(Previously posted to Patreon)
Just as there is no such thing as a "good cop", you can't be a good person while doing a government job. It's just not possible. Truly good people don't work for government.
But what about "public school" teachers? Surely I don't include them?
Yes, I do. And it pains me because of the number of government school (kinderprison) teachers in my family. They can (just like cops) be nice, but not good.
A kinderprison teacher's money comes by theft- often, or maybe always- from a yearly ransom on property. "Property tax" is one of the most outright evil forms of theft ever dreamed up by thieving perverts. Living on stolen goods isn't good.
Then, kinderprison teachers also indoctrinate their young prisoners into the religion of statism. Sometimes gently, but always.
"Truth comes from authority."
"You must follow the rules, no matter how ridiculous."
"You will obey the bell."
"Truancy must not be allowed!"
And, usually, the "students" are indoctrinated into believing that government is necessary, or even good. They are taught a warped version of history that exalts evil thugs and war.
Of course, even a private school teacher can do the same horrible things to the students. Privatization is no guarantee of decency.
If you are a teacher at a kinderprison- or a private school based on the Prussian indoctrination system- you should quit if you want to become a good person.
.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Petty control freaks
I try to get along with everyone- and usually do- even with most statists. But some statists try really hard to make that nearly impossible.
I say "statists", but in some cases I'm not quite sure whether it's statism, or just an enthusiasm to enforce rules.
I have been "camping" for the past few days. No internet (which is why no comments on the blog were responded to for a few days). The camp host where I stayed enthusiastically enforces rules the park management never bothered with. In fact, he bragged that he "educated" the manager about the rule which wasn't being enforced and of which the manager wasn't even aware. He even says he has had to inform many other park managers of this rule, because most of them aren't aware of it. Isn't he such a big man.
I'm sure I don't even need to mention it is a counterfeit rule.
This is a case of the government employee being less evil than the freelance control freak. "Watch how good I am- pat me on the head, Master."
This camp "host" (Benny Dennis, in case you'd like to know the control freak's name) descended on us with clipboard in hand to inform us we were in violation- almost before we'd had a chance to catch our breath after arrival. The extra fee to bring us into compliance would have cost us 50% more and would have obviously shortened the vacation- although we found a way around it (at added cost and inconvenience).
People who say "I only enforce the rules; I don't make them", and "apologize" for having no choice but to enforce the rules- rules which have never been enforced until he showed up and insisted on enforcing them- are worse than those idiots who make up the rules in the first place.
I could see if he were being forced to enforce the rules by a gun pointed at his head. But that obviously wasn't the case here. He is someone who goes out of his way to insist a counterfeit rule be enforced so that he can throw his weight around. A cancer on the human family tree.
Yet, as in all cases, he could become a good guy in one instant by stopping what he has been doing. By minding his own business and leaving people alone as long as they aren't attacking or stealing.
I mostly avoided him by staying off in the brush. It's better for my health.
.
I say "statists", but in some cases I'm not quite sure whether it's statism, or just an enthusiasm to enforce rules.
I have been "camping" for the past few days. No internet (which is why no comments on the blog were responded to for a few days). The camp host where I stayed enthusiastically enforces rules the park management never bothered with. In fact, he bragged that he "educated" the manager about the rule which wasn't being enforced and of which the manager wasn't even aware. He even says he has had to inform many other park managers of this rule, because most of them aren't aware of it. Isn't he such a big man.
I'm sure I don't even need to mention it is a counterfeit rule.
This is a case of the government employee being less evil than the freelance control freak. "Watch how good I am- pat me on the head, Master."
This camp "host" (Benny Dennis, in case you'd like to know the control freak's name) descended on us with clipboard in hand to inform us we were in violation- almost before we'd had a chance to catch our breath after arrival. The extra fee to bring us into compliance would have cost us 50% more and would have obviously shortened the vacation- although we found a way around it (at added cost and inconvenience).
People who say "I only enforce the rules; I don't make them", and "apologize" for having no choice but to enforce the rules- rules which have never been enforced until he showed up and insisted on enforcing them- are worse than those idiots who make up the rules in the first place.
