Finance without taxation possible
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 1, 2015)
I am amazed when otherwise intelligent people believe they couldn’t find a way to provide necessary infrastructure and services without committing taxation against their neighbors.
It makes me wonder how many abolitionists were accused of hating farms and cotton by those who couldn’t imagine how fields could be worked in the absence of slaves.
For anything currently financed through taxation I can think of several ways it could be financed voluntarily. If I can, you can too. The more knowledgeable you are about a subject area, the more options you should be able to find.
Don't make assumptions based on how things are done today. Really think. The current way isn't the way it has always been, nor is it the only way it could be. The time for relying on coercion and theft is past.
Think your way out of the restrictive box which has been carefully crafted to imprison your mind. It is built and maintained by those who depend on you not understanding that "authority" is a dangerous superstition, that taxation is theft, and that if you have to rob others to fund something, you'd be better off doing without. Everything good and necessary can be financed voluntarily.
I value education; I love libraries and parks; I even appreciate roads. I am not willing to rob you to pay for any of them.
Many seem to consider tax-funded things to be free. They are not. In fact, they are expensive and inferior compared to what could exist if people kept all their money and paid for what they actually want; choosing among competing providers. Without the burden of taxation you would have much more money to direct toward those things you think are important, whatever they might be. Everyone would be expected to pay for what they use, and no one forced to pay for things they don't use.
The inability, or reticence, to find ways to do things without coercion or theft is a result of having a hobbled mind; it shows a lack of critical thinking and creativity. The brain is a creative organ; able to solve problems. Use it. Don't settle for continuing to be less than fully functional.
It astounds me when people assume a privately owned and maintained road, for example, would require toll booths every few yards or so, as you switch between property owners. What is this, the twentieth century? Come on, think!
Now, picture something you value which is funded by taxing your neighbors. Then, think of ways to provide the same-- or a superior-- service or infrastructure without committing the act of taxation against anyone. It's liberating!
.
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Aggression
Aggression is the use of (or the credible threat of using) violence against a person who is not using or threatening violence against you, nor violating your property.
(Constantly, in discussions with statists, they refuse to understand what is and what isn't "aggression". Mostly because they have a statist agenda which would be interfered with by a strict understanding of what constitutes aggression. They'd be forced to face the fact that they are advocating evil, and that is uncomfortable.)
.
(Constantly, in discussions with statists, they refuse to understand what is and what isn't "aggression". Mostly because they have a statist agenda which would be interfered with by a strict understanding of what constitutes aggression. They'd be forced to face the fact that they are advocating evil, and that is uncomfortable.)
.
Monday, June 01, 2015
What is the point of "laws"?
Trying to look at it from the perspective of misguided people who think "laws" are necessary, or even good, I believe they would claim:
I think it is quite clear that "laws" fail on every point. They are the greatest threat to person and property- much greater than freelance threats which you can end with a gunshot.
They quite often violate "community standards"; instead imposing what a few people want to pretend are the "community standards".
And, "laws" have zero to do with justice. They are instead about revenge. If justice happens under them, it is purely by accident.
The vast majority of "laws" violate life, liberty, and property. And are set up specifically to prevent "pursuit of happiness". They give enforcers the excuse to trespass, molest, kidnap, rob, and murder, and pretend to make it wrong for you to do anything about it. I would be happier in a lawless society- and you probably would, too. I can take care of myself, and I am willing to help others do the same. I would hope "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", but I don't necessarily expect it. "Laws" get in the way of civilization.
"Laws" are worse than worthless; they are a disaster and a danger.
.
The point of laws:
To protect people and their property.
To maintain community standards.
To provide a framework for justice.
I think it is quite clear that "laws" fail on every point. They are the greatest threat to person and property- much greater than freelance threats which you can end with a gunshot.
They quite often violate "community standards"; instead imposing what a few people want to pretend are the "community standards".
And, "laws" have zero to do with justice. They are instead about revenge. If justice happens under them, it is purely by accident.
The vast majority of "laws" violate life, liberty, and property. And are set up specifically to prevent "pursuit of happiness". They give enforcers the excuse to trespass, molest, kidnap, rob, and murder, and pretend to make it wrong for you to do anything about it. I would be happier in a lawless society- and you probably would, too. I can take care of myself, and I am willing to help others do the same. I would hope "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", but I don't necessarily expect it. "Laws" get in the way of civilization.
