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.

.

Not mine; not yours; not ours

"Our government".
"Our troops".
"My president".
"My congressman".
"Our laws".
"Our police".
"Our schools".

If you say any of the above, you are a big part of the problem.

I'm not telling you to stop saying those things, but I would remind you that words have meanings, and sometimes the way you use words can warp the way you think about things to the point that reality becomes a problem for you. Stop and think before you parrot the popular phraseology.

.

Beliefs are far more than opinions

Beliefs are far more than opinions

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 5, 2014)

I often hear people characterize political differences as mere differences of opinion. If only they were that trivial.

A disagreement over the best music would normally be a frivolous difference of opinion, but what would happen if it were politicized? You might criminalize my favorite songs if 51% of the voters agree with you or if a bureaucrat makes up a rule, then demand I only listen to your favorite music whether I like it or not, on 8-track tape, and throw me in a cell if I don't comply. No longer is it a difference of opinion; it has become a threat.

Neither is the dispute between Rightful Liberty and everything else- Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative- just a matter of opinion.

The opinion that a State and its laws are necessary and can make you safer, or make bad people good, eventually leads to slavery, death, and destruction. The opinion that government can be constitutionally limited to keep it under control has the weight of human history against it. Cemeteries and secret mass graves overflow with counterarguments to those who believe living under a State is better for people than living without one: over 200 million non-military dead, most killed by "their own" governments, during the 20th Century alone. Anarchy can't possibly be worse.

But you may not agree.

If you disagree with my opinion that Rightful Liberty is something I should respect in everyone else, I will let you go your own way unless you attack me over our difference of opinion. That's because your Rightful Liberty- your "unobstructed action according to [your] will within limits drawn around [you] by the equal rights of others"- is more important to me than having you live as I wish you would.

Unfortunately, those holding "mainstream" political opinions openly believe it is OK to cage or kill people who have differing opinions, especially if they dare to live according to their opinion in defiance of laws, even if they violate no one's Rightful Liberty while doing so. Their opinion results in everyone being controlled with arbitrary and harmful laws enforced by agents of the state, who are paid through that taking of private property euphemistically called "taxation", and any noncompliance will inevitably be met with violent enforcement of those laws. Deadly force over a difference of opinion? Some opinion!

So, which government law or program do you want badly enough to believe it's worth taking your neighbors property, liberty, or life, over? Don't say "they should just obey the law", because things like slavery were once legal, and many of today's laws will be viewed with the same contempt by future generations.

.

How to minimize the problems with the military

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Like America's founders, I am highly suspicious of a standing military. They are not a good idea, and are too dangerous to permit.  

The people ought to form militias, but no government can ever be trusted with a military. They just can't.  

However, ignoring how the military is financed (through theft called "taxation")- if it were used strictly for defense and never for offense, empire building, nor to "police the world" I wouldn't have so much problem with it. It really wouldn't be a force for evil anymore, other than the theft committed to fund it.  

But no state can ever resist the temptation to keep and deploy (and abuse) a military. A State will always use its military for evil, and a military is never useful for anything other than supporting and growing a State (and therefore endangering the innocent people everywhere it goes). And, they are not "our troops"; they belong only to the State and are a danger to Rightful Liberty.

.

"Not fair..."

After a few years of being around other kids, I notice my daughter has developed a fascination with "fair". Usually, as in "that's not fair".

This amuses me a little bit, but each time she says that I remind her that "fair" isn't a real thing. Life happens as it will, "fair" doesn't figure into it at all.

That doesn't mean I don't try to be "fair" when dealing with her.

Is that contradictory? Maybe.

I would love for the Universe to be fair. When the laws of physics or human nature conspire against me I would love to be able to remind the Universe to be fair and have things improve immediately. But, that's not up to the Universe- it is MY job to be fair when dealing with others. What they do is up to them.

The Universe doesn't care- that's my job (and I hope you accept that job, too).

I don't want my daughter going through life under the impression that life will be fair, and getting hurt when it isn't. I'd rather she understand it is up to her to choose to be fair when dealing with others, to accept that others may not be so reasonable, and to protect herself from the nature of reality when she can.

.

Let your fear go

Cowardice. Ugh. Just look where it gets people.

