Just a reminder that I have things for sale. (Including on eBay.) Selling things would really be good right now.
Thanks!
.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Rulers are not leaders unless you follow willingly
I accept the fact that there is no such thing as "authority". And because of that truth, no one can have a "right" to rule anyone else.
Not through a vote, or an appointment to an office, or being hired.
People can take positions of leadership, but if you achieve your position politically, you are not a "leader". If people are not allowed to choose to not follow you, you are not a leader. If you push from behind to make people go where they don't want to go, you are not a leader. If you claim "authority" is why you can get away with behaving this way you are fooling yourself as much as you are fooling anyone else.
If this is you, please jump off a high cliff and do a messy swan dive into rocky ground, and I encourage all your foollowers (originally a typo, but I like it) to follow you.
.
Not through a vote, or an appointment to an office, or being hired.
People can take positions of leadership, but if you achieve your position politically, you are not a "leader". If people are not allowed to choose to not follow you, you are not a leader. If you push from behind to make people go where they don't want to go, you are not a leader. If you claim "authority" is why you can get away with behaving this way you are fooling yourself as much as you are fooling anyone else.
If this is you, please jump off a high cliff and do a messy swan dive into rocky ground, and I encourage all your foollowers (originally a typo, but I like it) to follow you.
.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
We don’t need another bad law
We don’t need another bad law
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 10, 2015)
The new “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws are wrong and misguided. But not for the reason you might think.
They are not wrong because they supposedly give people the right to choose to not do business with someone for religious reasons, but because everyone already has that right.
It's called "the right of association". No one can take this right from anyone, but government, armed with coerced-association laws, sometimes chooses to punish people for exercising it.
These anti-discrimination "laws" have been violating this fundamental human right for decades. The proper response, along with breaking the bad law, would be to repeal the anti-discrimination law, not to pass a new law. Getting rid of bad laws seems to be a hard thing for governments to do. Lawmakers- because their job revolves around making up laws- would prefer to manufacture a new law rather than eliminate an old one. Admitting they made a mistake goes against their nature.
When you keep trying to fix a bad law by patching it with new laws, you end up with a complete and utter mess. I call it "law pollution".
The last thing anyone needs is another law.
So, back to "Religious Freedom Restoration" laws. Everyone has the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason whatsoever- or for no reason at all. It's a two-way street. A business can refuse a customer's money, and a potential customer can decide to spend his money elsewhere. That's liberty.
I think it's silly to refuse money from a peaceable customer, just as I think no amount of money is worth dealing with someone who chooses to violate you or others, but it's not my decision either way.
No law can eliminate the right of association. Nor can public opinion. Someone may call you names or hate you for making a choice, and calling you names and hating you is also their right.
If I, as a business owner, think a business relationship with you will hurt me more than refusing to serve you, it's my business. If I, as a potential customer, disagree with your reasons for refusing certain customers I am free to take my money elsewhere, whether your discrimination directly affects me or not. And both are free to express their opinion of the other.
This is how a truly free market solves this problem. Businesses which alienate enough people will go out of business, and people who are so offensive no one will deal with them will either change or die.
Perhaps you believe that sounds cruel. It's better than the alternative, which is enslaving people by violating their right to choose with whom to associate.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 10, 2015)
The new “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws are wrong and misguided. But not for the reason you might think.
They are not wrong because they supposedly give people the right to choose to not do business with someone for religious reasons, but because everyone already has that right.
It's called "the right of association". No one can take this right from anyone, but government, armed with coerced-association laws, sometimes chooses to punish people for exercising it.
These anti-discrimination "laws" have been violating this fundamental human right for decades. The proper response, along with breaking the bad law, would be to repeal the anti-discrimination law, not to pass a new law. Getting rid of bad laws seems to be a hard thing for governments to do. Lawmakers- because their job revolves around making up laws- would prefer to manufacture a new law rather than eliminate an old one. Admitting they made a mistake goes against their nature.
When you keep trying to fix a bad law by patching it with new laws, you end up with a complete and utter mess. I call it "law pollution".
The last thing anyone needs is another law.
So, back to "Religious Freedom Restoration" laws. Everyone has the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason whatsoever- or for no reason at all. It's a two-way street. A business can refuse a customer's money, and a potential customer can decide to spend his money elsewhere. That's liberty.
I think it's silly to refuse money from a peaceable customer, just as I think no amount of money is worth dealing with someone who chooses to violate you or others, but it's not my decision either way.
No law can eliminate the right of association. Nor can public opinion. Someone may call you names or hate you for making a choice, and calling you names and hating you is also their right.
If I, as a business owner, think a business relationship with you will hurt me more than refusing to serve you, it's my business. If I, as a potential customer, disagree with your reasons for refusing certain customers I am free to take my money elsewhere, whether your discrimination directly affects me or not. And both are free to express their opinion of the other.
This is how a truly free market solves this problem. Businesses which alienate enough people will go out of business, and people who are so offensive no one will deal with them will either change or die.
Perhaps you believe that sounds cruel. It's better than the alternative, which is enslaving people by violating their right to choose with whom to associate.
.
Get a (legitimate) job
If you work for government you do not have a legitimate job. Sorry if that offends you, but it's just what is. In that case your "job" probably shouldn't even exist, but even if it should, it still shouldn't be financed with theft.
A job at a corporation isn't the optimal job, either, but at least no corporations can (yet) force people to do business with them (even though the very nature of corporations mean they are in bed with "the State" and manipulate its "laws" to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of their competitors). Doing honest work at a corporation is still better than any "job" working directly for government at any level.
I'm not saying my "job" is the greatest or perfect, either. I write and then hope, without any guarantees, someone will "buy" a product I put out there without any strings attached. I know there are more stable ways to earn money, but I never coerce anyone to pay for what I write (although I do sometimes beg and plead). Even the newspaper approached me, rather than the other way around. Unlike every other job I have had, I never feel guilty about what I do.
