Governing- always without authority

The biggest problem with "the left" and "the right" is that they just don't understand that government has no authority. They cheer when The State does something they like; they scream and wail when government does something they hate. They never seem to figure out "government" is just bad people with control issues gathering together under one label to do things to you that you'd recognize as evil if someone did them without first calling themselves "government".

Government can't grant amnesty, nor can it require work permits or proof of citizenship.

Government can't make weapon possession wrong, nor can it protect your rights to own and to carry weapons since government is the only real threat to those rights (the employees either choose to be evil and enforce anti-gun "laws", or be neutral and not enforce them).

Government simply has no authority- and if you imagine it does, that's just an illustration of the power of your imagination. Yes, those working as "government" have power- they can kill you, cage you, and destroy your property- but that power is illegitimate and is done without authority.

If you want government to "do something", you are a supporter of big, powerful government, no matter what the "something" you want may be.

.

A snake in the grass

I hate to give this guy more views on his rather unpopular video, but when he says "Nutball 'Patriots' accuse Dave of being an undercover federal agent bent on the destruction of the 'Patriot Movement'" (in the video's description), he is talking about me.

I am not a "patriot", and I never mentioned "The Patriot Movement" in the discussion he is referring to (which I have preserved in its entirety by screen cap, for posterity). I also never sent him any private message- and suggested (in a public comment on the video) he post screen caps of any I supposedly sent him.

He is a liar on these points, so if you are listening to his advice in regards to anything else, be very careful.

I can't believe people actually recommended him to me in the past. No thanks. With "friends" like him, I don't need any aggressors.

Added- Here are the screencaps, in case you are interested and can't see them on Facebook. As usual, click to embiggen:

.

Let's get this underground railroad moving

So, UPS and FedEx refuse to ship the Ghost Gunner. That's within their rights*- or the rights of the owners, anyway. (*I'm slightly dubious on the basis that they got in bed with The State by incorporating and basically becoming part of The State, but I'll ignore that objection for the moment.)

So, how to get Ghost Gunners to those who bought them? I am willing to be a station on the Ghost Gunner underground railroad. Maybe "the Ghost Railroad" would be a more appropriate name. And I offer this service without charge, simply because I think it is in my best interest to get as many of these as possible to the people who will use them.

This is something concrete I can do for liberty.

Maybe this isn't a good idea- and yes, I see potential problems. Maybe Defense Distributed doesn't need my help. I offer it anyway.

So, I am writing to Defense Distributed, offering my services. I hope lots of people are willing to join me.

(H/T to War on Guns.)

.

Don't waste your worry

I always hear people saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about".

I have my doubts, due to the fact I have actually learned from history.

But how about this: If you are going to worry anyway, why not go ahead and do the things you are afraid you'll be accused of? At least then you can worry with good reason.

Of course, those who usually say the parroted police state mantra I quoted at the beginning won't worry about anything until they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Jackboot's gun. And then they'll be so surprised and convince themselves that it's one of those rare "bad apples"*.

-

*The "bad apples" give the other 0% of cops a bad name.

.

Abolish the FCC for TRUE net neutrality

So, since it seems inevitable that the State will vote to give itself power and false authority to destroy the internet (if not now, soon, since they can never be content to live with it when they lose a vote, but keep trying until they get their way- which they always, eventually do), how can "we" route around the damage? I'm sure someone can, even if it shuts me out due to not being technical enough.

Sure, I lived without the internet until about 2002, and although I have enjoyed it (mostly), I can live without it again.

I swiped this pic from Claire's blog, but I have seen it a couple other places over the past few days:



I have no doubt that any damage to the internet will be temporary, since freedom will find a way around it- either through the internet or through the next thing. It does seem a shame to allow stupid and controlling puppeticians and bureaucraps to push their idea of "neutrality" on everyone else.

Net "neutrality"? Nope. Not "neutrality" at all. They intend to neuter it, instead, because it is too dangerous to their other plans and wishes. Vermin.