"Laws" are worse than worthless; they are a disaster and a danger.
.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Looking for loopholes
Why do some people get so worked up, trying to find loopholes or flaws in the Zero Aggression Principle?
I believe it's because they view it as a threat.
I see it as a promise.
What I mean by that is I don't go around trying to catch people initiating force. What I do is promise people that this is how I will behave toward them. I will not initiate force, nor violate their private property. If I do, I accept the consequences.
It is also a warning of sorts: "This is my line in the sand; as long as you don't cross it, we won't have a problem. If you do, this is what you can expect of me". I don't see that as a threat, but maybe you do.
Most people I notice trying to weasel around the ZAP, while treating it as a threat, are wanting to feel good about reserving some imaginary right to initiate force or violate property. A person who has no aggressive designs doesn't generally think twice about it (other than as a philosophical exercise).
.
I believe it's because they view it as a threat.
I see it as a promise.
What I mean by that is I don't go around trying to catch people initiating force. What I do is promise people that this is how I will behave toward them. I will not initiate force, nor violate their private property. If I do, I accept the consequences.
It is also a warning of sorts: "This is my line in the sand; as long as you don't cross it, we won't have a problem. If you do, this is what you can expect of me". I don't see that as a threat, but maybe you do.
Most people I notice trying to weasel around the ZAP, while treating it as a threat, are wanting to feel good about reserving some imaginary right to initiate force or violate property. A person who has no aggressive designs doesn't generally think twice about it (other than as a philosophical exercise).
.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
The "sum of good government" is an impossibility
The “sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, is one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another” and “shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”
And, government can't do that. It just isn't its nature. That's like expecting horses to scurry across the ceiling eating flies.
Jefferson was smart in some areas and incredibly stupid in others. He was superstitious and believed in "authority" just enough to cause him to believe such a thing as "good government" is possible. Obviously, it isn't.
Again it comes down to this: all "laws" are either unnecessary or harmful. Comply with the unnecessary ones because you don't want to violate person or property, not because some useless person made up an unnecessary "law". Ignore the harmful ones because you don't want your person or property violated- which is what those "laws" do... unless a bully is watching you. In that case comply until he looks at someone else.
Assume liberty.
(Inspired by this. H/T to War on Guns)
And, government can't do that. It just isn't its nature. That's like expecting horses to scurry across the ceiling eating flies.
Jefferson was smart in some areas and incredibly stupid in others. He was superstitious and believed in "authority" just enough to cause him to believe such a thing as "good government" is possible. Obviously, it isn't.
Again it comes down to this: all "laws" are either unnecessary or harmful. Comply with the unnecessary ones because you don't want to violate person or property, not because some useless person made up an unnecessary "law". Ignore the harmful ones because you don't want your person or property violated- which is what those "laws" do... unless a bully is watching you. In that case comply until he looks at someone else.
Assume liberty.
(Inspired by this. H/T to War on Guns)
Thursday, May 28, 2015
An enemy of cops?
Am I an enemy of cops?
Depends on what you mean by "enemy".
My message to cops is this: I will not initiate force against you. I will not violate your private property. In other words, I make you the same guarantee I make any other person.
On the other hand, there is a flipside to that universal guarantee. I will not look the other way when you initiate force and violate property-- just the same as with anyone else.
If that makes you think of me as your enemy, it shows what kind of person you are.
.
Depends on what you mean by "enemy".
My message to cops is this: I will not initiate force against you. I will not violate your private property. In other words, I make you the same guarantee I make any other person.
On the other hand, there is a flipside to that universal guarantee. I will not look the other way when you initiate force and violate property-- just the same as with anyone else.
If that makes you think of me as your enemy, it shows what kind of person you are.
.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
An anti-ethical ethic
(Previously posted to Patreon)
A friend shared the link to this site (Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions) a bit ago and said it was pretty good, except for #30.
Wow, was he right about #30!
I mostly skimmed the others and didn't find anything I disagreed with, except that one- which is simply wrong. Not only is #30 wrong, it turns ethics inside out and fails the ethical behaviors as outlined by the others on the list. Number 30 is anti-ethical.