It still comes back to the fact that a "government" job, paid through "taxation", is not a legitimate job. Not government school teachers, cops, social workers, librarians, bureaucrats, mayors, government secretaries... whatever. Not even if you are the most helpful and otherwise honest person in town. It is equal to the worst possible ways to get money.
If working for government is a legitimate job, then so is armed robbery.
.
A job at a corporation isn't the optimal job, either, but at least no corporations can (yet) force people to do business with them (even though the very nature of corporations mean they are in bed with "the State" and manipulate its "laws" to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of their competitors). Doing honest work at a corporation is still better than any "job" working directly for government at any level.
I'm not saying my "job" is the greatest or perfect, either. I write and then hope, without any guarantees, someone will "buy" a product I put out there without any strings attached. I know there are more stable ways to earn money, but I never coerce anyone to pay for what I write (although I do sometimes beg and plead). Even the newspaper approached me, rather than the other way around. Unlike every other job I have had, I never feel guilty about what I do.
It still comes back to the fact that a "government" job, paid through "taxation", is not a legitimate job. Not government school teachers, cops, social workers, librarians, bureaucrats, mayors, government secretaries... whatever. Not even if you are the most helpful and otherwise honest person in town. It is equal to the worst possible ways to get money.
If working for government is a legitimate job, then so is armed robbery.
.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Making life better
My life is better by not believing in "authority", and by expressing that lack of belief by respecting the life, liberty, and property of others. No matter what anyone else does, my life is better.
I imagine it would be even better the more people who join me, which is why I make the effort to get people to realize this, but even if no one does, my life is still better that it would otherwise be.
No, my life isn't perfect. I am not perfect. There is always room for improvement.
But why handicap yourself needlessly by clinging to a dangerous and damaging superstition and by being a bully because of it?
You are the one with most of the power for improving your life. Use it.
.
I imagine it would be even better the more people who join me, which is why I make the effort to get people to realize this, but even if no one does, my life is still better that it would otherwise be.
No, my life isn't perfect. I am not perfect. There is always room for improvement.
But why handicap yourself needlessly by clinging to a dangerous and damaging superstition and by being a bully because of it?
You are the one with most of the power for improving your life. Use it.
.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
The Loving State
Once upon a time...
John had grown tired of being scared. He was told there were terrorists and criminals all around him. And scary gun owners who wanted to shoot him.
And there were all these Big Businesses wanting to add poison to all the food they sold to kill him. And conspire together to make him pay too much. And, obviously, they enslaved all their employees and made them work for minimum wage in dangerous conditions. They even wanted to hire children and force them to work in sweatshops instead of learning how to read, write, and obey bells while being fed nice warm meals of government-approved "food"!
But, some of his friends kept reminding him this wasn't the way it had to be; peace and fairness were possible. All it took was accepting the Lord and Savior: The State. Giving all control of himself over to The State's representatives. Obeying each and every command without question and with perfect willingness. Never questioning- that was too hard anyway. Stop living for yourself as the selfish do, but live to lift up and praise The State and all its gifts.
In return The State would protect him with its Commandments called Laws. To pay for all this goodness only cost 88% of the production of the entire economy; an acceptable tithe. The occasional blood sacrifices would probably never happen to anyone he knew personally. As long as they obeyed the Commandments. And, even if falsely accused, he was promised, just do what the cops tell you to do, and if you survive, there won't be any problem. Even if you are horribly violated, it's your own fault, and you can sort it all out in court later. Or your survivors can. It's all good. No need to lift a finger against your protectors.
So, John gave himself- body and soul- to The State. He waved its flag and said its pledge. He supported its troops, both the foreign and domestic branches, whole-heartedly. He angrily defended it from any questions. He finally felt safe.
Enjoying his new-found serenity, he took a stroll in a government park. He knew cops were walking around, looking for trouble on his behalf. He was relieved to see cameras focused on every square inch of the park. As long as he stayed in plain view of the cameras, help would probably be only minutes away if something bad happened. He was so happy not to have to worry about defending himself anymore. It would have been too stressful- or so his friends had assured him. Not that he had ever tried, of course. That was distasteful business.
He remembered he had a pack of cigarettes in his pocket and sneakily picked up a stray bit of trash (the wind must have blown it here since he didn't see any blood to testify to an arrest) to hide his act of putting the pack in the trash can. He got away with it! Praise the cameras! The cameras would help him stop his filthy habit, and the chances the pack would be found and fingerprinted was pretty low. Still he felt a little guilty he hadn't turned himself in. He could probably afford the fine for possessing an open pack- his daughter would understand if they had to skip a meal or two. They had made sacrifices for the glory of The State before. In six months or so, his wife would be out of jail, having then served her time for taking that text message while parked in front of that store. She should have known better! But he wouldn't do anything wrong, like she did. Maybe she should have looked into one of those "parked texting" permits. Or, maybe she should have become a cop, since they can text or use their computers while they drive- not only while parked. This solution to a common problem made him smile. He felt good for having thought of it, and would be sure to scold his wife for not thinking clearer before doing something illegal.
As he strolled contentedly along, he noticed as a cop tried to arrest a guy who had committed the heinous crime of reaching into a pocket and then reacting with fear as he noticed the presence of a cop. The criminal didn't drop to his knees fast enough to satisfy the cop, who kicked his legs out from under him and started tazing and kicking him. He should have complied faster. What is he doing? Using sign language? Well, deaf people should always get on their knees in the presence of a cop so misunderstandings like this wouldn't happen. Again, if only people would comply! That deaf criminal sure could scream loud, though. John hoped the cop took note to add that to the list of offenses. He's probably an illegal immigrant too- because he looked a little different.
John turned away to avoid seeing anything the cop didn't want seen. You've got to support those fine people and their sacrifices, and supporting them is best served by looking the other way. His friends had told him that plenty of times. It's why the cameras automatically shut off any time a cop was in frame- for the safety of the officer.
John found a nice bench under a tree. He only jumped a little when he heard the gunshot that ended the screaming of the criminal. Ahh. Peace and quiet again.
