Only government wins in election

Only government wins in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)

I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?

You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.

Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.

Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?

Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?

I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.

In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.

I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.

.

Killing people

In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.

It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.

It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).

.

Sometimes, they really aren't a Scotsman

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I know the danger of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Yet, if you were born on Mars to genetically (or whatever Martians might use in place of genes) distinct Martians and have never visited Earth, you are ridiculous to claim that you are a Scotsman.

It's the same if you claim to be a "libertarian" while advocating anti-libertarian positions. Like some "fairer taxes". Or "borders". Or the "tax"-financed military which is busily building the US Empire around the globe- and endangering everyone "at home" in America. Or, if you put the US Constitution above individual Rightful Liberty.

If you don't fit the minimum definition of a libertarian, you ain't one.

If you don't follow the ZAP to the best of your ability, and respect the private property of others, you may be a relatively nice statist, but whatever you are, it isn't libertarian.

I have had self-proclaimed libertarians scold me using those anti-libertarian positions ever since I first got online and vocal. "Libertarians honor the Constitution above all" was the first example of this, said to me after I mentioned I had no love for a document which set up a State and then failed to restrain it.

That was followed with "The income tax is legal- get over it!"

I have also had people say that because "borders" might help prolong "liberty" in America better than no borders, support for borders is the only "libertarian" position. Well, going on a well-coordiated mass killing spree against statists might mean a larger percentage of libertarians, compared to statists, alive in America, too, but it would still be an anti-libertarian (meaning: wrong) thing to do.

And, if you insist on worshiping the military because you were in it, or had friends or family in it- who may have even been maimed or killed- it's the same thing. Support for a State military is an anti-libertarian position, no matter how much you like it. No matter how "necessary" you might belive it to be. It can't be otherwise.

You have to meet certain criteria to honestly call yourself libertarian (or AVAL [abolitionist/voluntaryist/anarchist/libertarian], as the case may be). If you don't meet those criteria, then accept the fact- or change to align yourself with the right side.

.

"Constitutional" doesn't mean "legitimate"

Admitting that a government, a branch of government, or a "law" is "constitutional" in no way suggests that it has any legitimacy.

It only means the Constitution permits it.

That's a huge difference.

.

Wedding cakes and other horrifying cultural disasters

Here's a suggestion which should- I repeat, should- make everyone happy and end the Great Gay Wedding Cake Battles.

On the part of the customer: Order the cake.

On the part of the baker: Bake and decorate the cake, leaving off any bride or groom figurines. Offer figurines for sale at the counter, separately and individually.

On the part of the customer: Buy the cake. Buy figurines of whatever gender or number and stick them in the icing of the cake in whatever arrangement makes you happy.

The end.

Yeah, I know. Everyone wants their choices validated by making them public and obnoxious. This peaceful solution doesn't satisfy that need.

.

"Guilty of desertion"

Sure, you can be guilty of desertion.

If you sign a valid contract which lays out your responsibilities and what you will get in exchange, if you run away before the expiration of that contract you deserted it. You might owe some restitution, and you wouldn't be eligible for any continuing benefits from that contract. And people would know and understand that you don't honor your agreements.

Of course, no contract which enslaves you is valid. No contract which calls for you to be caged if you decide to break it can be valid. No contract which requires you to live off theft, kill, and possibly be killed is valid. No contract which has individual penalties for only one side in case of a broken contract is valid.

No contract which by its very nature violates Rightful Liberty can ever be valid. You are not obligated to abide by it and you are not a bad guy merely by breaking it.

Which comes to that military delusion of "desertion".

The silliest objection to this "crime" is that they expose their military "brothers" to harm. Those "brothers" should follow the good example and also desert if they feel endangered. Staying in the military is in no way "honorable". Working for The State in any capacity is dishonorable. Always.

I appreciate those who break their contract with the mafia or any other organization which victimizes me by stealing my property and liberty. An organization which by its very existence makes me and those I love less safe. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they are a really nasty character otherwise.

.