No, Mr. Ethics, "bad law" is NOT defined "as those that are inconvenient, burdensome, or that stop you from doing what you want to do." A bad law is one which violates your Rightful Liberty. One which props up the superstition of "authority". One which "legalizes" unethical acts like theft, kidnapping, murder, or anything else that would be wrong for anyone not acting as a government employee to do- and which "criminalizes" self defense from those violators. Or a "law" which requires you to submit to them or comply with their vile opinions. That is a bad "law", not what the author imagines one to be.
The author can justify his anti-ethical opinions on that point from now until the sun burns out, and it won't change the fact he is dead wrong on at least that one point.
Of course, there are no comments allowed on the post.
.
A friend shared the link to this site (Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions) a bit ago and said it was pretty good, except for #30.
Wow, was he right about #30!
30. The Prospective Repeal: “It’s a bad law/stupid rule”Citizenship, an ethical value, requires obeying the law, but a lot of people convince themselves that that laws are voluntary, and that it is somehow ethical to violate “bad” ones, defined, of course, as those that are inconvenient, burdensome, or that stop you from doing what you want to do. Laws embody the ethical values of society, and if one of them seems wrong to you, you are nonetheless obligated to follow it as part of the social contract. To do otherwise is unethical. Your options are limited: write and speak in opposition to the law (or rule), in hopes of changing the societal consensus; work within the system and with others to change the law; find a legal and ethical way around it; or violate it openly as a matter of conscience, and accept the penalty—civil disobedience. It isn’t ethical to violate what you think is a bad law while it is still a law, because this creates an obvious breach of the Rule of Universality: if everyone followed that course, we would have chaos and anarchy. There are bad rules and laws, no doubt about it. It must be the group—society, the culture—that decides when one of them needs to be amended or eliminated. The individual who does this unilaterally is threatening the stability of society, and that’s unethical no matter what the law is.
I mostly skimmed the others and didn't find anything I disagreed with, except that one- which is simply wrong. Not only is #30 wrong, it turns ethics inside out and fails the ethical behaviors as outlined by the others on the list. Number 30 is anti-ethical.
No, Mr. Ethics, "bad law" is NOT defined "as those that are inconvenient, burdensome, or that stop you from doing what you want to do." A bad law is one which violates your Rightful Liberty. One which props up the superstition of "authority". One which "legalizes" unethical acts like theft, kidnapping, murder, or anything else that would be wrong for anyone not acting as a government employee to do- and which "criminalizes" self defense from those violators. Or a "law" which requires you to submit to them or comply with their vile opinions. That is a bad "law", not what the author imagines one to be.
The author can justify his anti-ethical opinions on that point from now until the sun burns out, and it won't change the fact he is dead wrong on at least that one point.
Of course, there are no comments allowed on the post.
.
You are responsible for what you support
You've heard it before: "This ain't no f---ing game".
There are people out there supporting "government" actions and programs that are getting lots of innocent people killed. Those people want to feel good about themselves and need to believe they are not doing something wrong- but they are not being good at all.
Some even believe themselves to be champions of Liberty in spite of their support for Liberty's natural enemy.
They need to be shocked back to reality if they refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
.
There are people out there supporting "government" actions and programs that are getting lots of innocent people killed. Those people want to feel good about themselves and need to believe they are not doing something wrong- but they are not being good at all.
Some even believe themselves to be champions of Liberty in spite of their support for Liberty's natural enemy.
They need to be shocked back to reality if they refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Taxation, even of the rich, is theft
Taxation, even of the rich, is theft
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 24, 2015)
Many people want “the rich” punished through taxation. They are seeking to use government to steal from the rich on their behalf — knowing it would be wrong to take it in person.
Two of their favorite weapons are "estate taxes" and taxing "Big Business" more.
Perhaps they mistake the tax collector for Robin Hood. The irony is lost on them. Robin Hood didn't rob from the rich and give to the poor, as the socialist agenda has perverted the narrative. He reclaimed money from the thieves-- the tax collectors-- and returned it to its rightful owners.
The estate tax enthusiasts believe rich people got their wealth dishonestly, when this only applies to those who got rich through laws and theft, rather than through mutually consensual trade (where both parties always come out ahead). Those in politics and those using government to protect their business, while hobbling competition with regulations, are a problem.
Taxation is always theft. Nothing is so important that stealing to fund it is excusable. Stealing from the "rich" to benefit the underprivileged harms everyone. Once you have declared some amount of theft to be okay, any theft can be justified by someone.