I could see if he were being forced to enforce the rules by a gun pointed at his head. But that obviously wasn't the case here. He is someone who goes out of his way to insist a counterfeit rule be enforced so that he can throw his weight around. A cancer on the human family tree.
Yet, as in all cases, he could become a good guy in one instant by stopping what he has been doing. By minding his own business and leaving people alone as long as they aren't attacking or stealing.
I mostly avoided him by staying off in the brush. It's better for my health.
.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Few things subject to outside control
Few things subject to outside control
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 13, 2015)
Life is like an ice cream parlor, except instead of 21 flavors, the choices are nearly infinite.
Or, they would be if others would stop demanding you choose only from the limited options they decided to allow you; ignoring all other possibilities.
You are told you may only choose between vanilla and chocolate. Of course, the reality is that it's closer to a choice between vanilla made by two different companies, rather than between flavors which actually differ in any substantive way. Whichever flavor wins the majority vote becomes exclusive for the next few years- if outvoted you can't have your preference at all. Not even in the privacy of your own home.
That's your option. Any other choice is off the table. You'll wait years before being offered a chance to enjoy your favorite again. Then, you might lose once more and be forced to forgo your preference even longer. Or become an outlaw.
How can anyone think this is normal?
Don't ignore the real variety. Your choice between two flavors- between Republicrat and Demolican- only matters because people have been fooled into believing it's OK to allow the winners to dictate things no one can have the right or authority to control.
There are extremely few things in your life legitimately subject to outside control. Even then, the only ethical type of outside control is self defense. If you attack or steal, your victim is right to use force to stop you. If you smoke something someone else doesn't approve of, no matter who he is, he has no right or authority to send government employees after you. If he chooses to do so anyway, he becomes the bad guy, as do those he sends to act on his behalf.
That's just one among countless examples I could list.
That he has a "majority" behind him makes no difference whatsoever. Doing wrong isn't made right through popularity, or "laws". Nor because "it has always been done this way".
Unbelievable as it may seem, it gets even worse. If your fondest hopes come to pass and Vanilla wins the next election, the coercion imposed by Chocolate will not go away. Instead Vanilla will add his own rules to those imposed by the Chocolate regime before him, which were added to hundreds of years of made-up rules; negating your choices, taking your property, and pushing you around as it suits the whim of those who impose the rules.
You probably defend this behavior because you have been schooled to see this as the way things are supposed to be. You have been trained to see this as normal. Break free.
.
Life is like an ice cream parlor, except instead of 21 flavors, the choices are nearly infinite.
Or, they would be if others would stop demanding you choose only from the limited options they decided to allow you; ignoring all other possibilities.
You are told you may only choose between vanilla and chocolate. Of course, the reality is that it's closer to a choice between vanilla made by two different companies, rather than between flavors which actually differ in any substantive way. Whichever flavor wins the majority vote becomes exclusive for the next few years- if outvoted you can't have your preference at all. Not even in the privacy of your own home.
That's your option. Any other choice is off the table. You'll wait years before being offered a chance to enjoy your favorite again. Then, you might lose once more and be forced to forgo your preference even longer. Or become an outlaw.
How can anyone think this is normal?
Don't ignore the real variety. Your choice between two flavors- between Republicrat and Demolican- only matters because people have been fooled into believing it's OK to allow the winners to dictate things no one can have the right or authority to control.
There are extremely few things in your life legitimately subject to outside control. Even then, the only ethical type of outside control is self defense. If you attack or steal, your victim is right to use force to stop you. If you smoke something someone else doesn't approve of, no matter who he is, he has no right or authority to send government employees after you. If he chooses to do so anyway, he becomes the bad guy, as do those he sends to act on his behalf.
That's just one among countless examples I could list.
That he has a "majority" behind him makes no difference whatsoever. Doing wrong isn't made right through popularity, or "laws". Nor because "it has always been done this way".
Unbelievable as it may seem, it gets even worse. If your fondest hopes come to pass and Vanilla wins the next election, the coercion imposed by Chocolate will not go away. Instead Vanilla will add his own rules to those imposed by the Chocolate regime before him, which were added to hundreds of years of made-up rules; negating your choices, taking your property, and pushing you around as it suits the whim of those who impose the rules.