Liberty Lines 4-2-2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

[Background- recently the local police chief, apparently under direction of the mayor, has been focusing on "building permits". A woman had a carport installed in front of her house without a "permit" and the cop showed up as it was being completed and threw his weight around. The carport was found to be a half inch "too close" (according to the "legal" distance of 15') to the curb. The builders moved the carport right up against the house and cut it a little shorter to comply. Now the "authorities" whine it is "too close" to her house. The city council is having a meeting to determine whether she will be forced to take it down. Then she built a fence. The mayor stopped by and threw a hissy fit. This time she had the "permit", even though the mayor said he hadn't seen her name on one- it was in the contractor's name.)

I am so glad I don't suffer from the lust to control other people's property. Judging by the people who find this an important "responsibility", it must be quite a burden.

It doesn't hurt me in any way if my neighbor puts a carport in front of their house, and in fact I am happy for them if they do, knowing it will improve their life.

That doesn't mean I would remain silent if they tried to build on my property, or violated my property in some other way, but I know my property ends at my property lines, and things that happen, and stay, on the other side of the line are not my business. "Law" or no "law".

I oppose silly and destructive laws requiring "permits" (more honestly called bribes) for remodeling your house or adding a deck.

As unpopular as it may be, I stand with those who exercise their American right- actually, their fundamental human right- to use their own property as they see fit without asking permission from anyone, as long as they don't harm the private property of anyone else.

Any law that seeks to violate private property is a counterfeit "law"; it is wrong and shouldn't be passed, and if it somehow gets passed anyway, it shouldn't be enforced. Ever. Those laws should be eliminated, and ignored until they are.

Of course, that would eliminate almost every law currently financing the growing US police state, so those who profit from it would never take such a radical notion- to respect private property- lying down.

A common objection is "property values", but think about that for a minute. The biggest consequence of "property values" is how much the local government will decide to ransom your property for each and every year. Lower property value means you get robbed a little less, and I see that as a good thing. But how can you really know a modification to your neighbor's property will lower your property's market value? Regardless of the opinion of those who make up the rules, people's tastes vary. Many people might value your house even more with the neighbor's modification next door.

I would rather live where people are happy and free to do with their property as they wish, without being molested by anyone, than in some postcard illustration of an imaginary "perfect neighborhood".
-

Update: Here is a letter to the editor in response to this column: link

.

Is it really necessary?

If you work for government and justify your "job" by claiming if government didn't do it, no one would, then your "job" shouldn't be done.

It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe your work to be. If it is actually needed, someone will do it- without relying on theft and coercion to fund it. Probably much better than the pathetic government attempt at filling that "need".

If no one steps up, then the "job" needs to go away.

.

Required vaccination brings red flag

Required vaccination brings red flag

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 27, 2015)

I know of a lot of people who are very vocal against vaccinations. They have their reasons, although I am less than convinced. I rarely believe in “one size fits all” solutions. This can make me unpopular with both sides.

I would say I am generally in favor of vaccinations — the ones that work, anyway. And, the ones where the targeted disease is actually worse than the potential harm caused by the vaccine.

Not all vaccines are equally effective, not all diseases to be vaccinated against are equally dangerous, and vaccines can and do cause harm.

"Until vaccines are as safe as say, marijuana, calling them 'safe' as a blanket statement is just plain false." -- libertarian activist, Christopher Cantwell

A couple of years ago I had a tetanus booster shot. To me the risks associated with tetanus- even considering the tiny likelihood of contracting it- are great enough that the risk of taking the vaccine wasn't even an issue. Others might disagree.

As long as you go into it understanding the risks and benefits, I won't criticize your choice.

To me, the red flag is mandatory vaccinations; something I am very much opposed to and will never support. I might try to talk you into a particular vaccination, but if you refuse I won't try to force you. If you're sick I'll probably avoid contact- just as I generally do with sick people.

If I am vaccinated against whatever you contracted, either my vaccination will protect me, or a vaccination probably wouldn't have done you any good, either. If there is any added risk to me, I am willing to accept it while standing up for your liberty. The risk is small compared to the risk of starting down the slippery slope of believing anyone has the authority to force someone to take a drug they don't want for their own good. I've seen where that inevitably leads, and it isn't healthy for anyone.