Another problem is the belief in such a thing as "excessive profits". If you own a business try marking all your prices as high as you want, then let me know how it works out. Without a government-enforced monopoly (monopolies can't survive without being propped up by laws), customers aren't forced to do business with you. Either they will be willing to pay your price, or they'll make other arrangements, or do without.
Plus, businesses never get "taxed"- the costs are always passed along to the customer (that's you). Businesses either figure the cost of involuntarily supporting government into their cost of doing business, or they go out of business. Quickly. Whining to tax "big business" is begging to pay more for everything.
When the rich keep their money they buy things produced by people like you and me. They create jobs which employ you and me. Even if they do something crazy, like burying it in a hole in the ground, it is at least not being used against the productive people.
No matter how much you hate "the rich", or how they use their money, it is better to let them keep their property than to encourage the largest extortion racket in the world to rake in even more. Money which goes to government largely goes to finance a parasitic bureaucracy and to fund those blocking progress by preventing a free market.
Regardless the cause, you can't be generous with money which doesn't belong to you.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 24, 2015)
Many people want “the rich” punished through taxation. They are seeking to use government to steal from the rich on their behalf — knowing it would be wrong to take it in person.
Two of their favorite weapons are "estate taxes" and taxing "Big Business" more.
Perhaps they mistake the tax collector for Robin Hood. The irony is lost on them. Robin Hood didn't rob from the rich and give to the poor, as the socialist agenda has perverted the narrative. He reclaimed money from the thieves-- the tax collectors-- and returned it to its rightful owners.
The estate tax enthusiasts believe rich people got their wealth dishonestly, when this only applies to those who got rich through laws and theft, rather than through mutually consensual trade (where both parties always come out ahead). Those in politics and those using government to protect their business, while hobbling competition with regulations, are a problem.
Taxation is always theft. Nothing is so important that stealing to fund it is excusable. Stealing from the "rich" to benefit the underprivileged harms everyone. Once you have declared some amount of theft to be okay, any theft can be justified by someone.
Another problem is the belief in such a thing as "excessive profits". If you own a business try marking all your prices as high as you want, then let me know how it works out. Without a government-enforced monopoly (monopolies can't survive without being propped up by laws), customers aren't forced to do business with you. Either they will be willing to pay your price, or they'll make other arrangements, or do without.
Plus, businesses never get "taxed"- the costs are always passed along to the customer (that's you). Businesses either figure the cost of involuntarily supporting government into their cost of doing business, or they go out of business. Quickly. Whining to tax "big business" is begging to pay more for everything.
When the rich keep their money they buy things produced by people like you and me. They create jobs which employ you and me. Even if they do something crazy, like burying it in a hole in the ground, it is at least not being used against the productive people.
No matter how much you hate "the rich", or how they use their money, it is better to let them keep their property than to encourage the largest extortion racket in the world to rake in even more. Money which goes to government largely goes to finance a parasitic bureaucracy and to fund those blocking progress by preventing a free market.
Regardless the cause, you can't be generous with money which doesn't belong to you.
.
What makes me mad
Government doesn't make me mad. I hardly even think about it beyond the things I write. And I certainly don't let it ruin my life.
Regular people, people who should know better, supporting government is what makes me mad.
I need to get over that.
.
Regular people, people who should know better, supporting government is what makes me mad.
I need to get over that.
.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Stepping around the dog poop
Since you and I aren't likely to snap many people out of their silly beliefs in "authority" and "government", and since most people will choose to live their lives in fear over "what if", you'd better find a way to simply live "around" them; don't step in the mess they insist on making.
Don't stop pointing out the bad stuff you see them advocating, but just accept that they are probably going to refuse to change even if it kills them. Do your best not to get any of it on you- that statist stink is hard to wash away.
.
Don't stop pointing out the bad stuff you see them advocating, but just accept that they are probably going to refuse to change even if it kills them. Do your best not to get any of it on you- that statist stink is hard to wash away.
.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
"Informed" by the "news"
I used to keep up with the "news". I was what you might call "informed". I would always be amazed when people I worked with were completely unaware of things going on in the world beyond their tiny sphere. They just got up, went to work, and went home. That was the extent of their world's horizon.
Of course, they weren't ever stressed about things they had no clue were happening, either. They stressed over petty personal drama- who was cheating on whom, and things like that. I really looked down upon those whose world revolved around petty personal drama. Still do.