You probably defend this behavior because you have been schooled to see this as the way things are supposed to be. You have been trained to see this as normal. Break free.
.
Concealed carry and responsibility
Just because I like guns, and know that the more people who own and carry them the better it is for the good guys, doesn't mean I think everyone should necessarily have a gun at every moment.
For example, I don't think cops should carry guns- they are the only people I think should be legally disarmed (since I don't think "laws" should ever be applied to anyone who isn't explicitly a part of government).
I used to know a guy who would get really drunk at the bar and then endlessly tell me about the gun in his boot (while patting the boot), and how if "anything goes down" I didn't have to worry because he was ready. Not that I believe he could have hit the target in his condition.
He also used to brag about his "permit" to carry. He often showed me his "license" and acted as if it were a really big deal.
I have no idea whether he actually had a gun in his boot- he never flashed that. I guess he did that right.
I never saw him do anything dangerous with a gun. Even if I had, it's not the State's business. But, had he pulled the gun out during any "exciting event" I would have been as worried about him as anyone else.
The first rule of concealed carry is don't advertise. Don't people know what "concealed" means? Maybe he only talked to me about it, but I doubt it. Someone else might have used his talk against him.
Second, if you are drunk, you are quite possibly a bigger danger if you pull out your gun than whatever you think you would be protecting others from.
It all comes down to responsibility. You are responsible for what you do- good or bad. So weigh your actions carefully. Yes, I want you to be armed at all times. But if you are compromised, it might be best if you aren't. Either way, the State has no authority.
.
For example, I don't think cops should carry guns- they are the only people I think should be legally disarmed (since I don't think "laws" should ever be applied to anyone who isn't explicitly a part of government).
I used to know a guy who would get really drunk at the bar and then endlessly tell me about the gun in his boot (while patting the boot), and how if "anything goes down" I didn't have to worry because he was ready. Not that I believe he could have hit the target in his condition.
He also used to brag about his "permit" to carry. He often showed me his "license" and acted as if it were a really big deal.
I have no idea whether he actually had a gun in his boot- he never flashed that. I guess he did that right.
I never saw him do anything dangerous with a gun. Even if I had, it's not the State's business. But, had he pulled the gun out during any "exciting event" I would have been as worried about him as anyone else.
The first rule of concealed carry is don't advertise. Don't people know what "concealed" means? Maybe he only talked to me about it, but I doubt it. Someone else might have used his talk against him.
Second, if you are drunk, you are quite possibly a bigger danger if you pull out your gun than whatever you think you would be protecting others from.
It all comes down to responsibility. You are responsible for what you do- good or bad. So weigh your actions carefully. Yes, I want you to be armed at all times. But if you are compromised, it might be best if you aren't. Either way, the State has no authority.
.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Don't try anarchy
Right. Anarchy is how I live almost all of my life. And so do you. You no more "try it" than you try circulating your blood through your veins.
You can't even avoid living anarchy if it scares you. It only scares you if you overthink it and realize what you are (and always have been) doing.
So, don't "try" anarchy. Just accept it.
.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Education beats enforced ignorance every time
I'm actually going to pass along an anti-gun ad (even though I hate to give it page views). Well, perhaps you might consider it "gun safety" rather than anti-gun. That argument could be made, but I think it's on shaky ground. It feels anti-gun to me.
Anyway, here it is:
Yes, kids who are kept ignorant will play with anything they find. Now. once again, I suggest education is the key.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the boys had been educated about what the "toys" were, and how to properly use them, they wouldn't have touched them with a ten-foot pole.
A locked-up gun is useless for defense. Of course, that's what the anti-liberty bigots want. It's their idea of "safety". Safety for whom?
.
Anyway, here it is:
Yes, kids who are kept ignorant will play with anything they find. Now. once again, I suggest education is the key.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the boys had been educated about what the "toys" were, and how to properly use them, they wouldn't have touched them with a ten-foot pole.