.

A taste of his own medicine!

Don't let it be said I can't enjoy good news!

A verminous tax junkie got a small taste of karma: Sheriff that Laughed about Flash Banging a Toddler, Was Just Shot By Murderous Rogue Cop*



*Maybe that's what a "good cop" would look like

Ritual "Healings"

Can murder be healed through mystic ritual? That seems to be part of what I hear from supporters of the State's death penalty.

Burying someone up to their shoulders to be stoned, strapping them onto a gurney, or into an electric chair; it's just a ritual murder to supposedly heal society of the previous murder. To say it ensures that murderer won't kill again is just an excuse.

I'll have more to say about the Cult of Punishment later.

.

Libertarians are superior

(Previously posted to Patreon)

This is not polite or "nice", but it is true. I'm sure I'm not the first to point this put- I have even touched on it in the past- but it needs to be pointed out frequently. Maybe not so emphatically if you want to be listened to, I admit. I'll assume you already know this, and may just be afraid of saying it out loud. So I'll do it for you.

Liberty lovers are simply superior people. Better than statists. More intelligent. More ethical. More moral.

Anarchists/Voluntaryists/Abolitionists/libertarians ("AVAL")- whatever you want to call them- are better people to the extent they are consistent. This is contrasted by statists who are only decent when they are inconsistent and act like AVAL. And, no, it isn't humanly possible to be totally consistent- although it is a worthy goal.

When an AVAL is inconsistent they take on statist characteristics and fall short. When a statist is inconsistent (to statism as a whole, not necessarily to only his favored form of statism) and acts in an AVAL manner, he is a better person at that moment.

The same goes for those who follow a religion. As far as the religion parallels AVAL, it is good. Where it diverts it is bad. Every single time- no matter what excuse is used. While I don't understand the desire to believe in the supernatural, I do appreciate that there are a lot of religious AVAL who are reasonably consistent.

The social behavior advocated by AVAL works so much better, too. But, like a person who invents a car among cavemen, I don't expect the statists around me to do anything but hit my ideas with clubs. It's all they can do. The cavemen can't seriously be expected to hop behind the wheel and drive off into the sunset as if they've been driving all their lives. And statists can't wrap their tiny little brains around the fact that aggression and theft is a pathetic way to "organize" a society. It's all they know. So, they aggressively attack. They can't show their way is better- thousands of years of failure after failure show the holes in that silly claim.

AVAL are able to explain economics, politics, human nature, etc. with reason and logic. Statists are only able to cry that AVAL "don't understand reality" without giving a logical alternative explanation that is better and more explanatory. That's because there is none. Their argument is empty, and they can't accept it.

Statism falls again and again into how something "feels", and what government action "might" make statists feel better. Real world results mean nothing. Borders, anti-gun "laws", prohibition and all the rest of the sacred statist superstitions collapse under examination- but the "feelings" remain and to a statist, that's all that matters. If that's not an inferior mindset, I don't know what is.

I have plenty of flaws, but I always want to be better in every way. Why disadvantage myself by clinging to a flawed, irrational "philosophy" like statism unless I was satisfied with being less than I could be? There are enough hard things to improve about myself. This was an easy one.

.

I hope I'm wrong, and they are, too

I hope I'm wrong, and they are, too

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 23, 2015.)

Doom and gloom. It comes at you from every direction, but relax: the doomsayers are probably wrong about almost everything.

I don't believe primitive barbarians will take over the world in the name of their religion. Sure, they want to; they just can't.

I don't believe Anthropogenic Global Climate Change- even if it's real- will destroy the world, or more specifically, civilization. Even if real and actually harmful, I don't believe giving more power to the planet's worst polluters and despoilers- governments- is a reasonable response. "Here, Br'er Fox, watch this hen house while I sleep."

I don't believe immigrants will, or even can, destroy America. The internal rot of socialism doesn't need their help since the majority of Americans absolutely love socialism as long as they can call it something else. Most Americans are also quite happy to vote to give the State more power over their own lives as long as they believe it affects someone else worse. Don't blame newcomers until you've straightened up your own house.