Fear of war lords, of hordes of worthless people looting, or of other bad guys makes people embrace the State- and it's disgusting enforcers- out of fear of what might happen in their absence. It's really sad.

I see it over and over.

Just because people are scared of what they imagine could happen, they support a current evil that really does kill innocent people now. I'm not sure how they imagine things could be worse without the State, but they certainly do imagine it. I've always had an active imagination, but that's stretching it beyond thin.

But, maybe they are right. Maybe liberty would be a short-lived disaster. I highly doubt it, but I'm willing to take my chances. How about you?

I'll watch your back, and I would appreciate it if you watch mine- but no obligation if you'd rather not. Liberty is worth the trouble.

.

Internet? What's that?

I have been online very little in the past week or so.

First I had the flu at the same time my son came to visit. Yay. He's here for a couple more days. So, I've been spending time visiting with him. We are pretty much snowed in now- which I don't mind.

Then, last night as this area was getting 9" of snow, the furnace decided to stop working. Now, for me, that's not really a hardship. I have a fireplace, and I like to sleep in cold air. But some other people under this roof get very worked up over such things.

So, at 3AM I was running around outside, going to the cellar to get an electric heater to supplement the fireplace. This was after trying to fix the furnace without success. I thought the thermocouple was out, but I changed that today and had the same problem- mostly. Talking to the former owner of the house has me suspecting the gas valve is crapping out- which he says cost $120 the last time he replaced it a few years ago- but I did eventually get the heater to come on for a while and get the house temperature back up to where the soft, modern humans in the house were happy. Looks like I may have to try to buy a new gas valve very soon. Sure could use that money for other things, but I guess the furnace is importantish.

Anyway, before long I'll probably be back online a normal amount.

.

Enjoy beauty whenever you can

Stolen money can either go toward something hideous or something beautiful.

If you are mugged in a back alley- or "taxed"- your stolen money might finance a visit to a crack house or the construction of an ugly prison. Or, maybe the mugger will use the loot to buy paint and make a beautiful mural on the side of a courthouse- or maybe a government fireworks display. Even paint bought with stolen money applied to the side of a building paid for with more stolen money can be beautiful.

Would you feel guilty for admiring something beautiful financed with stolen money?

You probably shouldn't. You might as well enjoy beauty wherever you find it. It doesn't mean you should excuse theft. Theft is theft. It is always wrong, no matter what it is used for. Don't sidestep the truth. But don't shut out beauty, either.

I guess I'd still rather see stolen money go to make something beautiful than to something horrible like a prison or to hire a cop. Of course, I'd much rather have everyone reject theft altogether. Maybe someday...

.

Happy New Year, and free information

Happy New Year!

For the past year I have been trying one of my year-long experiments. This year's was not as successful as the standing desk, which I'm still using.

No, this year's experiment was washing my hair with baking soda and apple cider vinegar instead of shampoo.

I have made my own deodorant and toothpaste from baking soda (and other ingredients)- and they worked OK, but there were always issues*.

And, when I say "not as successful", I don't mean there was any real problem. I honestly can't tell a difference in my hair after using no shampoo, but only baking soda and apple cider vinegar for a year.

So, while I'm glad there was no problem, considering the extra work, I think I'll just switch back to shampoo and conditioner. "No difference" translates into "no reason" in this case. Shampoo and conditioner are just faster and easier. Yeah, they may be slightly more expensive, but since using the "natural alternative" takes longer to wash out, I wonder if the extra water usage eliminated any economic benefit.

Plus, if you can't easily make baking soda at home in the event of TSHTF, it's not really a survival technique anyway. Yucca leaves and roots might fit that bill better (or other things, depending on your location). I would say it's best left to those times you ran out of shampoo, don't want to use your soap/body wash for some reason, and have the ingredients at home.

Just another bit of data to keep in the back of your mind, but don't spend much time worrying about it one way or the other.

-

*The deodorant was crumbly. It was too hard when cold and too soupy when hot. That's the coconut oil. It did work pretty well, though.

The toothpaste also worked. It was also affected too much by temperature- often either flowing out of the tube as a liquid, or too hard to squeeze out.

.

It all goes back to property rights

It all goes back to property rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 28, 2014.)