But, in some ways I have become more like them.
I don't seek out "news" anymore. I don't know how long it has been since I watched a TV newscast- probably a couple of decades. I didn't even know who the governor of Texas was until I saw the news item about him wanting to keep an eye on those vile Jade Helm invaders. I rarely read any "national" news items in any newspapers- when I read newspapers it is to find out about local happenings that will actually affect my life and schedule. And, I read the "opinions".
I now see myself back then as being, not "informed", but "misinformed"- not that it made much difference either way, really. I didn't go along with the conclusions the news seemed to be trying to indoctrinate into me anyway.
The "Big Stories" that I find interesting- like natural disasters and the occasional human-caused disaster- still find their way to me. The non-items- like which puppetician did what- I mostly miss, unless others are talking about it. It cuts down on the noise. And it cuts down on the stress. I don't really care that much about what the puppeticians do or what their opinions might be. I'm going to live my life regardless of their opinions unless they are physically in my face. And out here, that's not too likely. I don't know if I've ever even seen the mayor of this town. He is irrelevant to me.
I still don't care to hear all the petty personal drama- although I do get subjected to it by those who live on such swill. I'm sure my reactions are dissatisfying, to say the least.
.
Of course, they weren't ever stressed about things they had no clue were happening, either. They stressed over petty personal drama- who was cheating on whom, and things like that. I really looked down upon those whose world revolved around petty personal drama. Still do.
But, in some ways I have become more like them.
I don't seek out "news" anymore. I don't know how long it has been since I watched a TV newscast- probably a couple of decades. I didn't even know who the governor of Texas was until I saw the news item about him wanting to keep an eye on those vile Jade Helm invaders. I rarely read any "national" news items in any newspapers- when I read newspapers it is to find out about local happenings that will actually affect my life and schedule. And, I read the "opinions".
I now see myself back then as being, not "informed", but "misinformed"- not that it made much difference either way, really. I didn't go along with the conclusions the news seemed to be trying to indoctrinate into me anyway.
The "Big Stories" that I find interesting- like natural disasters and the occasional human-caused disaster- still find their way to me. The non-items- like which puppetician did what- I mostly miss, unless others are talking about it. It cuts down on the noise. And it cuts down on the stress. I don't really care that much about what the puppeticians do or what their opinions might be. I'm going to live my life regardless of their opinions unless they are physically in my face. And out here, that's not too likely. I don't know if I've ever even seen the mayor of this town. He is irrelevant to me.
I still don't care to hear all the petty personal drama- although I do get subjected to it by those who live on such swill. I'm sure my reactions are dissatisfying, to say the least.
.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Pointing out stupidity
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Sometimes, in a moment of frustration, I will openly say that statists are stupid.
Not generally in a blog post, but rather in a Facebook status.
I admit that's probably not nice, but I need to vent occasionally.
Most of the time, one-on-one, I try to nicely walk statists through an examination of their claims to try to make them see how odd their notions are.
However, sometimes, some people need a little more of a kick.
It is not helpful to pretend that really stupid and self-destructive things are not stupid. If you see someone licking the front sight of their loaded and cocked pistol, with their finger on the trigger, it doesn't help them to say "That's just how they choose to clean their sight- it's a perfectly valid way." Maybe it helps to calmly talk them into getting the pistol aimed in a safe direction before you point out how stupid they were being, but they really do need to understand how stupid that was.
Because, if you care, you don't want them continuing to do something monumentally stupid- like advocating statism.
.
Sometimes, in a moment of frustration, I will openly say that statists are stupid.
Not generally in a blog post, but rather in a Facebook status.
I admit that's probably not nice, but I need to vent occasionally.
Most of the time, one-on-one, I try to nicely walk statists through an examination of their claims to try to make them see how odd their notions are.
However, sometimes, some people need a little more of a kick.
It is not helpful to pretend that really stupid and self-destructive things are not stupid. If you see someone licking the front sight of their loaded and cocked pistol, with their finger on the trigger, it doesn't help them to say "That's just how they choose to clean their sight- it's a perfectly valid way." Maybe it helps to calmly talk them into getting the pistol aimed in a safe direction before you point out how stupid they were being, but they really do need to understand how stupid that was.
Because, if you care, you don't want them continuing to do something monumentally stupid- like advocating statism.