I don't believe energy is scarce, if governments can be prevented from withholding, regulating, rationing, and taxing it. When there's a problem, that's where it lies.

I don't believe getting governments out of the prohibition racket will result in disaster and runaway drug abuse.

The doomsayers are wrong, but I doubt they'll ever admit it.

On the other hand, there are some things I think are real threats. I hope I'm wrong.

I hope I'm wrong that the US police state will get much worse before people finally get fed up enough to get off the couch and push back to put an end to it. It's never too late, but waiting too long can make it harder to prevail and can raise the price considerably.

On a similar note, I hope I'm wrong that the majority of people will continue to eagerly give up essential liberty for false security. I hope I'm wrong and they'll turn things around before they are personally hurt.

I hope I'm wrong that a water pipeline from Ute Lake is the multi-million dollar equivalent of having your water shut off and believing you can rely on the water in your water heater and toilet tanks as a long-term solution.

I hope I'm wrong that the dollar is headed toward an inevitable collapse due to the Federal Reserve's decades-old counterfeiting scheme, and when it does collapse, people will be caught by surprise and will panic; having done nothing to prepare while living in comfortable denial about where things are headed.

If I'm wrong about those looming disasters, I'll be the first to celebrate my wrongness. Prove me wrong!
.

Pain-inspired thoughts

My recent hospitalization drove something into my head, more deeply than before, during some extreme discomfort:

You can't have prohibition without hurting the innocent.

You can't have liberty without some people hurting themselves.

Which of those is evil?

.

Civilization's chronic disease

Civilization is an emergent property. Spontaneous order.

Government is a disease of civilization which damages that emergence and disrupts the order.

When the inevitable happens and that disease results in bad things like destruction and death, supporters of government blame anarchy- lack of the disease- and say more government is needed as the cure.

This is like saying that because a person got sick, they need more cancer.

.

News from the right perspective

If you are into News, there is a new News site you should check out: Rightful Liberty Report

I have added it to the links on the right.

As you know, I don't focus much on News- I see it mostly as re-runs of the same things, with different names.

However, I do believe it can be important to know what is going on in the world. As long as you don't let it discourage and distract you. Remember: you are on the winning side- or at least the right one. So check it out.

.

A good sniper

The "news" reports of the various ISIS-assigned murders make me feel the desire to be a freelance sniper with principles (unlike certain bad guys) watching the heads of the would-be murderers explode right before they can harm their victim kneeling in front of them. No "collateral damage"; no "well, he was armed and might have wanted to kill one of 'our guys'", no financing with stolen money.

Just pure defense.

But, the same goes for wherever I happen to be; no need to travel to distant lands.

If I see one person trying to behead, burn, or otherwise torture or kill another person (including waterboarding, electrocution, lethal injection, hanging, etc.), I am going to try to stop the one who is doing the beheading, burning, torturing, murdering. Whether that means yelling "Stop! Move away!" or a head shot.

The context, or what happened before, is of no consequence. I wouldn't have time to interview both parties to see who is the actual bad guy.

That they commit their act openly, in front of witnesses, in a way their "culture" approves of, in accordance with their "laws" makes no difference.

It's just the whole "capital punishment" thing all over again.

It's why revenge is dangerous to the vengeful person. The reason you would appear to a passerby to be an aggressor is that you ARE an aggressor. Even if the person you are aggressing against is a really bad person, with a history of aggression. In that moment, you have become what you claim to be opposed to.

If you don't want to be mistaken for a bad guy, don't act like a bad guy. Claiming what you are doing is "legal" and State-approved, or wearing the silly hat (or uniform) of government, makes zero real difference.

.

When a child is not childish

Sometimes my daughter makes me smile.

Recently we were out and about on a day which experienced a rapid 40 degree temperature drop. I already felt a little guilty because since it was still warm when we had left the house, she had only grabbed a light jacket against the wind.