Those who oppose "illegal immigration" should push for a constitutional amendment to finally make immigration control and closed borders constitutional (therefore, legal). In clear language, with no ambiguity. This would be necessary to make some immigrants "illegal" and end the hypocrisy. Those opposed to "illegal immigration" should obey the highest law before demanding others obey subordinate laws which were never authorized by the Constitution.

Obviously, clear language guarantees nothing. The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear, yet has been violated and ignored by "laws" at every level of government for the past 80-plus years.

Even with a constitutional amendment it would still be wrong to pretend any government has the authority to violate private property rights and dictate whom you are allowed to rent to, hire, or invite for a visit, and to tell people where they are allowed to be. At least then those who claim to want government to obey the Constitution wouldn't be talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I do sympathize. To a point.

If you are worried immigrants will vote for more socialism- just like the majority of American voters already do- why not win them over rather than alienating them? The actions taken by those who explain they are only opposed to "illegal immigration" are self-defeating at best. If you believe your way is so unappealing it isn't possible to make newcomers want it, then immigrants are not your biggest problem.

It bothers me when anyone, regardless of where they were born, votes for more socialistic handouts and programs; for more government or more "laws". No matter what justification they use. It makes no difference to me where an attacker or a thief was born, nor what government papers he holds. I want to see aggressors and thieves struck down through self defense every time they strike.

Yet, if private property rights are respected, the whole issue of "immigration" evaporates.

If all property were individually owned, and there weren't an entire system established to wrest control of property from the rightful owners, the owners could decide how to control it. Government owns nothing it didn't either steal from the original owners or buy with stolen (or counterfeited) money. Since no thief owns the stolen property he possesses, why do people pretend there are federal, state, or local "public" lands to be controlled by government?

With real property rights people would either be where they have a right to be, or they'd be trespassing and subject to forcible removal. If property rights stopped immigration, so be it. If not, that's also just fine. This is as it should be.

.

Thug vs Thug

Ever since the Micheal Brown/Darren Wilson incident I have seen the same thinking error happen over and over again.

Even among those inclined toward liberty.

People who should know better seem to be throwing their unconditional support behind Wilson, just because they don't wish to be seen supporting Brown.

People are so desperate to not be seen supporting someone they see as the bad guy that they make idiots of themselves supporting another bad guy. They want to believe Brown was a bad guy- and it's quite possible he was- so they jump to support Wilson even though he is also a bad guy.

Don't make the mistake of believing that openly breaking counterfeit rules makes a person "bad" either, because nothing could be further from the truth. Good people break bad "laws".

It got so bad I saw people hesitating to condemn the cop who murdered Eric Garner- seemingly based on how they view the Brown/Wilson encounter.

It is common for bad guys to kill each other. It's the life they choose. Don't get wrapped up in supporting one side simply because you hate the other a little more; feel free to condemn both as what they are. And when one side is clearly the bad guy, violating someone who wasn't currently initiating force or theft (which is something ALL on-duty cops are guilty of), then don't hesitate to call the thug a thug.

.

Firefighter or cop?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

If firefighting were done like policing, firefighters would go cruising around looking for fire. Or smoke. Instead of actually spending most of their active time rescuing people and property, they would spend most of their time writing tickets for candles, cigarettes, possession of lighters, or anything hotter than allowed. They would have quotas, and if they couldn't fight fires, they would make their own work.

Smokers could be shot dead, with minimal warning, since the firefighter was "only doing his job". And, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Any fires reported would draw firefighters from all over, who would stand around and watch it burn, since they "just want to go home at the end of the shift", and firefighter safety would trump all else. 

A firefighter discovered to be an arsonist would be given a few days paid vacation before being found to have acted within departmental policy. He would be reinstated and anyone who spoke out for the victims of the fires he set would be hated and threatened. He would get rich from donations collected during his vacation, and his victims would be said to have deserved what they got. 

And we would be constantly told how heroic they are, and how without them, the entire planet would burn to a crisp.
.

The "Great" Divide

As so many have noticed, there is a Great Divide in America- and I don't mean the Rocky Mountains.

It's a divide between individuals who see themselves as part of a particular group and those who see themselves as part of a different group.

But, the "Great" divide isn't the divisions that we are encouraged to see. It isn't between "Black" or "White" or Hispanic. Not between "immigrant" and "citizen". Not even between "liberal" and "conservative".

