Stop aiding your enemies with your inconsistency

I've been observing some meltdowns going on online. Meltdowns driving a wedge into the liberty community. In other words, doing the anti-liberty bigots' work for them. That's sad.

The funny thing is, it's always over compromise with evil- with inconsistency. Some people get their knickers in a bunch when others do it, while doing the exact same thing themselves and not recognizing it.

You look silly throwing a fit over some Second Amendment Rights compromiser who helps write anti-gun "laws" if you also support anti-liberty military mass murderers.

Yeah, it's the same sort of thing. It's support of State over Rightful Liberty in both cases.

Consistency is important. You can be consistently wrong- it is unlikely but possible. But, it is impossible to be inconsistent, yet right. You may be right about some things (by supporting Rightful Liberty) and wrong about others (by rejecting Rightful Liberty for some people in some instances and/or by supporting a particular enemy of liberty you want to support for whatever reason), but the areas where you are wrong damage your credibility where you are right.

I try to remain consistent. If I notice inconsistency in myself (or have it pointed out to me) I know it means I am wrong somewhere. I have worked hard to eliminate those inconsistencies, always toward a deeper respect for Liberty, even when it makes people hate me. I'd rather be right than popular- well, I suppose it would be nice to be both, but that's just not going to happen. Besides, if you are right, it means the people who like you are the good people, and not just those who "like" you for your popularity.

These petty (or not so petty) in-fights could be avoided if people would take consistency seriously and just stop trying to appease the anti-liberty bigots who will never be their friends anyway: those who give lip service to liberty as long as it suits their purposes- advancing their own liberty- and quickly forget it as soon as the State and its "laws" can be used against someone they hate.

When in doubt- and even when sure- always default toward Rightful Liberty. If you choose something over Liberty, own it.

Added: Someone, on the Facebook "share" of this post, commented "Good advice for you, Kent!", to which I replied "Please be specific about any inconsistencies I exhibit so that I can fix them." I'm still waiting for a response. Maybe I misunderstood what she was attempting to communicate.

.

The War on Driving

Isn't it convenient that the primary mode of transportation has been declared by the State to be so uniquely dangerous that they must exercise extraordinary control over it with all sorts of "laws", and swarms of enforcers to impose those "laws" on travelers, even as those enforcers constitute a real "public" hazard by doing so.

They say in order to be safe enough to drive you must have all sorts of permits and licenses for you and your vehicle. They have asserted for themselves the "authority" to regulate what is in your blood or what you are doing. They claim to be authorized to take away your right to drive on a whim if you don't do what they demand.

Yes, there is a War on Driving, declared by the State and supported in some form by every sort of person- with truly few exceptions.

.

This is your brain on propaganda

Today was "online insane", all over that ridiculous sniper propaganda movie. It is turning brains to toxic sludge faster than any zombie virus ever dreamed of.

And, I don't get it.

I realize there is a very large contingent who desperately want to give cops and "troops" a pass they are not willing to give other State tools. Why? I don't know.

Fine.

I see it as blatant inconsistency, but you do whatever makes you happy and accept the consequences. I think truth is better, and that inconsistency shows you are wrong about something, but if you are comfortable with it...

Go ahead and go further. Insist that "taxation" can't be theft because government employees are committing it as part of their job.

This is basically what I am running up against.

It is no different when you claim that a soldier in war- on the invading side- is not a murderer because it's his job, and killing "the enemy" is what he is supposed to do. Mafia hitmen also have a job to do which includes killing people their boss tells them to kill, but I guess it is only "not murder" if you work for the biggest mafia..

Never mind that defending your neighbors from aggressive invaders is the right thing to do in every case, no matter where you live.

Never mind that owning and carrying weapons ("keep and bear arms") is a universal human right, and targeting individuals doing so in their own land is wrong- especially when you are the trespasser.

But, go right ahead and call me names.

If you excuse the state in one thing, you are excusing it in everything.

Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger

.

Enjoy celebrating your own way

Enjoy celebrating your own way

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 19, 2014)

Maybe I’m sappy, but I love Christmas and the festive atmosphere surrounding it.