Just another necessary sacrifice to make John, and those he loved, feel safe,
The clouds rolled by. A bird was starting to sing again. As John sat in the shade of the tree, a tear came to his eye as he reflected that none of this would be possible without the loving State's hand holding itself over him.
.
John had grown tired of being scared. He was told there were terrorists and criminals all around him. And scary gun owners who wanted to shoot him.
And there were all these Big Businesses wanting to add poison to all the food they sold to kill him. And conspire together to make him pay too much. And, obviously, they enslaved all their employees and made them work for minimum wage in dangerous conditions. They even wanted to hire children and force them to work in sweatshops instead of learning how to read, write, and obey bells while being fed nice warm meals of government-approved "food"!
But, some of his friends kept reminding him this wasn't the way it had to be; peace and fairness were possible. All it took was accepting the Lord and Savior: The State. Giving all control of himself over to The State's representatives. Obeying each and every command without question and with perfect willingness. Never questioning- that was too hard anyway. Stop living for yourself as the selfish do, but live to lift up and praise The State and all its gifts.
In return The State would protect him with its Commandments called Laws. To pay for all this goodness only cost 88% of the production of the entire economy; an acceptable tithe. The occasional blood sacrifices would probably never happen to anyone he knew personally. As long as they obeyed the Commandments. And, even if falsely accused, he was promised, just do what the cops tell you to do, and if you survive, there won't be any problem. Even if you are horribly violated, it's your own fault, and you can sort it all out in court later. Or your survivors can. It's all good. No need to lift a finger against your protectors.
So, John gave himself- body and soul- to The State. He waved its flag and said its pledge. He supported its troops, both the foreign and domestic branches, whole-heartedly. He angrily defended it from any questions. He finally felt safe.
Enjoying his new-found serenity, he took a stroll in a government park. He knew cops were walking around, looking for trouble on his behalf. He was relieved to see cameras focused on every square inch of the park. As long as he stayed in plain view of the cameras, help would probably be only minutes away if something bad happened. He was so happy not to have to worry about defending himself anymore. It would have been too stressful- or so his friends had assured him. Not that he had ever tried, of course. That was distasteful business.
He remembered he had a pack of cigarettes in his pocket and sneakily picked up a stray bit of trash (the wind must have blown it here since he didn't see any blood to testify to an arrest) to hide his act of putting the pack in the trash can. He got away with it! Praise the cameras! The cameras would help him stop his filthy habit, and the chances the pack would be found and fingerprinted was pretty low. Still he felt a little guilty he hadn't turned himself in. He could probably afford the fine for possessing an open pack- his daughter would understand if they had to skip a meal or two. They had made sacrifices for the glory of The State before. In six months or so, his wife would be out of jail, having then served her time for taking that text message while parked in front of that store. She should have known better! But he wouldn't do anything wrong, like she did. Maybe she should have looked into one of those "parked texting" permits. Or, maybe she should have become a cop, since they can text or use their computers while they drive- not only while parked. This solution to a common problem made him smile. He felt good for having thought of it, and would be sure to scold his wife for not thinking clearer before doing something illegal.
As he strolled contentedly along, he noticed as a cop tried to arrest a guy who had committed the heinous crime of reaching into a pocket and then reacting with fear as he noticed the presence of a cop. The criminal didn't drop to his knees fast enough to satisfy the cop, who kicked his legs out from under him and started tazing and kicking him. He should have complied faster. What is he doing? Using sign language? Well, deaf people should always get on their knees in the presence of a cop so misunderstandings like this wouldn't happen. Again, if only people would comply! That deaf criminal sure could scream loud, though. John hoped the cop took note to add that to the list of offenses. He's probably an illegal immigrant too- because he looked a little different.
John turned away to avoid seeing anything the cop didn't want seen. You've got to support those fine people and their sacrifices, and supporting them is best served by looking the other way. His friends had told him that plenty of times. It's why the cameras automatically shut off any time a cop was in frame- for the safety of the officer.
John found a nice bench under a tree. He only jumped a little when he heard the gunshot that ended the screaming of the criminal. Ahh. Peace and quiet again.
Just another necessary sacrifice to make John, and those he loved, feel safe,
The clouds rolled by. A bird was starting to sing again. As John sat in the shade of the tree, a tear came to his eye as he reflected that none of this would be possible without the loving State's hand holding itself over him.
.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
...Even if I stand alone.
My Facebook status from a while back:
I don't wish to fire the police department and replace them with new guys.
I don't want to elect "better" politicians.
Those people are irrelevant to my life except when they get in the way- which is all they can ever do by holding those illegitimate "jobs".
They are all vermin and parasites- they make honest tapeworms and rabid skunks look good by comparison, since the tapeworms make no pretense of "helping" or "authority".
I can watch out for myself and those around me- I am an adult, after all. I don't need to be "governed" or "protected". I don't want anyone "governed", controlled, or violated on my "behalf". Not ever. Not even those who might consider me an enemy, or people who really annoy me.
I will never pretend such a thing as "authority" exists, and they just make themselves look ridiculous by insisting it does.
That doesn't mean the bullies won't violate me using their superstition of "authority" as justification. Bullies exist and always will- the excuse they use doesn't matter one bit.
I would hope people join me, but it's where I stand, even if I stand alone.
.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Liberty Lines, May 7, 2015
(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)
If government were necessary- it isn't, but I'll humor you- its one and only possible justification is to protect the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights; not "society" or any other collective. There is no such thing as "the common good"- this is just a flimsy excuse to harm individuals, which always harms society as a whole since society is made of nothing but individuals.
All rights are, at their foundation, property rights- concerning either your body, or the products of your body and life. When government employees start violating rights (with permits, licenses, prohibitions, and enforcement of "laws" against anything other than theft or aggression) instead of protecting these rights, they are behaving counter to their job's only possible justification and that job needs to be abolished.
A government which violates individual rights invalidates itself.