 Nope. It's strictly between liberty and State.

Those who support the State, or somehow believe a State enables liberty, are destroying liberty. Actively. Not simply by giving power and comfort to the enemy of liberty, but by marginalizing those actually advocating and supporting liberty.

Supporting the State includes supporting cops, troops, a favorite politician, and even the Constitution (as anything more than an illustration of how illegal the federal government has become by its own rules).

Supporting the State doesn't just mean supporting the individual rights of those people who work for the State- nothing, not even joining the State, can make rights "go away". Supporting the State to the detriment of liberty means saying those people are "good" even if they refuse to walk away from the "job".

Supporting the State means supporting the Constitution in spite of everything wrong with it by pretending there is no way to deal with other individuals which could be better.

Supporting the State means saying "just obey the law", when you know- you KNOW- the "law" is often completely evil and obeying it, when not looking down the barrel of a gun, is wrong.

Supporting the State means being so anxious to not appear to be supporting a freelance thug that you throw your support and advocacy behind a State-employed thug. Forgetting it is possible for both to be parasitic vermin.

Some people believe they can straddle the divide, hopping awkwardly back and forth as the situation merits. It just doesn't work that way. You never know when the music will stop and you are stuck where you stand. Choose wisely. Choose liberty.

.

Recoiling from Liberty

It is sad when I see people who used to be firm advocates of Rightful Liberty backing away.

I understand it is hard to be seen as "radical", and maybe this is part of it. It can be uncomfortable pointing out terrible things that are highly popular. You don't want to be seen as supporting bad guys.

I know I may hold some blame.

Others, I suspect, are allowing themselves to get pulled into some type of government job or entitlement, and are softening their views to accommodate their new life. You have to do what you have to do, but that's only more reason to refuse to even consider working for the bad guys.

Whatever the cause, I hope they realize their mistake before they have done things which can't be taken back.

.

Merry Christmas, etc.

Go read a random old post to find something embarrassing I've said in the past if you simply must be reading blogs today.

Best wishes to you and yours!

.

Could a time traveler change our future?

In my naivety I used to believe a time traveler could change the future- his past- by warning people of the path they were on. Recent events have destroyed this assurance.

Just imagine a time traveler going back to 1930s Germany, warning the people (without actually revealing he came from the future) about Hitler and his Brownshirts. After all, they could see with their own eyes the events happening around them, and should be able to figure out the time traveler's warnings are at least plausible. They could choose to change direction and stop worshiping the Nazi enforcers. Right?

I'm not so sure anymore.

Imagine a time traveler from the mid-2020s or so showing up today to warn people about the future of America. Everyone sees what is happening and can see for themselves- if they choose to do so- what police have become. No one would believe a person has actually come from the future to warn them (well, maybe if he's "John Titor") so he probably shouldn't tell them that part, but they should still be able to recognize the current path for what it is and see where it leads- especially with a warning. If they could just stop fluffing badges for a moment and get up off their knees to look around and see where it's all heading. Or, you'd think they could.

But, I believe now they'd just squeeze their eyes shut and "insult" the time traveler for "hating cops", which, due to his past, of course he would. I can hear them crowing: what will you do if you're ever in trouble and need to call a Brownshirt to come save you? Oops, I mean, call a cop.

I suspect, now, that if a time traveler went even further and assassinated Hitler before he could do any real harm, the only effect would be to elevate the dead politician to the status of a hero in the minds of the vast majority- openly and proudly celebrated even today. Think of JFK. People would probably embrace his "vision" even more tightly, no matter how suicidal, to honor his memory.

The sad thing is, it doesn't take a time traveler to see where this train leads. I've done all I can. I have tried to warn people because I care- not only for my own future and the future of my kids, but even for all those who hate me for telling the truth about cops.

Maybe something will happen to change what seems inevitable. I sure hope so. I do believe that after "the inevitable" comes to pass, and implodes, a much freer, brighter future awaits. Liberty does seem to increase over the long term, even considering the painful and tragic blips where it is rolled back temporarily. I just hate to think people are so stupid they insist on going through the bad to get to the good, when the bad times approaching are so avoidable. So many won't make it out the other side. If people will just stop to observe and think... I am disappointed in people right now.