If you do too, and like for things to come together the way you hope they will, be grateful for voluntary individual actions. Part of the magic of Christmas is its voluntary nature and its decentralization.

The things which go into a big celebration can be overwhelming. Yet, somehow, it all comes together- or at least most of it does- because everyone is responsible for their part of the big picture. Everyone has their traditions and preferences, and there is no one person responsible for making sure each individual gets to do what they enjoy- each of us does our own thing with those who choose to join us. Those who would rather not celebrate, or like to celebrate in their own way, are not forced to join in. The unexpected crops up but on the whole it works, even if one person drops the ball.

Do you believe it would go as well if government took over the observance of Christmas? Ignore for a moment the First Amendment- just as government usually does anyway. Imagine the Federal Department of Christmas, and how it would run things if other government programs are any example of what to expect.

First of all, if government controlled it, Christmas would be mandatory. You'd pay for the celebration, public and private, at inflated prices, whether you wanted to participate or not. Gifts would be assigned according to what some bureaucrat has calculated everyone should want, and depending on whose favors and campaign contributions are due to be repaid. No real choice would be given in the matter, beyond a patronizing "choose between option 'A' and option 'B'". Other winter solstice holidays would be tolerated, but observing one of those wouldn't excuse you from supporting Christmas, with your allegiance and your tax dollars. You could be paying twice to have the celebration you wanted.

Imagine the red tape at having something as large and complicated as Christmas centrally planned. You'd have bureaucrats responsible for millions of families each, making sure all the proper forms had been filled out. Multiple times. Santa Claus would be a bureaucrat with all the good humor of any other overwhelmed government employee. Do you really think that would be better?

But, maybe you think a politicized Christmas would be great. Maybe you believe everyone should celebrate Christmas your way, and don't mind having it imposed just as I describe. Now, substitute some other culture's holiday for Christmas and see how you like that.

Be happy you can celebrate Christmas- or not- as you choose, keeping familial peace with voluntary compromise and cooperation.

.

.

Chris Kyle- coward?

(Previously published on Patreon)

Was confessed (and proud) mass murderer Chris Kyle a "coward", as bloated collectivist moron Michael Moore asserts?

I don't know. I never met him, thank goodness.

It is quite possible to be both brave and a murderer. I think lots of murderers act brave while murdering. It doesn't make them heroes. I always hope someone will kill them in self defense or while protecting their intended victims.

Being evil doesn't preclude being brave, though.

Being a hitman for the State probably takes a lot of courage- or mind altering chemicals or brainwashing through propaganda. Especially when you must trespass, and be surrounded by people willing and able to defend themselves, in order to carry out your murders. It's still wrong.

I don't approve of the murder of Chris Kyle, either. The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer. From all accounts, Kyle was not initiating force when he was killed. So, his death was murder- exactly like the revenge murders carried out by State employees in prisons across the country, and exactly like the murders Kyle bragged of committing. Still, actions have consequences and as they say "Live by the sword, die by the sword". Maybe there is something to karma.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the fawning worship of this despicable murderer by those inclined to worship the government military in all things.

Chris Kyle was a hitman for the mafia known as the US government, through its military. He was paid in stolen money to murder people defending themselves from aggressive invaders- in their own homes and villages. If you defend his actions it tells me what you really believe in.

Liberty or State? You can't support both.

-

Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger

.

Don't punch offensive jerks

I always tell my daughter you shouldn't hit someone for "just" offending you. Yet, that does seem to be the automatic human response, doesn't it.

I think it is one of the cornerstones of statism. Someone does something to offend you, so you use government to cause them pain.

Real aggression or property violations need no government permission (or agents acting on your behalf) to be responded to, but fake "harm", such as being offended, is easier to strike back against if you can blame it on something else- like a cop just enforcing a "law".

You have no right to not be offended nor to respond to offense with force, and you have no way to delegate rights you don't have to people with false authority.

.

Love liberty, or lick the hand of the State. Your choice.