A locked-up gun is useless for defense. Of course, that's what the anti-liberty bigots want. It's their idea of "safety". Safety for whom?
.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
When should you hit a woman?
...anytime you need to hit anyone in self defense, that's when. To imagine that someone gets a pass for aggression due to the type of genitalia they have is inconsistent and hurts everyone- attacker and victim, alike.
You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.
I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.
When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.
Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.
So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.
You are never obligated to defend yourself with violence, but on the other hand, you are also never obligated to sit back and take it. Not from anyone, ever.
I have never bought into this "never hit a woman" nonsense. Yet, I have refrained from hitting a woman a couple of times it was justified. Simply because I knew "the law" wouldn't have been on my side due to a total lack of witnesses. I'm not proud of that fact. There is nothing noble about allowing yourself to be hit while doing nothing to defend yourself.
When my second marriage was getting really bad, my (newly psychotic) wife would occasionally slap me and dare me to do something about it. I did- I got away. But I would have been right to have punched her, and am somewhat ashamed that I didn't. You and I both know I would have been arrested for defending myself, since her aggression happened in the privacy of our home. It doesn't matter, though. As the aggressor she deserved to be defended against with whatever amount of violence it took to stop the attack.
Refusing to hit her could also be seen as a form of self defense- defense against insane "laws" and bigotry. Choosing one violation to avoid a potentially worse one.
So, no, I have never hit a woman, but I will never condemn someone who hits an aggressor of any sex. Sometimes it is simply the right thing to do. If that offends you, well, suck it up, Buttercup.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Circumcision by "law"
I'm sure you've seen the case in Florida where the woman is being ordered by the State to have her 4 year-old son circumcised like she had previously agreed to do.
First off, I will say that I support the mother's resistance. I consider circumcision to be genital mutilation- and when medically unnecessary, it is definitely an act of aggression. I consider the State's opinions to be the utterings of an idiot, to be ignored unless a gun is in your face right now, and to be resisted whenever necessary to do the right thing.
But I accidentally got into a Facebook "debate" with a couple of women whose opinions on this matter astounded me.
Here are the basics:
The contract is sacred and must be upheld- no matter what.
It is better to do this to a baby since he won't remember it, but since she didn't do it then, she must do it now, and it is her fault the kid is now being traumatized.
The mom is wrong for informing (and scaring) him of what the dad and State want to do to him.
The mom is a drama queen for not simply complying.
It is hyperbole to call this "genital mutilation", and it can't be compared at all to female genital mutilation.
The "origins" of the procedure matter more than the results.
I see these women as radical statists. Collectivists of the worst kind.
I don't care what contract you have signed. If an act is wrong, enforcing a contract that says you have to do it is wrong.
The baby may not remember the trauma, but it will affect his whole life and his quality of life- one way or the other. And this kid is no longer a baby and his wishes in the matter need to be considered. And, of course he is scared! People want to cut off a part of his body for no real reason other than it is "normal" to do so!
Sure, the dad claims the kid has a medical condition that can be solved by circumcision. You could solve a pimple on a breast with radical mastectomy, too, but that doesn't mean it's the only, or even the best, option. I'd be willing to bet there are less radical ways to fix the problem while leaving the kid intact.
This was one of those times I had a hard time being nice. I wanted to scream at these women for being brutal child abuse enablers. I consider them pure evil of the sort that empowers the State and tramples liberty. What you do out of ignorance is one thing- what you continue to advocate after being educated is quite another.
.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
If a thug lends a hand
If I were in serious trouble would I accept help from a known bad guy? You bet I would.
So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.
Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."
And it's the same if a cop helps.
No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.
Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.
If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.
Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.
.
So what if I suspect (or know) that the person pulling me out of a burning car is a MS-13 thug? At that moment my need is such that I'm not going to complain no matter who offers a hand.
Or, if my daughter were kidnapped and the local mafia (if there were such a thing hereabouts) found her and brought her back to me, I wouldn't say "No, take her back to the kidnappers because I don't like what you do."
And it's the same if a cop helps.
No one can be a bad guy all the time- at least not in every act they perform. They'd never survive no matter what connections they had.