Well, before long it was no longer 80 degrees with wind, but 40 degrees- and still dropping- with wind. While hopping in and out of the car running errands, she took her jacket off and tied it around her waist- and she was wearing only a short sleeved T-shirt. I felt like a bad parent- or I was afraid "people" would think that of me. (I sometimes forget to trust her to know when she's hot or cold, just as my parents forgot to trust me in the same situation. And I know she's very hot natured.)

I told her I wished she would choose to put her jacket on, because I didn't want to force her.

Her simple reply was priceless: "It's not right to force people."

I admitted she was right, and then she qualified it a little by adding "...unless they are trying to hit you".

Yeah, she still needs to do a little fine tuning, but she's going in the right direction.

.

"Moms"

Every time some astroturf group of shrill, whiny women who fear Rightful Liberty and want Daddy State to save them from having to act like adults, take on a new target, they brand themselves as "Moms" or "Mothers"

Well, in that spirit I suggest that in those instances, "Moms" stands for "Mouth Open, Mind Shuttered".

Individually, "Mom" could mean:
"Mildly Obnoxious Moron"
"Moron On [a] Mission"

Thinking of them in this more honest and accurate way is better for my peace of mind.

Apologies and explanations

You may not have noticed- especially since I had a couple of entries already set to post- but I was in the hospital for a few days. It was unexpected. So, no Clovis News Journal column this week.

I have a few things almost ready to publish, so I may not miss more days, but give me a little while to get back up to speed.

It began with a trip to the emergency room at about 3:30 am Monday, after a couple hours of writhing on the floor. It was nothing too serious- just a kidney stone (4mm x 6mm), and it actually is still there. More doc visits in the coming days.

If I seem a little out of it in my posts (or comments or replies) for a few days I'll blame the pain meds.

.

"Right to control" a powerful delusion

"Right to control" a powerful delusion

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 16, 2015)

Almost all areas of political contention are invented and imaginary. Those areas of life shouldn't be subjected to laws, majority opinion, or anyone's control.

There are only two things subject to control: aggression and violations of private property. Those don't need any response beyond self defense. No one needs to give you permission to protect yourself and your property, and no one can take away your right to self defense.

Beyond that, just look at all the areas which have been perverted by politics:

There is no such thing as "illegal immigration"- there is only trespassing on private property or not, and where a person was born or what government papers they hold has no bearing on the matter.

There is no right to tell others what they can ingest, inject, smoke, buy or sell- and that includes the size of soft drinks or the fat content of food.

There is no right for the State to ration or regulate marriage. The State can record the marriage if the participants want, but there its involvement must end.

There is no right to forbid the ownership or carrying of weapons, what weapons someone chooses to carry, where they carry them with property owner permission, nor how those weapons are carried.

There is no right to control how someone uses their own property, nor whether they run a business.

There is no right to force people to buy any product or service, such as health insurance.

There is no right to require permits or licenses, nor to charge the associated fees.

Where there is no right, no authority can exist. You can't delegate authority for something you have no right to do as an individual.

There is not even any such thing as taxation- there is either respect for private property, or the opposite: theft. There is no right to be provided things, services, or a salary financed by taking money from others.

To pretend you- or some imaginary "we"- have the right to dictate to others how they can live their lives is the source of the vast majority of political strife. To pretend the authority exists to decide what percentage of other people's property can be taken for "the common good" causes almost all the rest.

It's a powerful delusion, perpetuated through most of recorded history, over most of the planet's populated surface. It's still wrong.

There is almost nothing in life legitimately subject to a vote or any other form of imposed control. Anytime a vote is taken, unless you allow the losing side to opt out- without penalty- your vote is a sham. Imposing the results is aggression or theft and makes you the problem.
.