How can liberty loving bloggers* point out the evil of the State in blog post after blog post... but interspersed in those, spout worship for parts of the State they like?

I see it over and over with certain bloggers.

It's like they recognize the State is completely evil, but they give the military a pass because they were once part of it, or have a loved one who was (or is).

Guess what. I have loved ones who have been in the military and have a loved one in the military even now, and I still recognize it for what it is: the blunt instrument of Empire-building evil. It's like the mugger's gun aimed at your face- and the "troops" are the bullets.

The inconsistency is staggering when someone keeps posting pro-military crap while claiming to value Rightful Liberty.

I'm not saying you can't learn from things the military teaches or has done. You can learn something valuable from anyone, but that doesn't mean you should worship them. It also doesn't mean you should shield them from honest criticism.

It also doesn't mean Chris Kyle was anything but a State's mafia hitman. A murderer.

-

Added: *I am very disappointed that one in particular didn't approve my comment to this effect on his blog post about idiot collectivist Michael Moore's comments about mass-murderer collectivist Chris Kyle. No, I won't say who he is, but you probably know of him.

.

Excusing murder because (freelance) bad guys do it, too

When the question of a State-imposed death penalty comes up, I generally point out that no government anywhere, at any time, has ever been honest or honorable enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.

Statists yelp at this simple truth.

They come up with any objection they can think of to excuse murder-by-state employee.

To say that my assertion that no government can be trusted with the power of life and death isn't taking into account the fact that freelance murderers also prove they can't be trusted with that power is overlooking that no one "trusts" them with that power. They take it.

Yet, people argue that because bad guys kill, "we" should empower a State to do so, also? That's crazy. Two wrongs don't make a right. And it overlooks the fact that governments are made of people. Flawed, violent, greedy, aggressive, dishonest- and all too often, murderous people. In fact, the "job" selects for the worst of the worst- the ones smart enough to do their murdering from behind a veil of legitimacy while those exactly like them are called "criminals".

A government which can impose death has no limits. And, they all- by definition- claim to have this "authority". That's why "limited government" is such a dangerous lie and a Utopian dream.

.

Some things are NOT "OK"

(Previously published on Patreon)

As much as I'd like to get along with everyone around me, some things are not OK. Some things can never be OK, and I can't pretend they are OK. Not even if it hurts someone's feelings.

Statism is exactly as "not OK" as chattel slavery. Minarchism is the moral and ethical equivalent of excusing "just a little slavery". Either, "only" enslaving a small percentage of the population, or enslaving everyone "just a little". Actually, it isn't only the moral and ethical equivalent- it is exactly that: slavery.

The State = Slavery. Every single time, without exception. 

How much slavery are you defending? How much slavery are you OK with? I'm not OK with any at all. 

That doesn't mean I will go around carrying my soapbox and shouting to the slavers about how evil they are... but maybe I should. Maybe for the sake of comfort I am neglecting to do the right thing. It's a possibility I am willing to consider. 

Those defending things that are never OK shouldn't be coddled. They should be shown reality, and if they reject that, they should be ridiculed, laughed at, shunned, shamed, and treated like what they are. 

I know that's not "nice". But at some point, being "nice" to people advocating bad things is implicit support of the bad things they advocate. You can compartmentalize, if possible, because everyone has different facets to their life- some good, some bad. But, when your fishing buddy is chanting for slavery, call him out on it. Don't stay quiet just to save his feelings.

.

EDC: My "every day carry" post

Just in case you wonder what I carry with me everyday, here's the majority of it laid out to view.

Click to deminiaturize

The above picture is my belt, and those things which hang off it. I've worn the same belt since May 2, 1993, and the holes are starting to wallow out a little. Maybe another decade or so and I'll need a new one. Behind the pouch, not showing from this angle, is a knife sheath which carries my Kershaw knife (I got it when I was 12 or so, and have carried it most of the time since then). The next cylindrical pouch holds my spyglass. The next one holds a hobo tool and a hard sharpening stone. Built into the back of that pouch is a pocket to hold a business card case, where I keep some band-aids along with the business cards. Daughters often feel the need for band-aids. Next, after the gap, is my cell phone holster and the sheath for my folding knife.