.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Arbitrary age criteria
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I had an exchange with someone who was responding to my saying that alcohol prohibition to teens is based on arbitrary age criteria. They wondered how I saw other age "laws" and asked:
Yeah, tough questions. Here's the way I look at it:
I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all age for consensual sex (or anything else).
I don't believe 6 year olds are able to consent to sex, because they don't understand what they are consenting to. You start getting into the teen years and I think it's strictly a case-by-case issue. Probably some 13 year olds do know what they are consenting to, and are ready to accept the consequences, but most aren't. By 16 or so, I'd start assuming they can consent, without definite evidence to the contrary. I'd always rather err on the side of liberty and respecting the other person's rights and choices.
I never think killing someone is a good "solution" to sex, except in the case of forcible rape. I can understand the protective parent rage, even if I think it's always an overreaction. Which would damage your daughter worse? Having sex at 13, or seeing her dad murder her 17 year old boyfriend who she had just had sex with?
Again, I don't think all-encompassing laws are a good way to sort it out. If The State can try "minors" as adults for crimes, then obviously even the "law" accepts that some can act as adults in some cases, which necessarily includes being able to consent to sex, even if the law doesn't want that street to run both ways. You can't allow only negative outcomes but forbid the neutral or positive ones.
I also believe parents have an obligation to protect their kids, but they don't own their kids. "My daughter" is an expression of relationship, not of ownership (which applies to the drug use example below, too). Emily already makes choices I disagree with, and letting her make some of those will (I hope) teach her that actions have consequences, and that my advice is given for her benefit. I also admit to her when I am wrong.
My older kids make a lot of choices I disagree with, but they are adults and I am here to listen when things go wrong.
For that matter, I make choices I disagree with and live with the consequences.
If you stay high on crack and don't feed your 3 year old- and I find out about it- I would probably come to the kid's rescue- with friends, if I think you might protest. Yes, I would trespass, just like I would if I saw someone being raped on private property. I'll admit I had no right to do so, and seek forgiveness, but I'd accept the consequences without hesitation to save someone. Again, this comes back to the fact that parents don't own "their kids"; the kids own themselves, even if they aren't able to take complete responsibility for themselves yet. You can decide the best way to raise your kid as long as you don't violate his rights, which are equal and identical to your own rights. As each kid gets older, they will have more ability to decide for themselves as they understand more fully the consequences of their choices, but that timeline will vary from individual to individual rather than following a legal schedule. Some people never "mature" enough to accept their consequences, but still, no one has the right to run their life for them. All you can do is defend yourself from them.
No one has "authority", but some can take responsibility. And, unfortunately, this is the real world and nothing will save everyone. Nothing will prevent every tragedy. I still prefer the promise of liberty over the tyranny of "for the children", even when the child they pretend to protect is mine.
.
I had an exchange with someone who was responding to my saying that alcohol prohibition to teens is based on arbitrary age criteria. They wondered how I saw other age "laws" and asked:
"When is someone old enough to have 'consensual' sex? I don't doubt a lot of 6-year-olds have consented to sex with a preacherman promising heaven. I know you don't think it's a law-enforcement issue, but when does the parent respond to this supposed aggression, and how? What about consenting 13-year-olds? Can I kill the boy if he's doing my daughter? What about a 17-year-old with a 12-year-old?
"Or we can talk about hard drug use. Is it OK if I stay high on crack all week and don't feed my 3-year-old? Can I give him some, too? It's my kid and I should be allowed to decide the best way to raise him. Who has the authority to say I can't do this? And again, at what age is the child old enough to decide for himself?"
Yeah, tough questions. Here's the way I look at it:
I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all age for consensual sex (or anything else).
I don't believe 6 year olds are able to consent to sex, because they don't understand what they are consenting to. You start getting into the teen years and I think it's strictly a case-by-case issue. Probably some 13 year olds do know what they are consenting to, and are ready to accept the consequences, but most aren't. By 16 or so, I'd start assuming they can consent, without definite evidence to the contrary. I'd always rather err on the side of liberty and respecting the other person's rights and choices.
I never think killing someone is a good "solution" to sex, except in the case of forcible rape. I can understand the protective parent rage, even if I think it's always an overreaction. Which would damage your daughter worse? Having sex at 13, or seeing her dad murder her 17 year old boyfriend who she had just had sex with?