Accepting help isn't the same as endorsing or condoning the other things a person does. You can hate the fact that your rescuer is a hired hitman while still being grateful to him- individually- for helping you at that moment.
If you feel you can afford to slap away a helping hand in a moment of crisis, you are a better person than I.
-
Yeah, pretty much the same theme as "If a cop saves a life...", but still a little different.
.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Visitors center could be profitable
Visitors center could be profitable
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 6, 2015)
The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?
Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.
I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.
Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.
Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.
A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.
Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.
The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".
.
The Texico New Mexico Visitors Center's fate has generated a bit of talk- most of which seems to revolve around trying to convince government to spend confiscated money to re-open it, leaving it in the hands of the very group which fumbled it. Why hand it back to them?
Only the "sunk cost fallacy" sees wisdom in continuing to throw money down a hole when you can stop. The best way to stop, in this case, is to let someone else risk their own money.
I would love to see local individuals take it over and re-open it as a private effort filling the same niche it filled before. Maybe some business owners, or a local investor looking for a project, could get together and pool money to run it. It could be a profitable venture. "Make a profit? From a visitors center?" Instead of burning through money taken out of the economy by coercion, it could be self-sustaining; putting money back into the economy. If you object to people making a profit by providing a service, perhaps you would be happier in North Korea.
Let someone with a plan, and the means to get it running without government handouts, give it a try. Privately run, it would be a net gain, rather than a net drain.
Since the facilities and the land they sit on was bought with "tax" money, it already belongs to the people- as does everything government claims to own. "The people" is not some magical collective- it is every individual whose money has been taken through taxation to finance the facility. Some of those people would undoubtedly do a better job of running it; never again taking money from others against their will for the purpose.
A relative of mine even mentioned what a great RV park it would make, and I think that's a wonderful idea. Without much effort it could easily become the most scenic spot between Texico and Clovis- and it's convenient for all the traffic through the area, too.
Local businesses could pay to have their brochures provided for interested travelers. A variety of tourist trinkets and maps could be sold. A snack bar would be a great addition. It would provide a few jobs and could be a fascinating place to work- as long as the money coming in was all voluntary.
The only real obstacle would be opposition from those calling themselves "the state"- who believe they own it- and those who hate to see anything moved from the government sector to the productive sector. Their objections would be nothing but a case of "sour grapes".
.
Skinhead Bob's double standards
Sunday evening I was taking a walk with my daughter. As we were leaving our yard a local skinhead belonging to the Blue Line Gang drove past. He was talking on his cell phone and using his laptop as he drove. His hands were so busy I'm not sure how he was driving.
This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.
OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.
And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.
What do you think the chances of that might be?
Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.
*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.
.
This is right next to a kinderprison which is posted with signs saying "the use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in school zone". It makes no exception for weekends or after hours, and makes no exceptions for Blue Line Gang thugs. But you and I both know some animals are more equal than others- even while being inferior in just about every way.
OK, so technically Skinhead Bob* wasn't using "a" wireless communication device, since I saw him using at least two, simultaneously. Perhaps that's his excuse.
And, no, I don't really care if the sick tax-junkie is using those devices- as long as he doesn't molest or rob others for doing the same.
What do you think the chances of that might be?
Probably the same as the chances of him letting other drivers "get away with" not quite stopping at the stop sign- exactly like he doesn't do. Which I see him enforce often (as far as I can tell, it's all he does). Double standards and those who live by them, sicken me.
-
*No, I don't really know the parasitical vermin's name. This one has only been infesting the town for a few months. The last "new cop" was out to make a name for himself and found himself out of a job before too long. How this one will choose to molest us remains to be seen.
.
Monday, March 09, 2015
A "Deaddog's switch"- a profitable idea?
You know I'm somewhat enthusiastic about preps. I try not to push the issue, since I don't think that helps- when it matters to you, you'll do it. I wish it mattered to everyone.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Over at Dirttime, Dude McLean has posted a good reminder I hope you'll take the time to read.
And, it gave me an idea.
He was talking about having dogs as an early warning for home invasions. But as you know, the most dangerous home invaders- members of the Blue Line Gang- often shoot the dogs first to prevent them from warning the gang's victims.