Below that row you'll see the things that go in the large pouch: a Firesteel.com fire rod and striker, a pencil nub, tweezers, a bore gauge (I actually have found many uses for it over the years), a micro screw driver for spectacle repair, folding scissors, my spare (or rarely needed) keys, a small file, and a couple of allen wrenches.

Not shown: a couple of things I assume everyone carries, as well as about 15 to 25 feet of paracord (depending on how much I have recently used).

Then we come to the things carried in my vest.

Click to embiggen

I wear a old west style canvas vest with four pockets.

Top left is a cheap laser pointer. I have found many uses for this over the years. Recently I had bought some cheap dollar store batteries and had two of them explode in my pocket- about a month apart. Interesting sensation... Then you'll see my Zippo, which has a Z-Plus insert, since regular fluid evaporates for me, and a mass of safety pins, some filthy ear plugs, and a tape measure.

Middle top I have a small metal backed mirror, and a couple of metal boxes with small things in them (over-the-counter meds, a P-38 can opener, needle & thread, buttons, a piece of hacksaw blade, back for an earring, etc.) and a cloth in a small bag for cleaning my glasses.

Just below those you can see my old collapsible cup.

Starting back at the left again are my frequently used keys. 

The rest of the stuff is carried in pockets I attached to the inside of my vest. There's another P-38 (not sure why), and below that are some emergency tooth brushes I carry for my daughter (although I have used them a few times), and my ear buds. I carry a USB cable, as well as a wall adapter and a car adapter for my phone, my Kindle, and for the "found phone" I just use to store music.

Next are a Sharpie, a diamond sharpening rod, an antique sharpening rod made of who-knows-what, another pencil nub, and a magnifying glass made of a lens I scavenged.

That's not all I carry on a daily basis, but the rest is sort of obvious.

I'm not sure how much it all weighs, but I have carried stuff like this for so long I am used to it. I hate not having something simple, and people know to come to me first if they need something. I am always adjusting and changing what I carry. If I am digging in a pocket and find something I haven't used, I take it out. Or, if there is something I find myself needing, and not having, it may get added. Yeah, it may make me look a little fatter than I am, but that's OK.

I am my own possibles bag. I don't need all this, but it does sometimes smooth over little issues to keep them from becoming problems.

UPDATE- 2-22-2019:

Here's the latest picture of the belt and its contents:

You may notice some repairs and replacements. The spyglass pouch has been repaired. The pouch with the hobo tool was replaced (as was the hobo tool). A different phone case is in use, since the newer phone is larger. That case-- with the Firefly "Independents" patch-- was made in the mid 1980s for a completely different purpose, but works well for my phone, a backup battery, a USB cable, and some adapters in case someone else needs a charge. Also, I broke down and started using a new belt.

Check out the other EDC posts.

.

Bouncing photons and claiming them as your property

You don't own the photons which have bounced off you you. Not even if someone else captures them digitally. Sorry if that upsets you.

Yes, I understand if you are upset that someone took an "upskirt" photo of you. He (or she) acted like a jerk. But you weren't touched in any way, nor were you coerced into changing anything you were doing. You have not been stolen from nor aggressed against. Call the photographer names if you want, but if you use (or threaten) force against him (or her) you are the one initiating force.

This all started over a photo someone posted in a non-libertarian Facebook group. The photo showed a woman hanging from an overhead rail on "public transportation". She was looking right at the photographer, but her panties were showing. Panties are clothes, not "nudity", by the way. She was obviously having fun, and it looked to me as though she was enjoying the attention she was getting.

People in the group started getting all twitchy, asking the person who posted the photo whether he had gotten her consent to post the photo, comparing it to a secretly captured "upskirt" photo, and having conniptions that not everyone was as offended as they thought they should be. It got stupid fast. Then it went totally insane with name-calling from all sides, and multiple threats to "report" the picture. Soon, the administrators (who I have seen act cowardly in several other instances) took down the photo and threatened to ban anyone who even mentioned the incident again.

