If there isn't an individual I can point to and say "He was killed strictly because he didn't pay a tax", does that mean "taxes" are not enforced by the threat of death?
Of course not.
The penalty for violating any "law" is always death, even if it no one has (yet) been murdered for violating each and every "law" there is. But that's simply because most people submit before it gets to the point of murder.
Make no mistake, bullies calling themselves "government" will keep escalating the violence until you comply or die. Most people comply before they die. The ones who don't get called bad names by the quislings among us, and are said to "deserve it"- and the fact that they died due to enforcement of "laws" will be covered over and ignored.
Remove the threat and how many "laws" would you obey? The threat to "arrest" me is meaningless if I can refuse to be kidnapped, and be left alone after refusing. It is only the knowledge that the vermin of the Blue Line Gang will keep escalating the situation to the point of murder that makes the threat of "arrest" a motivation.
I know the "penalty" for stepping onto the surface of the moon, unprotected by a specialized pressure suit, is also death. No one has ever suffered that fate in the whole history of human existence. Does that mean the threat is imaginary? Not at all.
Ignore reality if it makes you happy, but don't be surprised that your cries, when consequences come to call, go ignored.
.
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Forever alone... Not
Am I alone in preferring to see the messiness of liberty rather than the enforced uniformity and conformity of tyranny?
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
No, I'm not.
Sometimes it seems that way, though.
It's just that those who are on the other side- the anti-liberty bigots- are so much more numerous. They probably have about the same number of loudmouths as the pro-liberty folk, but they have a much larger background chorus of sycophants and supporters.
It doesn't matter that most of those in the background chorus haven't ever considered where the things they automatically support lead. They don't want to think about it, "...and you're NOT going to make me!"
Someone once told them- or they were raised to believe- and that's all that matters. Anything to the contrary will be spat upon.
.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Self defense a primary human right
Self defense a primary human right
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 29, 2015)
If someone is violating your personal rights — through aggression or by violating your property — you have the right to stop them.
Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.
Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.
If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.
The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.
The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.
I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.
Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.
Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?
Nothing, no justifications or excuses, can abolish or alter your right to defense of self or property. The right of defense is the primary human right; all others come from that one.
Aggression is the act of committing, or threatening, violence against someone who isn't currently using violence against you nor violating your property. The defining characteristic of libertarians is that they realize they have no right to use aggression. Self defense, even with violence, is not aggression; the other person started it.
If someone is doing something which doesn't violate your person or property, but still offends or bothers you in some way, how do you deal with it? There are a couple of very different ways people approach this situation, which highlight the difference of the libertarian response.
The first way to deal with this is childish, even barbaric, and is by far the most common way: you pretend to have the power-- or worse, the "authority"-- to control how other people live their lives, and you make up "laws" to use against them if they continue doing what you don't like. Using this tool, you violate their right to live unmolested; you violate their life, liberty, or property-- probably feeling righteous while doing so.
The other way is to try to convince them to change their ways, and if that doesn't work, as long as they don't become aggressive or try to violate your property, you walk away and mind your own business.
I know this isn't good enough for most people. It doesn't feel satisfying to them. They want a way to force others to stop doing what they don't want them to do-- even when they have no right to do so. They simply can't abide leaving people to live according to their own wishes if they find those wishes offensive in some way. They will invoke the "common good", "the children", "community standards", and all manner of justifications for doing the inexcusable. It's still wrong. You have no right to rule other people, and using force against non-aggressive people turns you into a thug.
Unless others are violating your person or property you have no right to control their actions-- and since you can't delegate a right you don't have, since it doesn't exist, you can't send enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians after them without becoming the problem.
Do you value your rights to life, liberty, and property enough to respect the identical and equal rights of everyone else? Or do you intend to rule?
.
"Can't we all just be civil?"
Well, apparently not. It's not that I'm unwilling, but when someone gets into their head that they are entitled to any bit of my life, liberty, or property- and believes it's OK to violate me as long as they do it "legally" and send others to pull the trigger for them- then all this "civility" is suicidal.
You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.
You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.
Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.
I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.
For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.
I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.
If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.
.
You can't soft-peddle what it is they are advocating doing to you.
You need to call a spade a spade. Don't fall into the trap of using the euphemisms which have been carefully crafted to hide the nature of their monstrous behavior. Don't be so careful to not offend their delicate feelings that you sacrifice good people on their altar.
Some things really are so bad that you shouldn't be civil about them. Slavery- of any sort- is one of those things. Those calling for the enslavement of others are horrible people- and that is all that statism is.
I'm sorry if criticizing a statist for their beliefs makes them feel bad. Wait- no I'm not. If you believe horrible, harmful, nasty things you need to feel bad. Your feelings should be hurt.
For many things in life, you don't need to pick sides. Pizza isn't objectively "better than" enchiladas. But liberty is better than slavery. If you are an advocate of slavery you need to feel bad about it. If you try to lie about where your beliefs lead, you need to be shamed.