A large part of the problem is that very few people today understand what rights actually are. All real rights are "negative rights"- things you have a right to not have someone else do to you or your property.
"Positive rights"- things others are required to do for you- are the imaginary product of socialism.
"I have a right to housing, so you can be forced to provide it for me".
"I have a right to an education, so I'll vote to tax you in order to pay for it."
"I have a right to enjoy my property, so you have to get approval to use yours."
The right to use your property as you see fit, within your property lines, without asking permission from anyone, is inalienable. The imaginary right to control what others do with their property, for "the common good", is the perversion which has been normalized through the belief in the existence of human "authority"- which is a dangerous superstition.
Almost all law enforcement now done is nothing but violating Natural Rights and Rightful Liberty- while collecting money to finance even more of the same. As soon as a government starts violating individual rights, including property rights, in any way, it becomes the problem rather than a solution. When it becomes a way to collect fees or fines for the "privilege" of exercising your inalienable rights to your property and the fruits of your labors it becomes a protection racket, not a protector. Don't support or defend this abomination, or the individuals who enable it.
.
If government were necessary- it isn't, but I'll humor you- its one and only possible justification is to protect the rights of the individual. Only individuals have rights; not "society" or any other collective. There is no such thing as "the common good"- this is just a flimsy excuse to harm individuals, which always harms society as a whole since society is made of nothing but individuals.
All rights are, at their foundation, property rights- concerning either your body, or the products of your body and life. When government employees start violating rights (with permits, licenses, prohibitions, and enforcement of "laws" against anything other than theft or aggression) instead of protecting these rights, they are behaving counter to their job's only possible justification and that job needs to be abolished.
A government which violates individual rights invalidates itself.
A large part of the problem is that very few people today understand what rights actually are. All real rights are "negative rights"- things you have a right to not have someone else do to you or your property.
"Positive rights"- things others are required to do for you- are the imaginary product of socialism.
"I have a right to housing, so you can be forced to provide it for me".
"I have a right to an education, so I'll vote to tax you in order to pay for it."
"I have a right to enjoy my property, so you have to get approval to use yours."
The right to use your property as you see fit, within your property lines, without asking permission from anyone, is inalienable. The imaginary right to control what others do with their property, for "the common good", is the perversion which has been normalized through the belief in the existence of human "authority"- which is a dangerous superstition.
Almost all law enforcement now done is nothing but violating Natural Rights and Rightful Liberty- while collecting money to finance even more of the same. As soon as a government starts violating individual rights, including property rights, in any way, it becomes the problem rather than a solution. When it becomes a way to collect fees or fines for the "privilege" of exercising your inalienable rights to your property and the fruits of your labors it becomes a protection racket, not a protector. Don't support or defend this abomination, or the individuals who enable it.
.
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
Delicate Statists
(Previously posted to Patreon)
How much should you lie to keep from hurting statists' feelings?
Some people believe it's OK to steal if you call it "taxation". They get upset if you point this out.
Some people believe it's OK to initiate force if you call it "law enforcement". They get upset if you point this out.
They want their double standards to remain untouched and unexposed.
These people are, by definition, statists. I would like to talk them out of their beliefs, but in most cases, I don't think it's possible. I am told I will never get them to listen and consider liberty as long as I deal with these types of issues honestly.
It has been mostly women who tell me this recently, but over the years I have been told the same by a few men.
I have been told women are natural socialists, due to a "safety" bias. I sincerely don't want to believe it, but I see a lot of evidence it may be true. Yes, I see a lot of male socialists, but I consider all statism socialist at heart, so I may see male socialists where others don't.
How gentle should any of us be with statists? How much effort should you put into not hurting the feelings of a person who advocates for your murder if you don't quietly sit still while they send people to violate your life, liberty, and property? Do you believe coddling them will change their mind?
If I have to lie and say that taxation and enforcement of laws which violate life, liberty, and property are OK- just another valid life choice- then I am not interested in writing anymore. But, if I can change the words I use to deprogram large numbers of statists, it would be worth it.
.
How much should you lie to keep from hurting statists' feelings?
Some people believe it's OK to steal if you call it "taxation". They get upset if you point this out.
Some people believe it's OK to initiate force if you call it "law enforcement". They get upset if you point this out.
They want their double standards to remain untouched and unexposed.
These people are, by definition, statists. I would like to talk them out of their beliefs, but in most cases, I don't think it's possible. I am told I will never get them to listen and consider liberty as long as I deal with these types of issues honestly.
It has been mostly women who tell me this recently, but over the years I have been told the same by a few men.
I have been told women are natural socialists, due to a "safety" bias. I sincerely don't want to believe it, but I see a lot of evidence it may be true. Yes, I see a lot of male socialists, but I consider all statism socialist at heart, so I may see male socialists where others don't.
How gentle should any of us be with statists? How much effort should you put into not hurting the feelings of a person who advocates for your murder if you don't quietly sit still while they send people to violate your life, liberty, and property? Do you believe coddling them will change their mind?
If I have to lie and say that taxation and enforcement of laws which violate life, liberty, and property are OK- just another valid life choice- then I am not interested in writing anymore. But, if I can change the words I use to deprogram large numbers of statists, it would be worth it.
.
"But, the LAW!"
"But, there's a law!"
So?
Bullies calling themselves "government" aren't watching your every move. They'd love for you to believe they are, though.
Mostly, they depend on you intimidating yourself into following their made-up rules out of fear, or because of some weird "obligation" to obey their absurd opinions.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Obey "laws" if you are currently being watched by a bully who has the ability to harm you for not doing so- if self-preservation is high on your list of priorities. Otherwise, ignore the bullies and their opinions.
And feel free to laugh at them and their fans.
So?
Bullies calling themselves "government" aren't watching your every move. They'd love for you to believe they are, though.
Mostly, they depend on you intimidating yourself into following their made-up rules out of fear, or because of some weird "obligation" to obey their absurd opinions.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Obey "laws" if you are currently being watched by a bully who has the ability to harm you for not doing so- if self-preservation is high on your list of priorities. Otherwise, ignore the bullies and their opinions.