(I agree they have the right to run "their page" however they want, within Facebook's terms of service, including doing this- that's not the issue here.)

I am all for consent. I think every human interaction should be consensual or not at all. I also think it would be nice if he asked to take the photo, and if she consented, then asked whether it was OK to post it online.

But, if you are in public you have no right to not be seen or photographed. You don't control how someone intercepts the photons bouncing off of you. 

Which could be good, because if you did own those photons, then you would be responsible if they caused "harm" to someone. And, although The State does actually pretend that's a "thing" ("indecent exposure", displaying the digitus impudicus toward cops and other verminous State employees, etc.) and will find ways to punish you for "your" photons, but that's just because the State needs as many made-up reasons to punish as many people as possible.

Witnessing that offensensitivity meltdown also showed me that no matter how petty and bickering liberty-lovers can get, the non-libertarians out there can be so much worse. Without even noticing what morons they are being.

.

A "quality" to the disagreements

I care very little about statists disagreeing with me. I'm going to live liberty the best I can regardless of their wishes or fears. I only make the effort to get them to see liberty for their own sake. They can take it or leave it. Debating them gives me practice putting my thoughts into words.

It bothers me more when people I generally agree with disagree with me. And sometimes I discover they had a good reason for their disagreement.

In both cases I really do try to look at the disagreement and see where I could be wrong. Sometimes, where the other liberty lovers are concerned, I discover I was wrong. Or there was a misunderstanding somewhere and we were both right.

That just never happens where statists are concerned. There may be some misunderstanding, but they are still wrong at the very foundation. They start with flawed assumptions and it only gets worse from there. They can still make me mad, but they are wrong, and I'm not going to reject the truth just so they'll agree with me.

That's the difference in the quality of the disagreements.

.

Protecting from mistakes misguided

Protecting from mistakes misguided

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 12, 2014)

Human beings will always make mistakes.

It would be nice to protect people from mistakes, but that desire is often misguided. You can warn people; some might even listen. Some won't and you'll watch as they suffer consequences. Some mistakes will be fatal. That's reality, and there's no way you can change it, no matter how tightly you try to control the world.

You might make up rules to forbid others from doing things you believe would be mistakes. This is also a mistake. People don't learn by being told what not to do. In fact, your efforts will probably encourage irresponsibility, and make mistakes more tragic. In spite of the wishful thinking at the foundation of all politics, you can't live other people's lives for them- you can only live your own.

No one is immune to mistakes. I know I have squandered opportunities, taken the wrong path, and made the wrong choice many times. It happens less frequently as I learn from past mistakes, and it doesn't mean mistakes from long ago don't still have ongoing consequences.

People learn because mistakes have consequences. You may think that sounds cruel, but isn't it worse to ensure a person never has the opportunity to learn? Go ahead, try to save those you see making a fatal mistake, but remember: they'll probably learn nothing from the experience and you won't always be around.

I can't tell you how many times I told my daughter the stove top was hot, but I do know it only took one time touching it for her to learn and remember.

Even worse than making your own mistakes is forcing those who know better to go along for the ride. It's really bad when you drag people with you. Those who know better should be able to stand aside and let you go over the cliff if you can't be talked out of it. Forcing them to join you is not civilized.

Then again, what one person considers to be a mistake, someone else might consider the goal, and forbidding them to pursue it could be wrong. This is why no one should have the power to run the lives of others. After all, you never really know how the future will unfold, and preventing someone from doing something which might turn out to have been the right thing should overwhelm you with just as much guilt as sitting by and watching someone get hurt by their mistakes.

Give your best advice, if it is welcomed, then it's up to the other person to accept it or reject it, and it's then your responsibility to get out of their way.
.

Muslim terrorists are a symptom, not the problem

(Published 1-9-2015 on Patreon)

It's the act that matters, not the excuse someone uses for committing the act.

I don't care if your excuse is Islam, Christianity, nationalism, drugs, enforcing the law, or insanity- if you harm the innocent or violate their property (in other words: commit evil) you are a bad guy and I hope your next victim blows your brains out in self defense. I'd wish this to happen every single time.