That is a problem with a solution- for someone who has the knowledge and drive to solve it- for a profit!
Electronic collars are available for all sorts of things now. What I'd like to see is one that triggers an alarm if the dog's heart stops beating. As soon as the badgethug pops the dog, floodlights come on all over the property and sirens sound, alerting everyone around to the danger.
Sure, there would need to be tweaks. You don't want the alarm going off if FluffyButt loses his collar. Maybe if the collar comes loose while the dog's heart is still beating, or if the battery is dying, you get a quieter alert so you can check it out.
Just an idea I hope some entrepreneur picks up and runs with. And gets wildly rich. I do think there'd be a market for it.
.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Is history fiction?
(Previously posted to Patreon.)
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
I have never seen a "news" story, of which I have been personally aware of the background and first-hand details, that the media got right. Not even once out of maybe 10 or so instances. And I've heard the same from everyone I've ever discussed this fact with.
So, if you pay attention to the "news" you are possibly worse off than a person who you would consider completely unaware of current events. You are almost surely being misinformed- which I consider worse than uninformed.
I wonder how this applies to "history".
The way I see it, "history" is nothing more or less than fossilized "news". And I suspect it is just as misleading as the "news" reports of what supposedly happened today- if not more. Since there is no way to really correct the story in most cases.
So, learning from history probably is about as meaningful as learning from watching "The Hunger Games" or "Star Wars"- things you acknowledge to be fiction.
In a way that's upsetting, especially if you like history, but maybe you can still enjoy it if you just remember you are probably being lied to. The "history" you know probably wouldn't look familiar to those who lived through it.
.
Garry Reed's "Selected Salvos 2".
I recently finished reading Garry Reed's latest little collection, "Selected Salvos 2 from the Loose Cannon Libertarian".
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
It was a lot of fun!
It is also a reminder of how little the State and all the associated problems have changed in the decade-plus since most of these essays were written. Most could have been written today, rather than in the dawning years of the 2000s. Sure, the names of some of the individual thugs have changed, but the stories are so familiar.
I like his "Fun & Freedom" approach, and loved the sense of humor he exhibits in exposing these statist imbeciles and their ridiculous behavior. Instead of letting them get him down, he points and laughs.
It is a pretty short book, but was just what I needed while sitting in doctors' waiting rooms and such, recently. I can recommend the book without reservation.
Different ways to get the book are listed below the cover.
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/km4jxqr
Kindle: http://tinyurl.com/okqacn3
Barnes&Noble: http://tinyurl.com/o339l2o
Goodreads: http://tinyurl.com/khvrvox
(And, for a video about the book- YouTube: http://youtu.be/MYFWQlTIYPs)
.
Read it and absorb it
MamaLiberty has written a really great one.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
She called it "Do You Smile Every Day?", but seriously, it is about so much more than that. Please go read it and think about how it applies to your life right now.
.
"Private, for-profit" man cages
"Private, for-profit" prisons are just as bad as their State-run twins. First of all, they are not "private" since they depend utterly on the criminal-creating State for their existence and profits.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Anything run by the State is bad, because it is completely dependent upon theft and aggression. That needs to be said right up front.
If your "profit" relies on actions of the State, it is just as bad.
When the "private" effort is just as evil as the State effort, it's a good sign what you are doing simply shouldn't be done.
That's not saying there couldn't be any possibility of a prison in a free society- a man cage which never takes any operating funds from anyone against their will, never sinks to enforcing any counterfeit "rules", and is subject to restitution when it injures an innocent person or goes "too far" in punishing the guilty. I would still never support such a place, but you might.
But that isn't what "private, for-profit" prisons are.
Plus they use the force of the State to make sure they have lots of prisoners. They are always mounting about the biggest lobbying efforts against ending the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, just for one example of their evil.
They are scummy institutions and need to die.
.
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Finally- I find an excuse for government
I'm always saying there's no excuse for government.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
I have been wrong.
There is an excuse: insanity.