And feel free to laugh at them and their fans.
.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
Prohibition still has lessons to teach
Prohibition still has lessons to teach
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 3, 2015)
If government is a good idea — which I doubt — it is being done backward.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 3, 2015)
If government is a good idea — which I doubt — it is being done backward.
Currently, the way it works is a law is passed, then enforced, in an attempt to change people’s behavior. If some behavior weren’t being targeted for change, no one would even dream up a law in the first place.
The only reasonable course, where laws are concerned, is the other way around. People's behavior should determine whether or not a law is enforced, and then once it isn't being enforced, the law should be eliminated.
In fact, this is how alcohol prohibition ended up being scaled back. (I say "scaled back" rather than "repealed", since it is still with us today, as evidenced by "liquor licensing", laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sunday, "dry counties", and various other violations of human rights with regard to alcohol.)
Alcohol prohibition was ignored by enough people that it became unenforceable. Being unenforceable, it stopped being effectively or consistently enforced. Juries stopped convicting people they knew had broken the bad law. Eventually the law changed to reflect this fact. Unfortunately we still suffer the societal damage done by that ill-conceived experiment.
Drug prohibition- for drugs other than alcohol, I mean- may take the same path.
One difference between the alcohol prohibitionists of the 1920s and the drug prohibitionists of today is those who wanted alcohol criminalized understood no such authority was allowed under the Constitution, so they changed the Constitution to make their campaign legal, if not right. Drug prohibitionists never bothered to legalize their stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Yes, they chose (and continue to choose) to act in a criminal manner to get what they want. And it has been a disaster to everyone other than those who profit from enforcement, punishment, and other inseparable aspects of black market drug sales.
Abuse of any substance is a bad idea, but no worse than abuse of some imagined authority to control how others live their lives.
If enough good and decent people risk punishment by ignoring a law, any law, that law shouldn't be enforced. Then, always slow to catch up to reality, those who imagine their job is to dream up laws should abolish it. They shouldn't amend it or tweak it to try to make it work better, they should go back and erase the mistake as if it had never happened. All political prisoners held in captivity for breaking the "law" should be immediately released and paid restitution directly from the pockets of those who passed, enforced, and supported the former law.
Or, you can stay on course and be surprised when the results of your stubbornness destroy society.
.
The only reasonable course, where laws are concerned, is the other way around. People's behavior should determine whether or not a law is enforced, and then once it isn't being enforced, the law should be eliminated.
In fact, this is how alcohol prohibition ended up being scaled back. (I say "scaled back" rather than "repealed", since it is still with us today, as evidenced by "liquor licensing", laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sunday, "dry counties", and various other violations of human rights with regard to alcohol.)
Alcohol prohibition was ignored by enough people that it became unenforceable. Being unenforceable, it stopped being effectively or consistently enforced. Juries stopped convicting people they knew had broken the bad law. Eventually the law changed to reflect this fact. Unfortunately we still suffer the societal damage done by that ill-conceived experiment.
Drug prohibition- for drugs other than alcohol, I mean- may take the same path.
One difference between the alcohol prohibitionists of the 1920s and the drug prohibitionists of today is those who wanted alcohol criminalized understood no such authority was allowed under the Constitution, so they changed the Constitution to make their campaign legal, if not right. Drug prohibitionists never bothered to legalize their stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Yes, they chose (and continue to choose) to act in a criminal manner to get what they want. And it has been a disaster to everyone other than those who profit from enforcement, punishment, and other inseparable aspects of black market drug sales.
Abuse of any substance is a bad idea, but no worse than abuse of some imagined authority to control how others live their lives.
If enough good and decent people risk punishment by ignoring a law, any law, that law shouldn't be enforced. Then, always slow to catch up to reality, those who imagine their job is to dream up laws should abolish it. They shouldn't amend it or tweak it to try to make it work better, they should go back and erase the mistake as if it had never happened. All political prisoners held in captivity for breaking the "law" should be immediately released and paid restitution directly from the pockets of those who passed, enforced, and supported the former law.
Or, you can stay on course and be surprised when the results of your stubbornness destroy society.
Bullies are everywhere
Are you scared when confronted by a cop or when in front of a judge?
You should be. If you aren't, you don't know the score.
They have no magical powers; they are just bullies imposing their worthless opinions on you with aggression. Those bullies can ruin your life- or even end it- on a whim. If you fight back- as you have every right to do- they will send endless numbers of their cronies after you.
The best bet is to avoid them. But that can cripple your life, too, because those parasites are everywhere.
Be aware, and don't defend them or their "job".
.
You should be. If you aren't, you don't know the score.
They have no magical powers; they are just bullies imposing their worthless opinions on you with aggression. Those bullies can ruin your life- or even end it- on a whim. If you fight back- as you have every right to do- they will send endless numbers of their cronies after you.
The best bet is to avoid them. But that can cripple your life, too, because those parasites are everywhere.
Be aware, and don't defend them or their "job".
.
Monday, May 04, 2015
Cult of death
It's not someone's "authority" that makes them a danger to my life, liberty, and property. "Authority" is imaginary.
It's their willingness to rob, molest, or kill me, based on their belief in their own "authority", that's the danger to me.
Some will kill in the name of their god, and one of the most dangerous death cults is "authority".
.
It's their willingness to rob, molest, or kill me, based on their belief in their own "authority", that's the danger to me.
Some will kill in the name of their god, and one of the most dangerous death cults is "authority".
.
Sunday, May 03, 2015
I believe...
I believe it is always wrong to initiate force, but if you believe it is necessary, in the heat of the moment, you should just do it and accept the consequences rather than trying to justify it beforehand.
I believe it is wrong to violate private property.
I don't believe you are being good or compassionate when you dream up justifications to violate person or property.
I believe it is right to defend yourself and your property against violators.