Once you start forcing people to be stabbed and have foreign substances placed inside their body "for the good of society", it is a small step to say they must give up other parts of their life, liberty, and property for society's benefit. Maybe their car is too big, their house too garish, their bank account too large, or their yard too messy. The notion that other people do not belong to you has become a very radical position, but it is still the only right one.

If you have strong feelings one way or the other about vaccinations, try to convince people and then leave them alone to live with the consequences of their choice.

.

Statists on parade

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". If something is necessary it can't be evil, and if it is evil, it can't be necessary.

Try to find some other justification for the State and its enforcers and military, and "taxation", and "laws".

The above was posted on the spur of the moment as my Facebook status a couple of days ago. It attracted the attention of a government extremist. The thread is long, but you might enjoy seeing just how a statist attempts to justify their beliefs.

If you don't "do" Facebook, I understand, but you are missing some amusement. Someday, I may try to post the whole thing here, but probably not. It is long and still growing.

Here is the link; Link

.

Smart (people's) choices

Smart people are not necessarily better people, but smart people are more able to consciously choose to be better people. Or worse people.

It's a double-edged sword.

But dumb people don't seem to be able to even choose. They are what they are, and not capable of thinking further than that. There are good stupid people and bad stupid people (just as there are both kinds of smart people), but they can't consider why they do what they do- unless they say something about religion or god to justify themselves. Thought makes them uncomfortable. Change would be scary. Realizing they have been wrong and need to change would unthinkable (in more ways than one) if it were even possible.

I realize everyone has a sort of ethical inertia. But, it is easier to at least discuss Liberty with smart people. And more likely (in my experience) to be successful in at least getting them to consider what you say.

Be smart and make the right choices- the choice to refuse to violate others, and to withdraw your support from those who choose to continue violating others "on your behalf".

.

Reading "sign"

When I see rabbit tracks or pellets I know a rabbit has passed this way.

When I see deer tracks or deer poop, I know a deer has been here. By the type of poop left behind I know what the deer has been eating.

In the same way, when I see "laws" and "government" I know stupid and/or unethical people have been here. It's their "sign", as surely as tracks or poop, or their litter on the ground.

.

"Safe spaces"

In thinking about my post about judgmental people, I also consider the notion of "safe spaces".

I will say I find the concept ridiculous, crippling, and childish.

No one offers anarchists a "safe space" away from depictions of The State, or even away from actually being physically and financially violated by statists and their harmful and unnecessary "laws".

Even in groups which ought to know better- and I particularly think of the Browncoat Facebook group- you'll find people saying "there has to be laws/government otherwise companies would poison me with mercury in my orange juice". Yes, someone really said that! That's a statist fallacy which "triggers" me. Where can I go to feel safe from such violent advocacy? Nowhere.

And I accept that.

It isn't "society's" responsibility to coddle my delicate feelings, making me soft and helpless.

If you can't deal with the real world, and accept that there will always be bad things out there to "trigger" you, you are not suited for survival. Not even if "compassionate" people want to wrap you in bubblewrap and place you in Nerf world. If you don't learn how to deal with reality, and with bad people and uncomfortable situations, your life will always suck.

People sometimes rape. Not because of a "culture" (unless you count the degraded culture of gangs), but because of an individual making the decision to violate the Zero Aggression Principle.

Cops are evil. The fact that you knew a "nice" one, or were saved by one once upon a time changes nothing.

Politicians are harmful to the world, and are- without exception- thieves and aggressors. Even if some are less bad than others.

Those things are reality. They may hurt your feelings and make you feel "unsafe", but that doesn't make reality go away.

So, don't look for a "safe space" and whine when reality seeps in. Take control of your surroundings and your own reaction to them. Accept uncomfortable reality. Get thicker skin. Take actions to protect yourself from actual dangers, rather than seek someone else's protection from imaginary ones. Grow up.

.