Again, I don't think all-encompassing laws are a good way to sort it out. If The State can try "minors" as adults for crimes, then obviously even the "law" accepts that some can act as adults in some cases, which necessarily includes being able to consent to sex, even if the law doesn't want that street to run both ways. You can't allow only negative outcomes but forbid the neutral or positive ones.
I also believe parents have an obligation to protect their kids, but they don't own their kids. "My daughter" is an expression of relationship, not of ownership (which applies to the drug use example below, too). Emily already makes choices I disagree with, and letting her make some of those will (I hope) teach her that actions have consequences, and that my advice is given for her benefit. I also admit to her when I am wrong.
My older kids make a lot of choices I disagree with, but they are adults and I am here to listen when things go wrong.
For that matter, I make choices I disagree with and live with the consequences.
If you stay high on crack and don't feed your 3 year old- and I find out about it- I would probably come to the kid's rescue- with friends, if I think you might protest. Yes, I would trespass, just like I would if I saw someone being raped on private property. I'll admit I had no right to do so, and seek forgiveness, but I'd accept the consequences without hesitation to save someone. Again, this comes back to the fact that parents don't own "their kids"; the kids own themselves, even if they aren't able to take complete responsibility for themselves yet. You can decide the best way to raise your kid as long as you don't violate his rights, which are equal and identical to your own rights. As each kid gets older, they will have more ability to decide for themselves as they understand more fully the consequences of their choices, but that timeline will vary from individual to individual rather than following a legal schedule. Some people never "mature" enough to accept their consequences, but still, no one has the right to run their life for them. All you can do is defend yourself from them.
No one has "authority", but some can take responsibility. And, unfortunately, this is the real world and nothing will save everyone. Nothing will prevent every tragedy. I still prefer the promise of liberty over the tyranny of "for the children", even when the child they pretend to protect is mine.
.
In the spirit of compromise...
I want to drive across country.
You don't want me to.
You insist I compromise with you by taking the wheels off my car before I start the engine.
I ignore you and drive away.
You call me an extremist and say I'm "hurting the cause".
I laugh at you ranting in my rear view mirror.
.
You don't want me to.
You insist I compromise with you by taking the wheels off my car before I start the engine.
I ignore you and drive away.
You call me an extremist and say I'm "hurting the cause".
I laugh at you ranting in my rear view mirror.
.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Roundabout still better than lights
Roundabout still better than lights
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 17, 2015)
I’ve noticed new pavement markings at the Clovis roundabout, the premier driving entertainment venue in our area and star of a Youtube video*.
These pavement markings have the same hieroglyphics as the signs you might notice on the roadside as you approach. I’m not sure the added expense of painting the pavement accomplished anything — other than spending some of the annoying tax loot that clutters up government offices everywhere.
I wonder if those who built the roundabout, and those who decided on the proper way to maneuver around it, ever considered that following their directions to the letter (or would it be "to the glyph"?) still means cars will be crossing each others paths as they enter, circle, and exit. Sure, if all traffic were only coming from one direction, their instructions would make some sense, but that's not how it works. It's as if they don't take into account the reality that cars will be entering and exiting from four different directions at once.
Plus, if the westbound road actually had the two lanes illustrated-- rather than having one of the two lanes end rather abruptly upon exiting the roundabout-- things might go a bit smoother.
It's government; what else would you expect?
Yet, even with these issues, I have only had trouble navigating the roundabout one time-- the first time I drove through it. Slamming on the brakes when cars surprised me by appearing seemingly out of nowhere, I broke some eggs I was hauling. But, once around was all it took for me to figure out how the thing works, and I now give plenty of right-of-way to any cars in the roundabout. I kind of enjoy it. It's so much better than those silly traffic control signs and signals used at most intersections to mess up the natural flow of traffic so terribly.
I have also been a passenger while other people drive through the roundabout. In some cases this is very exciting. One person in particular generally takes the straightest path possible, regardless of anything like lanes or the presence of other cars. I grit my teeth and hang on while this driver expresses irritation at the incompetence of all the other drivers.
I'm confident in a future free society, when people look back in disbelief that anyone ever settled for government-owned roads, the owners and managers of roads will make sure to have things as clear as possible to prevent the lawsuits and liability poor planning and maintenance would open them up to. Anything less would be unthinkable.
That, or our self-driving cars will work it all out between themselves while we sip whiskey and text each other.
*There's another video, too: roundabout "fun"?