I hate Islam as much as anyone, but the Charlie Hebdo murders have brought the non-thinking anti-Islam wackos out in force. People willing to excuse and justify all sorts of evil, as long as it is committed in the name of something they like, are losing their minds because some other wackos committed evil in the name of something "alien".

If your belief system requires you to use the State and its "laws" to impose your ideals on people who don't share them, your belief system is worthless crap. If your belief system encourages you to use threats of violence to convert others, then - again- worthless crap. It doesn't matter what is behind your belief system. If it can't compete on a voluntary basis, but relies on coercion, it needs to die out.

To say that Christian theocrats are somehow morally or ideologically "better" than their Islam theocrat brethren is ignoring what has historically happened anytime either group gets too much political power.  

The big problem, of course, is establishing a State which can be controlled by anyone with an agenda. Without a State to use to impose their beliefs, they would not be able to hide the evil nature of their acts behind "laws" or "democracy" or whatever they use. They would still have "God/Allah says..." but any attack would be laid bare and could be defended against without becoming a "criminal".  

You may claim "a State is only a tool; like a gun", but that's missing the fact that guns can be used defensively, and other people aren't forced to provide you with a gun or pay for your ammo, nor take the blame if you use your gun offensively- well, except for by anti-gun, anti-liberty bigots, but those people are crazy and stupid. States are always offensive- from how they are established, to how they are financed and how they are maintained.  

To leave a government lying around is like leaving a loaded and ready full-auto pistol in the daycare center's toy box, just waiting for someone to pick it up and use it irresponsibly. There is no way to use a State responsibly without it ceasing to be a State.  

Theocrats of any stripe are like oversized preschoolers. Ready to pick up the State and aim it randomly at anyone else. Until you can condemn them all for the fundamental evil they advocate, rather than focusing on the differences in degree- which are fluid- you'll be aiding and abetting them all. After all, if it's OK in some cases, it could be argued to be OK in all cases.

The problem is aggression, not the justifications for using it.

.

In "Alignment"?

Apparently, according to this test, my "alignment" is "Neutral Good".

I guess that works for me.

Click to enlargenize

The test linked above says I am  41.7% Good and 10.3% Lawful. "10.3% Lawful"? What's up with that? I suppose if you consider the ZAP a "law", and rejecting theft as "lawful", it could fit. Although I still tend to consider all "laws" as either unnecessary or harmful. Although there were several questions I couldn't easily answer, as there was no answer I really liked (as with all these things). So, perhaps I lean a little toward the "Chaotic" side, too.

Here's the short version of the characteristics of Neutral Good:

You do the best good that a person could be expected to do. You are devoted to helping others. You are willing to work with authority figures, but you do not feel any particular allegiance to them.
You are the stereotypical “Benefactor.” You believe in doing good without any particular bias for or against order.
Examples of characters and people who fit into the same alignment as you include Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Gandalf, Indiana Jones, O-Bi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, and the Dalai Lama.

Another page explains the character traits a bit more in-depth. Again, I think they confuse respecting "laws" with doing the right thing when the "law" accidentally aligns with right. And confuse finding "authority" irrelevant with willing to work with "authority".

As a bonus, here is the page on "Chaotic Good", which I'm a little surprised I didn't score, but which I do seem to share a lot of characteristics with.

Someone showed me another alignment test, and in taking it I scored "Chaotic Neutral"- I am less confident of that result because the test had even more questions without a good answer for me. For example: I won't spy for a hostile foreign power because governments are all evil, not because of any loyalty to "my" government.

Either way, I am some combination of good, neutral, and chaotic- the upper righthand corner of the picture, which I see as the most fitting place for me.

Anyway, file it under "know yourself", and take the test if you'd like to compare notes.

.

The world collapsing around you? Take the challenge- Find the fun.

You and I live in "interesting times". That's not going to change unless it is to get more "interesting". I'd better accept it.

So, I am determined to have fun with tyranny, however I can manage. I'll play and mess with them and make fun of them in subtle ways they may miss. But I'll know, and it will make me smile.