Judgmental people: I am one

I recently lost a dear friend on Facebook, who was also a friend before Facebook. And it really upset me.

Earlier this week on Facebook, when I posted that I often forget how indoctrinated most people are, this person commented that they forget how judgmental most people are. I didn't even realize at the time they were referring to me, until I noticed they were no longer a Facebook friend.

But I answered the comment, anyway. At first I said some people are, but not everyone.

Then, I reconsidered.

I think everyone is judgmental- but people express it in different ways.

It is one thing to judge something as right or wrong- I suppose everyone does that. It's another thing entirely to impose your will on people doing something you see as wrong.

There are a lot of things I believe are wrong, but which I will defend people's right to do.

If you aren't stealing or attacking, I might still not agree with what you're doing, but I wouldn't use force to stop you. I might try to talk you out of it. I might shun you. I might make fun of you or say what an evil monster you are. I will only use force if I see you engaging in theft or aggression.

I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing for some people to grasp.

I suspect this person abandoned me because of my stance against cops and the "conservative" politicians they like, although they never actually explained. (I had to go through a mutual friend to even find out anything at all, and to get an answer which involved me and my "high horse").

I can't lie to protect feelings or friendships... but it still hurts.

.

"Gun control" compromise, part 2

The next time you hear someone calling for a ban on normal capacity magazines- usually, but not always, suggesting to limit them to 10 rounds maximum- ask if, in exchange for that violation of your liberty, they'd be willing to compromise.

In fact, you could use this anytime you hear any anti-gun "law" being proposed.

In exchange for a magazine limit would they then be willing to get rid of all "laws" against carrying guns with the limited magazines, or revolvers with a capacity equal to or less than this arbitrary number of rounds? Not just "Constitutional carry", but diplomatic carry. As gun owners you and I are in a foreign, hostile land, after all.

If they balk you can then scream in their face they they are unwilling to compromise, so obviously they are in favor of mass-murder of toddlers and the elderly. Hey, it's what they consistently do to gun owners.

.

Mandatory v*ting

I don't believe for a second that Obama was ever seriously considering mandatory voting. But, the thought makes me smile.

If voting were mandatory, and I couldn't figure out a way to avoid it anyway, I would have fun with it.

I would vote for the most incompetent candidate I could find. Or the most overtly evil. I would do everything possible to mess up my ballot or smear the screen of the machine- not through "vandalism", but through bumbling idiocy. I would monkeywrench in every way I could think of.

Making something mandatory is the best way I know to destroy the value of it (if it even had any value before).

So, come on Obama. Bring it.

.

Evil justifies evil?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I get tired of hearing people excuse things done by the US Empire by saying that other States do things even worse.

Waterboarding and torture are "OK" because [Islamic enemy of the day] beheads and burns people alive.

Ignoring, of course, what Hellfire missiles are designed to do, and what regular bombs also do. If we don't have to watch people having their heads ripped off or burning to death (or screen shots of the deaths, anyway), it doesn't happen. Right?

If you only have to find someone more evil to justify what you do, then there is nothing which can't be justified. I could rape and torture children to death and justify it by finding someone who was even worse. Maybe they did the same, but to one more child than me. Or maybe they were more cruelly creative. But they were "worse".

No, they weren't.

A better way is to simply not engage in evil. Yes, there will be consequences of that, too. Maybe one evil person will survive and murder again. But, if you remove him by being evil, the amount of evil hasn't gone down- it has just infected another person. It has transferred to you, and then to the person who has to kill you. Not a solution by any definition....to be continued...


.

Libertarian girlfriends

I thought this was cute, and true: 7 Reasons Libertarian Women Make Amazing Girlfriends*

Or, I imagine it would be true- not having any personal experience to see for myself.

Anyway, I shared the link after reading it.

It was fluff. I wasn't prepared for a negative response.

A woman commented with "Hopefully, nobody believes in this. Expecting any person as an individual to apply world at large political principles to personal relationships is naive and almost leans in the direction of collectivism."

Wait... what? 