I will try to stop focusing so much on cops. You have all the information you need, already. Absorb it, or ridicule it. Believe me, or hate me. Don't be surprised a few years down the road when you suddenly realize you were warned while you had the power to act and change course in your circle of influence, and you chose instead to shine those badges and point out the "good cops" you've known and loved. Keep licking that hand; you'll sorely regret it. Probably sooner than later.

.

Justice system should not be monopoly

Justice system should not be monopoly

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 21, 2014)


A horrific local crime has again shown the folly of allowing a monopoly on providing the service of justice. A monopoly which arose, not by providing a superior service no one could beat, but imposed through destructive laws.

A monopoly in the free market, even one which provides an exceptionally superior service or product, is always temporary. As soon as someone believes they can do it better, spurred on by the potential profits, they will try, and no one can prohibit their attempt.

True monopolies can only survive when enforced by "laws" which forbid- or heavily regulate- competition. An enforced monopoly never results in the best you can get for your money. When such a monopoly administers something as crucial as justice, it is especially tragic.

Maybe police employees really are the most qualified to investigate and try to solve crimes, but to enforce made up rules granting them monopoly status over an investigation helps no one but themselves. Well, and perhaps the more than 30% of murderers who are never caught.

You might point out that private investigators exist, but the truth is they are not really allowed to compete with the police; only to supplement them while remaining subservient. They are supposed to defer to the police and are forced to either dig up information the police have not found first and squirreled away, or beg the police for scraps. They are always expected to hand over, to the officials, anything they find. If a private investigator discovered critical evidence and refused to share the new data with the police, he would probably be charged with a crime. When police do the same thing, people think it's normal.

Independent individuals who discover evidence missed by the "professionals" are eyed with suspicion, and are required to hand over all evidence to the police, who act, not as a voluntary centralized clearinghouse, but as a jealous miser, insisting no one else has the right to the information they hold for themselves. If finding those responsible were the highest priority, this wouldn't be the way to go about it.

Police and government officials also assert they are the only proper ones to release information or to speak publicly about a case.

When a group claims exclusive authority over some necessary service, efficiency is compromised, delays result, and people suffer. If justice, whatever you believe justice to be, were the real goal, you would have as many different investigations going on, and sharing information, as there were people interested in solving the case. No one would be allowed to monopolize the investigation to the detriment of truth and justice.

.

The Police State death spiral

Most of the justifications for tolerating the existence of cops only exist because of cops. Because cops enforce counterfeit "laws" there is more crime and regular people find it harder to be properly armed at all times like they have the right to be.

A huge factor in the justification of cops is prohibition. Enforcing anti-drug laws is just plain evil, even if drugs can harm you when abused. Prohibition destroys more lives than drugs ever have. Each day that goes by without rejecting the Stupid and Evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is another day with more deaths and disasters directly attributable to it- and more power for The State.

No crooked politician would even bother proposing anti-drug laws without knowing he has a willing thug army at his disposal to enforce any nasty liberty-violating counterfeit "law" he dreams up. So, the existence of cops perpetuates prohibition by giving them busy work to justify their "job". It's a sick cycle.

If being a cop is "honorable", then "honor" has no meaning, and anyone, committing any act, could be called "honorable" with a straight face.

I warn people because I care. I would do the same if I saw you petting a rabid hyena. If you don't want to listen, and insist on supporting cops in spite of everything, that's your business. I'll try to not say "I told you so"- but I'd much rather you avoided being hurt altogether. Because I really do care and I can't watch you heading straight for disaster without speaking up. Your peril causes me distress even as you deny it.

.

Needing to be "helped" by cops?

(Previously posted on Patreon)

In recent days the notion that cops "help" people (other than politicians who pay them) has reared its head over and over again.

This comes in two forms, depending on how hate-filled the statist uttering the phrase might be: "I hope you never need to call the police to help you" or "I hope when you call the cops they don't come save your worthless...."

Cops don't help. Cops can't help.

I realize there are some situations where you are pretty much forced to call them to keep from getting in deeper "legal" trouble. I hope if this happens you survive their "help"- it certainly isn't a given that you will. In many cases it's probably still better to take your chances with not calling them- but that determination is up to you. 