I don't believe a job carves out exceptions.
I believe you should honor your agreements unless doing so would violate any of the above.
I believe if the other party breaks their end of the bargain, the deal's off.
What do you believe?
.
I believe it is wrong to violate private property.
I don't believe you are being good or compassionate when you dream up justifications to violate person or property.
I believe it is right to defend yourself and your property against violators.
I don't believe a job carves out exceptions.
I believe you should honor your agreements unless doing so would violate any of the above.
I believe if the other party breaks their end of the bargain, the deal's off.
What do you believe?
.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Constitution fluffers
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I generally have a lot of patience for those who respect and honor the Constitution and other such things. Probably more than is justified. In part because I kind of feel sorry for them. After all, I was once in their shoes, myself.
You can see the vestiges of that on the pages of KentForLiberty.com (although a lot of that has fallen by the wayside due to updates over the years) and in the oldest posts on this blog.
It took time, thinking, and reading to realize that the Constitution was a horrible mistake if Rightful Liberty were the goal.
It's like saying you want to go to Tahiti, and traveling to Alaska to look for it. Sure, maybe someone lied to you about how to get there. Maybe you misunderstood something. But you aren't getting to your destination by going the wrong direction even if you really mean well.
To me, relying on the Constitution to advance or protect Rightful Liberty is no different from any other magic incantations. If it could work, it would have already worked and would always work. It can't, it didn't, it doesn't, and it won't.
It's a distraction that leads... well, somewhere else. It leads to Big Government and to propping up the belief in "authority". Been there, done that, survived to be better.
.
I generally have a lot of patience for those who respect and honor the Constitution and other such things. Probably more than is justified. In part because I kind of feel sorry for them. After all, I was once in their shoes, myself.
You can see the vestiges of that on the pages of KentForLiberty.com (although a lot of that has fallen by the wayside due to updates over the years) and in the oldest posts on this blog.
It took time, thinking, and reading to realize that the Constitution was a horrible mistake if Rightful Liberty were the goal.
It's like saying you want to go to Tahiti, and traveling to Alaska to look for it. Sure, maybe someone lied to you about how to get there. Maybe you misunderstood something. But you aren't getting to your destination by going the wrong direction even if you really mean well.
To me, relying on the Constitution to advance or protect Rightful Liberty is no different from any other magic incantations. If it could work, it would have already worked and would always work. It can't, it didn't, it doesn't, and it won't.
It's a distraction that leads... well, somewhere else. It leads to Big Government and to propping up the belief in "authority". Been there, done that, survived to be better.
.
Friday, May 01, 2015
"Assisted Dying" on Scott Adams' blog
The blog post, found here, presents the views of a person opposed to a "law" "legalizing" physician-assisted suicide.
As always, I am opposed to the very concept of "laws", knowing they are all either unnecessary or harmful. This is another case where not violating the self-ownership of others solves the "problem".
But, as I so often do, I weighed in on the issue. My comment is pasted below (quotes from the post in italics):
Mr. Akins starts out by (and continues throughout) appealing to the "common good", which is a myth; it undermines much of his argument. There are only individuals. What is good for the individual will be the highest good. Those appealing to the "common good" are always using this justification to violate individuals in some way, which wouldn't be good for the "common good", even if such a thing were real.
"What makes you think you have a moral right to medical assistance to kill yourself upon contracting a terminal disease?"
Self ownership. If you own yourself (and if you don't, who does?) then you have the absolute right to end yourself, and to hire someone- voluntarily and without coercion- to assist you if you so choose.
"Why that right in particular and not some other?"
It's not an either/or situation. You have the absolute human right to do anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. That includes hiring someone to help you end your life.
"I don’t think that such a legal right should be created."
There are no such things as "legal rights". There are legal privileges- which is really just the privilege to not have someone else's opinions imposed on you- until that "law" is changed. Rights can't be created or eliminated. They can only be respected or violated.
"...it involves a violation of the innate human dignity of the individuals who commit suicide."
In your opinion. So don't participate. Death probably violates "the innate human dignity of the individuals" no matter how it occurs, so this is a nonsense excuse.
"Our culture has been affected by a view that downplays or rejects the dignity of human beings."
Again, your opinion. I believe that saying you can make up a rule that violates self ownership is rejecting the dignity of humans a lot worse than respecting that right- even when it offends you- could ever do.
"We’re either ugly bags of mostly water or we’re human beings with intrinsic dignity."
Yes. And bags of water can be owned by someone else, and the owner can do with those as he sees fit without degrading their dignity (which they don't have). You don't have that right where humans are concerned.
"Just because you are older or in poorer health doesn’t mean that you have any less a right to life."
Of course not. You also have a right to own and to carry weapons. Would you like me to force you to do so against your wishes?
"...and so your life must still be respected."
Yes, and denying a person the freedom and liberty to do with that life as they see fit- as long as they aren't violating anyone else- does not respect their life at all.
"Just as we must respect the dignity that others have, we must respect our own dignity. "
And how did it become your right to tell others how that respect for the self must be put into action?
"A person killing himself is not a desirable outcome."
Again, in your opinion. Getting a terminal disease is also not a desirable outcome- but the universe doesn't seem to care. Probably the person seeking assisted suicide wouldn't have chosen to get the disease and be facing the choice. But it's not your choice to make for him.
"The innate human dignity that we possess demands that we seek another solution, such as treating the cause of the situation."
Why? What if no treatment is possible? Because that's the reality. Are you obligated to seek unicorns just because someone else believes you should?
"Because physician-assisted suicide involves others in suicide—doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc.—it also involves a violation of their dignity."
They always have the right to refuse to participate. Any "law" which says they must help no matter their wishes would be wrong- but I don't think that's what anyone is promoting.
"Just as torturing another person is wrong even if the other person wants to be tortured."
Your opinion. I happen to agree this time, and wouldn't do it, but if it is mutually consensual it's none of your business. Nor mine.
"...legalizing physician-assisted suicide would produce various other problems..."