She believes you can treat "society" in a civilized manner, but treat the person you love like crap? And, behaving in a non-libertarian way is treating someone like crap. It is violating their person or property. Or both.

Being civil isn't something you can switch on and off. Not consistently. If you think you can consistently treat outsiders with civility, but then have control over the people you have personal relationships with, you are fooling yourself. You might be able to pull it off to some degree, but you'll forget which mode you are in sometimes.

Anyway, I responded with "The ZAP applies at all levels. If it doesn't apply in your personal relationships, you are not libertarian. Because ALL relationships are personal."

She immediately corrected me, saying "I think that you meant NAP, which can still be intact without adherence to some of the items on this list.".

As I say, and have said for years, the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient. I doubt she would have understood the difference.

-

*And, of course, I think every one of those points in that "article" apply equally as well to libertarian boyfriends. Isn't that the kind of significant other you'd want, whichever gender you prefer?

.

Privatization

If something shouldn't be done at all, it isn't better to privatize it.

Tax collecting, policing, or helping government in any way is evil. You wouldn't praise privatized executions or rape. Why praise privatized statism?

I was scolded a while back for not being enthusiastic at a Texas town's decision to shut down its police department and replace them with a private security force- one which did the exact same things that make police the bad guys: paid through theft, enforcing counterfeit rules, violating person and property. A difference which makes no difference isn't different, and certainly isn't an improvement.

Try again.

It's a sign of the deep indoctrination to believe the function of "policing" is so necessary that if government doesn't do it, you have to replace that function with something indistinguishable. Abolish the police and replace them with nothing... nothing but a universally armed populace.

-

Added: From "oooorgle" in comments comes this video. Watch it and see if you can figure out (without reading my comment response) why this wouldn't bother me, and why they wouldn't be what I am against.

.

Scouts? Or something less?

Wow. Boy scouting has really become pathetic.

During my recent outing there happened to be a boy scout meeting going on at the same time.

They seemed like nice people when I returned a lost "be prepared" patch (Ouch! The irony) to them.

Later I watched from a distance as a group of them were shown how to carry a federal flag. And as they practiced what they were learning.

I saw nothing useful being taught, then or any time.

Then I asked a couple of scouts if they were being taught wilderness skills or anything. They said they weren't.

Well, one said they were taught "survival knots". Sigh.

So I asked, more specifically, if they were being taught firestarting for example. They said they weren't. They said they can't learn that until they earn a badge for it, nor can they carry a knife until they have a "knife badge".

I asked how they are supposed to learn something to earn a badge if they aren't being taught and aren't allowed to practice. They looked at me like lost puppies, shrugged, and said they didn't know.

Sorry, but that's just disgusting.

I went back the next day to offer to demonstrate some actual skills to the group, but they were already gone. I suspected they might be by the lack of noise. (I will say I was impressed at how little litter such a large group left behind. Very unusual.)

OK, so maybe the scouts I asked were misrepresenting the situation. Maybe most troops are being taught more skills. Maybe these were "too young" to be learning such things (no, they really weren't, but you and I both know in the year 2015 "childhood" is being stretched and prolonged beyond all reason, to the detriment of the kids). Maybe this example was not representative in some other way.

But if it is, scouting needs more competition.

I'd love to start a new kind of scouting: Browncoat Scouts.

Each group could choose who to allow in- freedom of association needs to be respected. Instead of "God & Country" I'd teach them that "right" is more important that "legal", and is often unrelated to what is presented as "moral" by religions. I'd teach them that loyalty isn't to be given automatically, but is earned. I'd teach them the importance of an honest deal resulting in a profit, and how there is no loser, but two winners, in such an interaction. I'd teach them that authority, including mine, is usually an empty illusion. There is a difference between a leader and a ruler, and almost all "authority" is nothing but rulers. And I'd teach them the importance of learning the proper way to handle weapons, fire, and other survival skills and tools. And, over all, the importance of never initiating force or theft.

I told my daughter she could be the first ever Browncoat Scout.

-

Update 5-19-2015: And it just gets more ridiculous all the time. link

.