Any other situation a cop might be of any sort of "help" in, you would be better served by someone not a cop. Need armed support? A friend who knows you is less likely to arrive and immediately mistakenly shoot you. 

Catch a burglar in your house? I generally think of the phrase "Shoot, shovel, and shut up". Maybe there are better ways to handle that. But, being there when the cops show up to haul off the thief is probably pretty risky. And, ignoring the fact that cops are also thieves- traffic fines, tax-financed paychecks, code enforcement, etc., etc.- just means you are calling in one gang of thieves to deal with another thief. 

Your child get kidnapped? You're probably better off posting a notice on social media- the cops might find a body, but thousands of eyes have a better chance of finding a live kid. 

Angry mobs of stupid and violent people smashing, burning, and looting? Look to the L.A. riots and Ferguson, MO to see the cowardly uselessness of cops against actual danger. Instead, grab some willing friends, load up your defensive rifles, and protect your own property if you want it to survive. Of course, cops aren't usually afraid of molesting honest people protecting their own property, so you'll still face risk- but the cops aren't there to help you, but only enforce "laws". 

There is really no situation where cops are there to "help"- it simply isn't their job or their inclination to do so. 

In fact, there is no situation so dire that it can't be made much, much worse by inviting a cop to join in. 

You do what you think is best, but if you still believe cops are the good guys, you are in for a painful wake-up call.

.

Dead cops

The enemy (cop killer) of my enemy (cops) isn't necessarily my friend. That much should be obvious to anyone.

However, the mere fact of being targeted doesn't magically transform the cops into my friends, either.

Cops are still the enemy, only because they have presented themselves as such, and worked hard to prove it. We should believe them.

Cops are where the boot heel meets the face. They are the only real threat to the exercise of Rightful Liberty in America today.

Bad guys kill other bad guys. It happens all the time. And it never changes the dead bad guy into a hero.

.

"If Churches paid taxes..."

Happy Winter Solstice!

Let the festivities begin!

I have seen this image making the rounds. It is disgusting in its assumptions.



I'm an atheist, so I have no love for churches and the way they play into people's foolish wishful thinking- however, I am also an anarchist and I don't want ANYONE "paying taxes" for any reason, ever.

It's a matter of voluntary versus coercion.

People aren't forced to give money to churches, but "taxation" always comes at the barrel of a gun. Churches actually do more good for poor people than "welfare" ever has, and giving the State more money is never a good idea.

I see what the local churches do for people in need. I see the food banks and the clothes "closets" and have seen preachers pay for hotel rooms for homeless, stinky men. I see preachers with second jobs, because they aren't paid enough by their church to survive.

I know some people look at the flashy exceptions- the rich churches with lavish furnishings and vast amounts of property, and preachers in rich suits and luxury cars- the ones who are famous and on TV... but those are truly the exceptions. And, using the exceptions as an excuse to "tax" them all, and send more money to our real enemy, is self-destructive.

Focusing on the bad actors in churches ignores the bad actors of the State. Those promoting the "taxing" of churches pretend that the IRS actually uses the stolen money efficiently, and to help people in need- and pretend that "taxation" (and "government" in general) isn't a prime cause of poverty in the first place. And that is so ridiculous I just have no response to that other than "Seriously? Have you been paying attention... ever?"

.

Cops. Getting worse, or being exposed better?

(Previously published on Patreon)

Going back just a few years, to around the time I started blogging, there were a few murders by cop. Every couple of months you'd hear of another one.

I still remember Kathryn Johnston.

But, in recent years the police have gotten so out of control and murderous- probably due to their overwhelming cowardice and the cult of "officer safety"- that I'll never be able to keep up with all their recent victims. 

Maybe there aren't really more cases. Maybe they are just better reported since it has been taken out of the hands of the mainstream media (who fawn over and shelter cops, regardless of how they try to act on air or in print). Maybe it's due to vigilance on the part of such groups as CopBlock and Film the Police that the murders aren't as easily swept under the rug now. 

But I doubt that accounts for all the recent upswing. I hear of more than one murder per day now. And, I suspect it's only going to get worse before police are abolished.
.