Why do you assume these would result? You think everyone- or a vast majority- would choose assisted suicide? If so, then your speculations might hold, but as long as there are a lot of people who wouldn't choose it, your objections and fearmongering don't work.
"I’m in favor of getting your grandmother the pain relief she needs in her last month of life."
Why do you assume physical pain is the only thing that could be causing her to want to die? What about being trapped in a body that no longer works, and seeing it shutting down more each and every day- knowing there is only one destination. Knowing she will never again walk through a meadow, or make love, or enjoy her favorite meal. How can your pain drugs deaden this pain without causing a coma? Why is that better than death?
"I could paint the plight of the victims of such laws in similar terms (e.g., 'Why do you favor a policy that would lead heartless doctors and greedy insurance companies to deny my grandmother the pain relief that she desperately needs and instead pressure her to kill herself against her will?')."
You could, but you'd be lying. It's the anti-drug "laws" that most get in the way- doctors are scared of losing their licenses or being arrested for "over-prescribing" pain meds.
" 'once my family wants me dead it is time to go anyway.' This statement is very alarming. The value of the individual is not the subject of a collectivist determination, even of one’s own family."
This wasn't about the family making the determination.
"Today, pain can be eliminated by drugs, for it is possible to place someone in a medically induced coma"
Why is this preferable to death? Because they could wake up? (To agonizing pain.) Just keep them in a coma til they die so they won't wake up in pain? Again, why is this preferable?
"...as the pains associated with age and/or disease occur, we find that we can deal with them better than we thought."
In which case, "we" probably won't be seeking assisted suicide.
"Thus many individuals who could end all pain by a medically induced coma may rationally decide that they would prefer to remain conscious and experience the benefits of consciousness, even if it means living with a certain level of pain."
And these would not be the people seeking assisted suicide.
"I was absolutely determined to make sure that my wife got all the medical care she wanted to have, and I made sure she did."
But what if "all the medical care she wanted to have" included help dying once she knew it was inevitable? Would you have then felt justified in violating her wishes? What's the difference?
"I think virtually everyone would agree that certain, highly destructive weapons simply should not be available for purchase by the general public"
Then those same weapons should certainly not be "owned" by governments, which are always made up of people indoctrinated to believe they are "above" such "silly notions" as "right and wrong". I'd trust my neighbor with a nuke before I'd trust any president or prime minister.
"My point is that physician-assisted suicide is wrong in and of itself..."
Then how about a new field that is not a physician, but instead a "suicide facilitator"? With completely different and more relevant training.
"But there are situations when we are suffering to the point that we might feel imprisoned"
If your body doesn't move and you must have others perform basic bodily functions for you, you don't simply "feel imprisoned", you are imprisoned more effectively than any cage could ever accomplish. Think of the most cruel imprisonment- putting a person in a body-sized iron cage- and you'll approach what some people are going through as they slowly die. Again, this is completely separate from the physical pain- although it could accompany it.
"It is true that some individuals experience pain that can only be satisfactorily treated by inducing unconsciousness..."
Pain is subjective, so your opinions about the pain others experience is irrelevant.
"However, 'if even one person' arguments famously lead to bad policies that do more harm than good."
Which is an excellent refutation of the belief in the legitimacy of "one-size-fits-all laws". Something I find absurd, anyway.
"Suffering does not deprive one of dignity."
Of course it does. I recently had a very painful kidney stone. The pain most assuredly deprived me of any dignity. It's hard to feel any sense of dignity- or to be viewed with dignity- while writhing on the floor. End of life pain (and debility) is sometimes orders of magnitude worse for the sufferer.
"Killing oneself is always a tragedy..."
Yes, but not always the worst tragedy.
.
As always, I am opposed to the very concept of "laws", knowing they are all either unnecessary or harmful. This is another case where not violating the self-ownership of others solves the "problem".
But, as I so often do, I weighed in on the issue. My comment is pasted below (quotes from the post in italics):
Mr. Akins starts out by (and continues throughout) appealing to the "common good", which is a myth; it undermines much of his argument. There are only individuals. What is good for the individual will be the highest good. Those appealing to the "common good" are always using this justification to violate individuals in some way, which wouldn't be good for the "common good", even if such a thing were real.
"What makes you think you have a moral right to medical assistance to kill yourself upon contracting a terminal disease?"
Self ownership. If you own yourself (and if you don't, who does?) then you have the absolute right to end yourself, and to hire someone- voluntarily and without coercion- to assist you if you so choose.
"Why that right in particular and not some other?"
It's not an either/or situation. You have the absolute human right to do anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. That includes hiring someone to help you end your life.
"I don’t think that such a legal right should be created."
There are no such things as "legal rights". There are legal privileges- which is really just the privilege to not have someone else's opinions imposed on you- until that "law" is changed. Rights can't be created or eliminated. They can only be respected or violated.
"...it involves a violation of the innate human dignity of the individuals who commit suicide."
In your opinion. So don't participate. Death probably violates "the innate human dignity of the individuals" no matter how it occurs, so this is a nonsense excuse.
"Our culture has been affected by a view that downplays or rejects the dignity of human beings."
Again, your opinion. I believe that saying you can make up a rule that violates self ownership is rejecting the dignity of humans a lot worse than respecting that right- even when it offends you- could ever do.
"We’re either ugly bags of mostly water or we’re human beings with intrinsic dignity."
Yes. And bags of water can be owned by someone else, and the owner can do with those as he sees fit without degrading their dignity (which they don't have). You don't have that right where humans are concerned.
"Just because you are older or in poorer health doesn’t mean that you have any less a right to life."
Of course not. You also have a right to own and to carry weapons. Would you like me to force you to do so against your wishes?
"...and so your life must still be respected."
Yes, and denying a person the freedom and liberty to do with that life as they see fit- as long as they aren't violating anyone else- does not respect their life at all.
"Just as we must respect the dignity that others have, we must respect our own dignity. "
And how did it become your right to tell others how that respect for the self must be put into action?