Open carry vs concealed carry

Here's why I prefer open carry- or at least why I wish coproaches wouldn't murder me for open carrying here in the "surprisingly" anti-gun state of Texas:

Concealed carry is uncomfortable. I have never been able to find a CC holster that is the slightest bit comfortable- and by that I mean one which doesn't actually constantly hurt. I have tried several styles and even created my own. They all suck- with the cheapest actually sucking slightly less. I have adopted unconventional methods for the time being, but am always adjusting and experimenting.

When I lived in more free areas I open carried most of the time. I would still CC when the situation called for it (often doing both), but having options is always better.

I understand the tactical advantage CC gives me. I also understand the deterrent effect of seeing lots of people OCing all around you.

But I like wearing a holster on my hip. It just feels right- natural. And I have a lot more options of what to carry that way, too. As I say, I like options. If I ever could find a CC system/holster that doesn't cause agony I'd like that in the meantime.

This means one of the few "political" issues I tend to follow is that of Texas puppeticians considering the possibility of ending their criminal behavior and re-legalizing open carry.

Constitutional carry is a good start, Diplomatic Carry is better. After all, you and I are in foreign, enemy territory here at home.

If you have found a CC system you like, and that doesn't hurt, let me know. If it is something I haven't tried yet (and I can afford the holster) I'll give it a try. And I realize part of my problem may be the large size of my CC weapon.

.

Voting is bad, Mmm-kay?

Elections are to choosing as rape is to sex.

It's not that I oppose voting- it's that I oppose voting on the things elections put to a vote.

There is almost nothing in life that is legitimately subject to a vote- and your Rightful Liberty is NEVER one of those things.

.

More "science": cosmological speculation- the expanding Universe

My last cosmological idea was pretty quickly shown (with the proper search) to be an idea others have already had years ago. I hate when that happens (but it usually does, since an original thought which has never been thought before is probably extremely rare). I expect the same from this one, but I'll post it before I research it.

Red shift shows the expansion of the Universe. Unless such ideas as "tired light" have any validity (which seems highly doubtful to me) every point in the Universe (beyond local gravitational "groups") seems to be moving away from every other point. And, the farther away two points are from each other the faster they are moving apart.

This can be viewed like raisins in a rising loaf of bread- as the whole loaf expands, each raisin gets farther from all other raisins, but the effect is greatest (taking into account the rigid nature of the bread pan) for a raisin touching the bottom of the pan and one poking out the top of the loaf. Two adjacent raisins might not move apart noticeably, and if two are stuck together- like galaxies gravitationally bound together- the expansion won't affect their relative positioning at all.

You can read up on it to see how this shifts absorption lines toward the red end of the spectrum, if you care to learn more.

Back to the expanding Universe... Run this measurable expansion backwards and you reach a time about 13.8 billion years ago to see when the entire Universe would have occupied a single point. The "explosion" of this point is what is called the Big Bang and causes all sorts of speculation about what might have caused it. Lots of ideas- some plausible- but none confirmed or even universally accepted (and I mean by scientists who study such things, not Creationists).

But, maybe there's another answer that would explain the observations. Could the Universe be always expanding, but not actually getting larger? Might this do away with the need of "What made it Bang?"

Maybe, sorta.

Spacetime is curved- and this has been experimentally observed many times. This means the shortest distance between two points, on a cosmological scale, is a curve. And here I am speaking of a spacetime (4-dimensional) curve, not a 2- or 3- dimensional curve of the sort you can probably picture in your head. If the Universe is curved enough (which it doesn't seem to be), going in a straight line far enough would bring you back to the place you began.

So, here's my thought: What if the red shift actually does show the Universe/spacetime to be expanding, but the curvature of spacetime is always bringing the "outer" edge back to the "center"?

A lower-dimensional visual aid would be a fountain where the water flowing out the top is sucked in at the bottom to be sent back out the top again- ad infinitum. Well, try to visualize the Universe as a 4-dimensional fountain.

It would solve the problem of "what happened before the beginning" ("What is north of the North Pole?"), and put to rest the problem of what made it all begin.

It should one day be possible to test this hypothesis, since it is falsifiable. For that matter, it may have already been falsified.

.