Insanity is the only thing that can excuse a person for believing the statist propaganda and rejecting reality. So, when someone advocates government or The State, just think of it as pleading insanity and deal with them appropriately.
.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Good ISIS?
I admit, I despise ISIS on a couple of different levels. They are religious, and they are a State. They also, because they are a State, use aggression to coerce others. But I am willing to look beyond my prejudices and consider the question more deeply:
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Are any ISIS members good people?
I will admit that as long as a member of ISIS isn't currently engaged in aggression he doesn't deserve to be killed at that moment. But "good"?
By choosing to join ISIS one is declaring his support for the evil done in the name of ISIS by other members. By choosing to remain in ISIS he makes the same choice every morning he awakes and doesn't immediately abandon the group.
To me, this removes any concern I might have if he is killed while a member of ISIS- even if he isn't currently committing aggression. While I wouldn't kill him myself unless I witness him committing (or credibly threatening) aggression, I can't be sorry he is dead. Even though his enemy is usually also my enemy.
I'm sure a lot of people in the region where ISIS is active believe they are the good guys; doing what is necessary- the "hard things"- for the "common good". Public support doesn't make them right or good. Popularity can't make "right" any more than "might" can.
You can't remain a good person after joining ISIS, even if your goal was to get in to change ISIS from the inside. Even if you somehow manage to remain innocent, your fellow members will get rid of you one way or another. Especially if they see you having any effect on others in the group. ISIS's very nature means as soon as you join you become part of the problem. You are choosing to self-identify with those whose entire "job" is to commit evil acts, blaming some "superior force" for those acts, rather than accepting personal responsibility.
So, no, there can be no "good" ISIS members. It goes against all logic, rationality, and ethics to claim otherwise.
Now, replace "ISIS" with "the police" in all the above and notice it is still 100% true and accurate.
.
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
The logic behind statism
Because poison exists in the world, we must add it to our soup, otherwise we might be poisoned by accident.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
This is the same reasoning that says because some people are evil, we must have a government/State to protect us from those evil people.
Shooting yourself because someone might shoot you isn't usually the smartest course of action.
.
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
‘Radical’ not bad if rooted in good
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 30, 2015)
Being "radical" has gotten a bad name due to horrible acts committed by evil radicals. The fault doesn't lie in being radical; it comes from being radical about bad things, or beliefs, which convince people it's acceptable to use aggression, coercion, and theft to advance their cause.
"Radical" is from the Latin word radix, meaning "root". Most of the definitions of the word I have seen make the point that radicals "go down to the root"- to the very foundation of their beliefs. Another term for radical is "fundamentalist".
I think there's another facet to the word.
Being "radical" also means you are rooted; grounded. You are not tossed around by changing winds. Unlike a tumbleweed broken free of its roots, you stand firm as the gusts blow others off their feet.
In other words to be "radical" merely indicates you have principles. Those principles can be either good or bad. Most people seem to shy away from having principles of any kind. Too limiting, I suppose.
When your principles don't permit you to quietly go along with the prevailing culture- to stand firm, doing right when everyone around you believes you are wrong- it can be difficult.
Being a radical for good means your principles don't violate the individual Rightful Liberty or private property of anyone else, nor will you violate others in pursuit of those principles.
Flawed principles which stray from this must be quite tempting to many radicals, since going astray seems so common.
Radical is also relative.
A couple hundred years ago, anyone advocating to allow government to read all communications, to enforce "laws" regulating travel, to make almost every human activity either mandatory, forbidden, or subject to permits- in other words just about anything the various federal, state, and local governments do today- would have been the radical. This is now mainstream and anyone who objects or resists is seen as the radical.
Those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human activity- the statists- have always been the majority. They are dangerous radicals. Statists attempt to control others from every direction, and some of them like to use a particular set of religious radicals, among other hobgoblins, as justification for violating everyone else.
Bad radicals are most dangerous when they get political power and use it the way all statists do: to impose their beliefs, with force of law, on those who don't share their beliefs. Bad radical versus bad radical, with you and me caught in the middle.
Have principles. Be a radical. Make certain your roots are in the right place, and don't ever forget that the end never justifies the means.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)