firing them.
We say "jump"; they ask nothing until after they jump. Their immediate, grovelling obedience comes as a price of the "job". If they don't like it, they can go get an honest job.
That's the price of legitimacy. If they refuse to pay it they can continue to be nothing more than the thieving, aggressive bad guys more and more people are recognizing them to be.
I have no "need" for servants who have become uppity and abusive and murderous. I take back responsibility for my own life (as if I ever handed it over to such pathetic people).
.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
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.
.
(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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Monday, October 13, 2014
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".
.
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".
.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
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.
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)