Celebrate your Freedom Cage

(Previously published on Patreon)

Imagine you woke up one morning inside a small room. The door was sealed tight, and through the windows you discovered this room was sitting all alone on the surface of Mars. You look around and see that there is enough stored food and water to survive for a long time, and the air scrubbers seem to be working well. Exploring the room you discover a manual which informs you that your needs will be supplied into the distant future. You will be expected to work inside that room for your life-sustaining supplies- but if you can't work (or just don't want to), you can apply to those who control the habitat to have your needs met anyway.

Or, let's imagine you are sitting in a cage surrounded by ravenous carnivores.

Some symbol of "freedom". Ironically, the eagle's name is "Liberty"

In either case, how free are you? How much liberty do you have? Sure, the Mars habitat and the cage might keep you alive, and death isn't really freedom in any meaningful sense. In your current situation you might be grateful for the protection, but is it sensible to love the cell, or honor those who put you into the position of needing its protection in the first place? And would you really spend time supporting whoever put you in that place and arguing in their favor? Is the protection fundamentally necessary, or was it made necessary, in order to survive your current situation, only by the evil actions of someone else?

Would you celebrate your "freedom cage"? Or, might you accept that even though you'd otherwise be killed, you are still a prisoner?

Well, why celebrate "borders" or The State and the Freedom Cage they have built around you? Do you really believe this is a good way to protect freedom? Much less, Liberty?

The only reason you are in danger from "terrorists" or "immigrants" is because of the liberty-violating actions of those calling themselves "government". The existence of other, possibly distant, government gangs doesn't justify the existence of a closer government gang, nor does it show that "your" gang protects you from the other gangs. Gangs are gangs; none is really substantively "better" than others. Fear of the others shouldn't inspire loyalty to one which claims to protect you from them.

Maybe I'm wrong. It has happened before.

To me it seems you are just celebrating your Freedom Cage.

.

Celebrating their chains and failure

This morning I was listening in on a group of old men chatting over their morning coffee. All seem to have been veterans, as they were discussing the VA and the things they get provided for "free" due to various levels of military-caused disability.

I have no clue about the things they spoke of- I only repeat what they said.

Anyway, they were talking enthusiastically about lifetime "free" car tags and hunting (and fishing) licenses as a couple of the perks they enjoy.

The thought that kept running through my head was that they should be insulted. They are told they were "fighting for freedom", and yet, some of the benefits they get are monuments to tyranny, instead.

"Freedom" would never permit such things as license plates or hunting licenses. They are an affront to Rightful Liberty. They are the opposite of what these guys thought they were fighting for. It is the US government spitting in their eye and telling them it's a reward.

But these old veterans saw no irony whatsoever.

I resisted the urge to point this out to them, but I wonder if I did the right thing. I would want to know if I were missing something so glaringly obvious. But, then, I'm "different".

.

No "better" government

I always read Libertarian Money, enjoy their posts, and usually agree with them. I was reading the linked one, though, and just had to disagree.

Is a local government really less intrusive than a national government?

I don't think so.

Washington DC (or even the state capital) is far, far away. They could pass any "laws" they felt like, but without someone "local" to impose those "laws" on me, what power do they have?

Yes, a "law" saying I must mow my lawn in a particular way is actually more oppressive than a federal anti-gun "law", simply because, well, which one is more likely to be enforced against me?

Do you think the feds have enough hired goons to go around and commit acts of enforcement against everyone with a gun they have criminalized? No. Unless you draw attention to yourself in some way they'll probably never notice. But, the code enforcers who will steal from you based upon your lawn; they live near you. They may drive past your house every day. Chances of them not noticing you in some way is practically non-existent.

Even any federal "laws" you get caught breaking will probably be enforced first by the local goons on behalf of the feds.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the local molesters and then focus on those thousands of miles away- if it's even worth the bother at that point. Because, without the complicity of the local thugs, how do the feds believe they will enforce anything?

Now, maybe a local government would be easier to fight off and win, but only if it couldn't call upon a federal backup gang to protect it from justice, and perhaps that's a good reason to undermine the false legitimacy of a "national government" first- and support secession or whatever cracks the egg. I'm all for breaking up any government into smaller, bitesize pieces, but I don't pretend one is somehow "better" than another. All are founded upon theft and aggression.

.