.
I wonder if those who built the roundabout, and those who decided on the proper way to maneuver around it, ever considered that following their directions to the letter (or would it be "to the glyph"?) still means cars will be crossing each others paths as they enter, circle, and exit. Sure, if all traffic were only coming from one direction, their instructions would make some sense, but that's not how it works. It's as if they don't take into account the reality that cars will be entering and exiting from four different directions at once.
Plus, if the westbound road actually had the two lanes illustrated-- rather than having one of the two lanes end rather abruptly upon exiting the roundabout-- things might go a bit smoother.
It's government; what else would you expect?
Yet, even with these issues, I have only had trouble navigating the roundabout one time-- the first time I drove through it. Slamming on the brakes when cars surprised me by appearing seemingly out of nowhere, I broke some eggs I was hauling. But, once around was all it took for me to figure out how the thing works, and I now give plenty of right-of-way to any cars in the roundabout. I kind of enjoy it. It's so much better than those silly traffic control signs and signals used at most intersections to mess up the natural flow of traffic so terribly.
I have also been a passenger while other people drive through the roundabout. In some cases this is very exciting. One person in particular generally takes the straightest path possible, regardless of anything like lanes or the presence of other cars. I grit my teeth and hang on while this driver expresses irritation at the incompetence of all the other drivers.
I'm confident in a future free society, when people look back in disbelief that anyone ever settled for government-owned roads, the owners and managers of roads will make sure to have things as clear as possible to prevent the lawsuits and liability poor planning and maintenance would open them up to. Anything less would be unthinkable.
That, or our self-driving cars will work it all out between themselves while we sip whiskey and text each other.
-
*There's another video, too: roundabout "fun"?
.
Group effects
"Society" is a name for a group of individuals. Just like "group". Or "swarm". Or "the market".
More than that, it is the effect those individuals have. It is the result of individuals acting individually, but having an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts. It is emergent.
That's why I don't object to the term "society" as much as some do- as long as it isn't being claimed that "society" has rights above and beyond those of individuals or not possessed by individuals.
.
More than that, it is the effect those individuals have. It is the result of individuals acting individually, but having an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts. It is emergent.
That's why I don't object to the term "society" as much as some do- as long as it isn't being claimed that "society" has rights above and beyond those of individuals or not possessed by individuals.
.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Statists helping anarchism
On "social media" I constantly witness (and sometimes endure) jabs from statists who are trying to ridicule the passion (and rationality) for Rightful Liberty.
It doesn't really bother me when "conservatives" or "liberals" try to belittle liberty lovers.
I'm happy that they are that willing to make fools of themselves without anyone else even lifting a finger to help. It's nice when your enemies do all the work for you.
Sometimes instead of mainly trying to jab, they instead spend their effort making "reasonable-sounding" statist claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.
I am especially amused by the reasonable-sounding "conservatives" whose objections fall apart if you actually examine them beyond the most superficial glimpse. They claim anarchy is "Utopian", and that their beliefs reflect the "real world" while insisting that "good government" is possible, in spite of the entirety of human history as evidence against that notion. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if some of them are anarchist trolls setting up fake accounts to caricature "conservatives" and make them look foolish.
I should get into a habit of thanking them, but then they might shut up and stop discrediting their superstition.
.
It doesn't really bother me when "conservatives" or "liberals" try to belittle liberty lovers.
I'm happy that they are that willing to make fools of themselves without anyone else even lifting a finger to help. It's nice when your enemies do all the work for you.
Sometimes instead of mainly trying to jab, they instead spend their effort making "reasonable-sounding" statist claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.
I am especially amused by the reasonable-sounding "conservatives" whose objections fall apart if you actually examine them beyond the most superficial glimpse. They claim anarchy is "Utopian", and that their beliefs reflect the "real world" while insisting that "good government" is possible, in spite of the entirety of human history as evidence against that notion. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if some of them are anarchist trolls setting up fake accounts to caricature "conservatives" and make them look foolish.
I should get into a habit of thanking them, but then they might shut up and stop discrediting their superstition.
.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Have you fallen for it?
"War is Peace."
"Freedom is Slavery."
"Ignorance is Strength."
"Anarchy is Violence."
Seems legit. LOL!
.
"Freedom is Slavery."
"Ignorance is Strength."
"Anarchy is Violence."
Seems legit. LOL!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)