Maybe some few raging statists are smarter than I give them credit for, but most are downright idiots. Use that fact.

I can have fun even knowing it's a serious situation. Just like any survival situation, if you forget to find the fun in it you'll suffer needlessly, and you may hurt your chances of surviving. Hard situations can bring out the best in you if you let them. And show you what you're made of. There's beauty in surviving a blizzard in the forest, or a desert crossing in the summer. There must also be beauty in surviving a police state and finding little ways to take back some liberty (which amounts to spitting in their drink without them knowing you did so).

I think I had recently forgotten to have fun with the circumstances. Statists and their enforcers are just so ridiculous I've got to laugh. Sure, they are dangerous. So are lots of other things. You need to stay alert. Be aware and keep your eyes open. Yes, this is deadly serious. But have fun. Laugh. Live in spite of them. To spite them.

It's your life. Don't let the pro-government extremist idiots ruin it for you.

.

Science: Dark matter

This idea struck me, and I don't know if it has any merit, or if it does, whether someone else has already considered it, but....

Maybe dark matter is just "normal" matter existing in the curled up extra dimensions predicted by string theory, superstring theory, and M-theory. Seems like a good place to hide most of the Universe if you ask me.

UPDATE: I did a quick Google search before I posted this and came up with no matches, but later a more in-depth search shows that others have had this idea before me. Good. Now I hope someone figures out a good way to test it.

.

Government explained to an alien (and to statists)

Thanks to one of my readers for sending this video to me. It's based on a talk by Larken Rose, so obviously it's spot on. I've seen it before, but for some reason never posted it. I think everyone should watch it.

.

False choices

"Muslim or Christian" is just as false a choice as "Democrat or Republican". And equally as evil when you use your religion as an excuse to try to force your belief system on those who are not a part of your belief system.

Again, just like the evil of Democrapublicans.

That being said:

Properly identifying dangers

There are many libertarians out there absolutely bending over backwards to seem all touchy-feely and warm & fuzzy. Do what you want, but ignoring reality so you can coddle bad guys and not alienate their fans isn't being honest.

Case in point:

I get the Liberty.me newsletter, and a recent issue was decrying the killing of those NYPD officers. Fair enough, but then they went off the edge.

What the article said was:

"...Humans have an evolutionary tendency to lump things with a common trait together and then assume that all those things sharing that trait are identical in nature. If a tiger killed my neighbor, then all tigers are deadly. If a snake bit my neighbor and he died, then all snakes are dangerous. Those that recognized distinctive traits and properly categorized the natural world as dangerous or not dangerous and killed the dangerous ones tended to live longer and pass on their genes. Those that thought we should just give all tigers a chance, well, it didn’t work out so well for them... 

But this vestige of our evolutionary past, like the appendix, serves no purpose today except in extreme situations (e.g. it’s still safe to assume all tigers in the wild are dangerous)..."

That's true, to a point. The mistake they make is in not properly identifying cops as just as dangerous as other known dangers- like wild tigers and poisonous snakes. You can learn to identify deadly snakes by their patterns, colors, and shape. Same with people who make the conscious choice to wear certain patterns, colors, and shapes. When someone chooses to advertise their identity as a predator you'd be foolish to discount the warning. They are warning you. Believe them.

I replied to their email:

The problem with giving cops a chance is, just like the tigers, by definition they are dangerous. They choose to live by theft and aggression- and advertise their choice every morning by the gang colors they openly put on to wear, and by continuing to enforce counterfeit rules against everyone not in their gang. If someone shows you that they are dangerous by the gang colors they wear and the choices they continue to make, you'd better believe them. It isn't "lumping", it is recognizing them for what they are and how they choose to live.

Now, I don't advocate going up to cops (or MS-13 gang members) who are not currently engaging in aggression or theft and shooting them in the head- but I will never grieve when the poor and harmful choices they have made (and continue to make) have consequences. Good riddance to them.

Not recognizing a real danger, just so you can appear "reasonable" to those who will never be on your side regardless, is suicidal.

.