Authority belongs in our hands

Authority belongs in our hands

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 14, 2014)

When I look at the offices which were up for grabs in the recent election, or hear of the political appointments made to fill other positions, I see a lot of jobs that simply shouldn't exist, much less be filled. Not even with "the right person". It doesn't matter how good a person is when what they are doing shouldn't be done.

We don't argue over who should be placed in charge of human sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Well, most of us don't. So why select representatives or people to fill posts someone, at some point in time, thought necessary? Has history taught us nothing? No one needs an "attorney general", a "district attorney", a representative, a governor, or a president. No one is more qualified to run your life than you are, and no person can ever adequately represent the interests of another, not even on a one-to-one basis. To pretend otherwise diminishes your life.

Even if the job you seek to fill is a legitimate one- a job even a free society would want to hire a person to do- there are better ways to select, and pay, your employee.

If a job is legitimate you'll never need to resort to committing "taxation" to finance it, prohibit people opting out of your service, nor forbid competition (through a legal monopoly) in providing the wanted service.

A judge in a free society, for example, would need to attract customers by delivering a superior service. His judgments would need to be fair and equitable; he would not be able to show himself to be favoring one side in a dispute- as those judges who work for the State inevitably do. This conflict of interest should automatically disqualify the State-employed judges in any case where it is "The State vs" anyone. I would seek better options.

The evil insanity of hiring people to administer the taking of your neighbors' property should be even more obvious. Only by calling such an act "taxation" does it escape the moral outrage it would otherwise elicit.

If your system is so wonderful, prove it by making participation and compliance optional. Otherwise, you are just like any other thug who says "my way or the highway"; like the abusive spouse who says his victim must know they "deserve it" because they don't leave.

Look at how much of your money you could save by abolishing positions harmful to your life, liberty, and property, rather than fighting over who should fill them. Realize how much of your life and liberty you would regain once those positions are eliminated and the authority is placed back in your hands where it belongs.
.

Fear?

One question that anti-gun bigots love to pose to gun owners is "what are you afraid of?"

Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but as for myself- nothing that owning and carrying a gun could protect me from.

Do I believe a gun "makes me safe"? No, but it is a useful part of the strategy to make myself as safe as I can. There are many situations where having a gun in my control makes me safer than if I didn't- and the only times the opposite might be true is when facing the gang of the State. You'll have to decide for yourself whether freelance thugs or State thugs are the greatest danger, and act accordingly.

.

Liberty needs no lies

My second wife told me many times that I should "learn to lie". She was an expert, apparently, and thought it a personal flaw to not be as good at it as she was. Usually I just didn't feel the need. (Although, for my own safety, I eventually learned to hide things from her, which I suppose is a form of lying.)

But I do see how lies might smooth things over. Temporarily.

I won't lie to say I've never lied.

I don't like making people uncomfortable, and will generally try to smooth things over. Even in online discussions I try to not be mean, even when the person is an obvious idiot or troll. I sometimes fail. Stupid human flaws!

My normal in-person tactic, when the truth might be a problem, is to just say nothing- or to try to say the truth in a way that is less painful. This comes up a lot in social situations where people say ridiculous pro-State things that I want to respond to. The truth would cause trouble, so I try to just say nothing. It doesn't come naturally to me. Pointing out their foolishness will probably solve nothing in that case.

Even saying nothing can be troublesome. For those who believe silence is consent, if I say nothing I might find myself in a situation later where I have to speak up or end up doing something I know I shouldn't do. Like stand up and pledge allegiance to a flag or something similar.

Another problem is that some people just can't leave well-enough alone, and keep prying to find out why you aren't saying anything. Or want to know why you just rolled your eyes.

Telling the truth is better and usually easier, even when it hurts people's feelings. "Taxation" is theft. Cops are bad guys. The State is a silly, arbitrary, and harmful mental glitch. Supporting any of those things is a poor decision, based upon self-contradictory errors in thinking. If that hurts your feelings, you need to do some deep thinking and make the decision to go with the truth rather than with what feels nice.

The truth supports liberty in every case I've ever examined. Even in those rare cases where it's not immediately obvious that liberty is better than the alternative, it is only an even trade-off until you add in the simple value of Rightful Liberty- in which case, liberty again rises to the top.

You don't need to lie in support of liberty. If you think you do, just learn a little more and discover what you were missing that makes a lie unnecessary. It's better for everyone that way.

.