Becoming one with your brokenness

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.

I know people who get their identity from their damage.

Either they have a medical condition which becomes their identity- even to the point of getting tattoos commemorating it, having it as their "profile pic", and posting endless links about it- or they were the victim of a violation and it becomes their identity in the same way. It is them on some deep level.

I understand that damage can get into your mind, but is it really healthy to obsess over your victimhood or brokenness? And seemingly celebrate it?

Well, I see "patriotism" in the same light. It's like Stockholm Syndrome gone cancerous. Not only identifying with your violator, but letting your violator become your entire world. Tattooing yourself with the violator's symbols and words, flying his banners, being proud of his claim of ownership over your life and body.

It's one thing to accept past damage or current circumstances you can't change. It is quite another to celebrate it and let it become your meaning in life.

.

Reacting to statism

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Believe it or not, in person I really try to not be that person who has to respond to every insane statist word that comes out of someone's mouth during conversation. I try very hard to listen without immediately trying to think of a comeback, or of how to put the final nail in their mind's coffin.

Sometimes, during a pause, I just hold my tongue and think things I'd like to say, but won't. That has led to awkward pauses.

I suspect I often get that deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.

To me, saying something statist is about as reasonable as claiming that goats rule the world. Or suggesting we should all start sacrificing children to Cthulhu. (Although I've known a few children who make that idea seem less crazy.)

I sometimes wonder which is worse: the expression on my face when someone says something utterly statist, or verbally responding to them.

I suppose it depends on the individual.

For the person who is fully vested in statism, reason probably won't help. After all, they have had a lifetime of practice ignoring reason and reality in order to stay statist. For them, the discomfort of having someone silently look at them like their flesh mask just slipped a bit, exposing their insectoid self, might eventually get to them.

As I say, it isn't something I do intentionally. It's automatic- just as the look of horror would be if they actually did let their human mask slip. Something hideous was unexpectedly exposed- how am I supposed to react?

Statism is as anti-human as an insectoid alien might be- if the alien noticed humans at all. Statism sees people as food, fuel, or fertilizer. If it doesn't stun and shock you, you don't understand it.

.

Supporters and other Superheroes

I would really like to get at least $200 more per month in supporters. Either through Patreon or Paypal subscriptions (link to the right). I know, we'd all "like" something, but if you don't ask...

It would take a lot of financial pressure off me.

Plus my birthday is less than two weeks away. So, if you've been considering it becoming a patron or subscriber, just think of it as an early birthday gift.

Added- I discovered a bill someone else was supposedly responsible for, but which wasn't paid. I am paying it, and it's gonna be rough.

Thank you!

.

Rejected, but not dejected

Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do. After not having trouble with either of the papers rejecting columns in quite a while, it happened. The owner/publisher of the State Line Tribune rejected my newest Liberty Lines submission.

He said it was "extreme"; building permits and property codes are not "anti-American" and DC politicians are not "vermin", so he couldn't publish this one. And this is coming from someone who constantly complains about the politicians in DC. However, he wants them to do more of what he thinks they should do- using the power of their hired bullies to impose their opinions (which he hopes mesh with his) on everyone else.

This illustrates exactly why "we" are in this situation: people too scared to call a spade a spade, and refusing to address the root of the problem; instead, offering SpongeBob bandaids to hide boo-boos so they don't have to face reality.

Also, he said my previous column on the matter was enough. Funny, but apparently the city council can still discuss the matter and use his newspaper as their forum, but no one who doesn't believe in their "authority" is allowed to do so. Well, his property- his choice, and he can fawn over the local vermin to his heart's content, but he shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite him. I'd stick up for him anyway.

I understand- he owns a newspaper and a large amount of his content depends on coddling and paying undue positive attention to the local political parasites, whether he really respects them or not.

No, I'm not angry. But I do believe this is important and am bothered that few of my Farwell neighbors will be able to read it. If I had the money I'd start my own local paper to tell the Liberty side of the story- every story- and focus on what real people do and only write true headlines calling the cops, politicians, and bureaucrats what they actually are. I guess it's a good thing I am so broke.

Instead of just posting the rejected column here, I changed it up slightly (to fit a different paper) and submitted it to the CNJ. It got rejected again, but for entirely different reasons. So, I resubmitted a more "generalized" version, with everything intact except the opening paragraph which was very town-specific (and not very relevent to the majority of the CNJ's readers). After the editor changed a couple of things, it was approved. You can read his edited version tomorrow, and in a month you can read the final draft I submitted to the CNJ before it was edited- if you care to see what was changed.

.

Should you live by the ZAP?

Well... I believe you should live by the Zero Aggression Principle.

After accepting there is no right to initiate force, I conclude it is wrong to do so. I "shouldn't" initiate force.

But, really, who cares?

You have no right to initiate force; my opinion of "should" or "should not" doesn't figure into it. If I see you initiating force I may try to make you believe you shouldn't have done so.

The ZAP is a successful way to live among other humans. I think it's the most successful way ever discovered.

It doesn't matter whether it is "just an idea".

Cats don't live by the ZAP, and no one expects them to. They initiate force toward other cats and toward other species. They don't have the capacity to decide they "shouldn't" do that.

Humans have that capacity. Those who fail to live by the ZAP suffer because of it. Often not as much as I'd like them to suffer, but that's not my call either.

So, "should" you live by the ZAP? I think so, but the choice is yours because you have a brain capable of choosing, and you know how I may decide to respond if you choose not to.

I hope that as time goes on, more and more people will realize the wisdom of living by the ZAP (which will make it increasingly difficult for those who choose to be thugs).

.

Finance without taxation possible

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!

.

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.)

.

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:

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.

.

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).

.

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)

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.

.

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!

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

Ewok Syndrome

Now, doesn't that sound stupid?

.

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.

.

"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.

.

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.

.

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:

"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.

.