"A person killing himself is not a desirable outcome."
Again, in your opinion. Getting a terminal disease is also not a desirable outcome- but the universe doesn't seem to care. Probably the person seeking assisted suicide wouldn't have chosen to get the disease and be facing the choice. But it's not your choice to make for him.
"The innate human dignity that we possess demands that we seek another solution, such as treating the cause of the situation."
Why? What if no treatment is possible? Because that's the reality. Are you obligated to seek unicorns just because someone else believes you should?
"Because physician-assisted suicide involves others in suicide—doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc.—it also involves a violation of their dignity."
They always have the right to refuse to participate. Any "law" which says they must help no matter their wishes would be wrong- but I don't think that's what anyone is promoting.
"Just as torturing another person is wrong even if the other person wants to be tortured."
Your opinion. I happen to agree this time, and wouldn't do it, but if it is mutually consensual it's none of your business. Nor mine.
"...legalizing physician-assisted suicide would produce various other problems..."
Why do you assume these would result? You think everyone- or a vast majority- would choose assisted suicide? If so, then your speculations might hold, but as long as there are a lot of people who wouldn't choose it, your objections and fearmongering don't work.
"I’m in favor of getting your grandmother the pain relief she needs in her last month of life."
Why do you assume physical pain is the only thing that could be causing her to want to die? What about being trapped in a body that no longer works, and seeing it shutting down more each and every day- knowing there is only one destination. Knowing she will never again walk through a meadow, or make love, or enjoy her favorite meal. How can your pain drugs deaden this pain without causing a coma? Why is that better than death?
"I could paint the plight of the victims of such laws in similar terms (e.g., 'Why do you favor a policy that would lead heartless doctors and greedy insurance companies to deny my grandmother the pain relief that she desperately needs and instead pressure her to kill herself against her will?')."
You could, but you'd be lying. It's the anti-drug "laws" that most get in the way- doctors are scared of losing their licenses or being arrested for "over-prescribing" pain meds.
" 'once my family wants me dead it is time to go anyway.' This statement is very alarming. The value of the individual is not the subject of a collectivist determination, even of one’s own family."
This wasn't about the family making the determination.
"Today, pain can be eliminated by drugs, for it is possible to place someone in a medically induced coma"
Why is this preferable to death? Because they could wake up? (To agonizing pain.) Just keep them in a coma til they die so they won't wake up in pain? Again, why is this preferable?
"...as the pains associated with age and/or disease occur, we find that we can deal with them better than we thought."
In which case, "we" probably won't be seeking assisted suicide.
"Thus many individuals who could end all pain by a medically induced coma may rationally decide that they would prefer to remain conscious and experience the benefits of consciousness, even if it means living with a certain level of pain."
And these would not be the people seeking assisted suicide.
"I was absolutely determined to make sure that my wife got all the medical care she wanted to have, and I made sure she did."
But what if "all the medical care she wanted to have" included help dying once she knew it was inevitable? Would you have then felt justified in violating her wishes? What's the difference?
"I think virtually everyone would agree that certain, highly destructive weapons simply should not be available for purchase by the general public"
Then those same weapons should certainly not be "owned" by governments, which are always made up of people indoctrinated to believe they are "above" such "silly notions" as "right and wrong". I'd trust my neighbor with a nuke before I'd trust any president or prime minister.
"My point is that physician-assisted suicide is wrong in and of itself..."
Then how about a new field that is not a physician, but instead a "suicide facilitator"? With completely different and more relevant training.
"But there are situations when we are suffering to the point that we might feel imprisoned"
If your body doesn't move and you must have others perform basic bodily functions for you, you don't simply "feel imprisoned", you are imprisoned more effectively than any cage could ever accomplish. Think of the most cruel imprisonment- putting a person in a body-sized iron cage- and you'll approach what some people are going through as they slowly die. Again, this is completely separate from the physical pain- although it could accompany it.
"It is true that some individuals experience pain that can only be satisfactorily treated by inducing unconsciousness..."
Pain is subjective, so your opinions about the pain others experience is irrelevant.
"However, 'if even one person' arguments famously lead to bad policies that do more harm than good."
Which is an excellent refutation of the belief in the legitimacy of "one-size-fits-all laws". Something I find absurd, anyway.
"Suffering does not deprive one of dignity."
Of course it does. I recently had a very painful kidney stone. The pain most assuredly deprived me of any dignity. It's hard to feel any sense of dignity- or to be viewed with dignity- while writhing on the floor. End of life pain (and debility) is sometimes orders of magnitude worse for the sufferer.
"Killing oneself is always a tragedy..."
Yes, but not always the worst tragedy.
.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Drought
I've been thinking a lot about water problems and droughts. And not just as it pertains to California.
In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.
People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.
I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".
If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.
"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.
.
In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.
People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.
I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".
If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.
"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.
.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
I'd rather be wild
Jungle fowl are in danger from predators and forced to find their own food, Poor things!
So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.
When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".
How do you like your box?
.
So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.
When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".
How do you like your box?
 |
| Jungle fowl hen- in danger from predators |
 |
| Jungle fowl rooster- worried where his next meal will come from |
 |
| Safe hens under government protection |
.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Government actions not surprising
Government actions not surprising
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 27, 2015)
Are you shocked when the “most transparent administration in history” turns out to be the most blatantly secretive, passing new laws to hide behind while going after whistleblowers with religious zeal?
How about when a president who talks a good freedom game enthusiastically signs the anti-American “Patriot Act?
Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?
Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?
How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?
Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?
Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?
You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.
You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.
How do you really expect governing to turn out?
Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.
The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)
Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.
As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?
.
Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?
Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?
How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?
Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?
Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?
You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.
You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.
How do you really expect governing to turn out?
Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.
The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)
Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.
As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?
.
Anarchy- almost too mainstream
One sad thing about being an anarchist is that the opportunities to do something really radical and different are so few.
Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.
So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.
In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"
I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".
.
Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.
So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.
In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"
I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)