I get really tired of statists trying to insist that it's "just a matter of opinions", and everyone's opinions are equally valid. No, they absolutely are not.
If you support government, you support slavery. You should be ashamed.
.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Gay marriage, collective punishment, and licenses
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.
They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.
Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?
Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?
The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.
But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.
If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?
What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.
What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?
Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.
I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.
I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.
It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.
.
Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.
They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.
Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?
Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?
The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.
But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.
If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?
What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.
What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?
Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.
I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.
I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.
It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.
.
An update
I found out a bit of interesting information about my previous "rejected" column.
The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
 |
| "Mrs. __ stressed that folks in the city should get building permits for any construction they do." |
Only, she says she never said any such thing.
Is this a case of the paper saying something that fits with their agenda, rather than with the truth? Or, did she really say that to the bullies and is now denying it?
.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Grab some popcorn
When I see someone do something stupid, I usually try to bite my tongue.
After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.
But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.
And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.
But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.
That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.
.
After the third time of seeing them make the same mistake, that gets a lot harder. In fact, I usually end up saying something. And it is almost never appreciated.
But, I care about people. I care about their life, liberty, property, and well-being. I'm not going to aggress "for their own good", but I will say something. How they choose to respond and what they choose to do about it are none of my business.
And most people are committed to their course, no matter what. I wince and back off.
But, sometimes, with certain people, I get tempted to grab some popcorn and watch the show. You know it's going to be a re-run, but watching a train wreck you've seen several times is still captivating.
That's how it is watching statists. Especially when they believe they have come up with their "gotcha", or when they suddenly think of a justification they aren't aware has been tried (and failed) for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I hate to see them hurt themselves, but they are so committed to self-destruction that you probably aren't going to alter their course. Warn them, then sit back and watch the show.
.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Learn from others
I am willing to learn from the experience of others. I am constantly amazed at those who aren't.
Sure I will experiment and see if their advice holds up. Often it doesn't. Sometimes it does, and I find a better way.
I will try other ways, too.
But so many I see simply refuse to even try something someone else suggests. It's as if listening to someone else is a threat to their ego.
And it doesn't have to be anything important. Something as simple as the "best way" to load dishes into the dishwasher, so that more stuff fits, and actually gets clean, seems to be ego-based for some people. Listening to what others have learned from experience is a sign of weakness to some people. I don't understand that.
And, for things that are actually important, rejecting the experience of others who have gone before seems completely crazy to me.
.
Sure I will experiment and see if their advice holds up. Often it doesn't. Sometimes it does, and I find a better way.
I will try other ways, too.
But so many I see simply refuse to even try something someone else suggests. It's as if listening to someone else is a threat to their ego.
And it doesn't have to be anything important. Something as simple as the "best way" to load dishes into the dishwasher, so that more stuff fits, and actually gets clean, seems to be ego-based for some people. Listening to what others have learned from experience is a sign of weakness to some people. I don't understand that.
And, for things that are actually important, rejecting the experience of others who have gone before seems completely crazy to me.
.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
It's a trap!
Isn't it strange how often now being responsible means breaking the "law".
It's almost as if it's intentional.
.
It's almost as if it's intentional.
.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
"Rape culture"
If you believe in the prevalence of "rape culture", convince your least favorite friend to go around bragging about committing a rape or two and let's watch what happens to him... and see how long it takes.
.
.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Alcohol laws do little to protect
Alcohol laws do little to protect
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 22, 2015)
Recently there was a situation near Farwell that stirred up a lot of residents. I doubt the backlash is finished.
The reaction reminds me of my cats watching a bird through the window — lots of chattering and gnashing of teeth.
The situation involved young people, a school board member, an after-prom party, and alcohol.
Bear in mind, as far as I know, no one is claiming the adults present even knew any alcohol was on the rural premises.
I also haven't heard any credible claims the alcohol was being used irresponsibly (at least until law enforcement showed up) or causing any actual problems- all such claims I have seen are simply based on arbitrary age criteria, which is meaningless.
I'm not anti-alcohol; I'm an alcohol agnostic. Like any other substance, you can use it safely, or you can abuse it and cause yourself and others harm. Age is not a magic wand; it can't make wrong right or vice versa.
Obviously laws forbidding people below some arbitrary age (which varies around the globe) to drink alcohol won't stop them. In fact, it probably encourages them more than if the whole thing weren't imagined to be a behavior subject to other people's silly legislative opinions, mistakenly called "laws". There's always an appetite to taste the forbidden fruit, even if the fruit is spoiled. Prohibition is a powerful seasoning.
The extended infantilization of young people today also leaves them woefully unprepared to make responsible choices once they are suddenly expected to be adults upon reaching a particular birthday.
If you live in a bubble-wrapped world where you don't realize teens and alcohol will find a way to be together, regardless of your wishes, there's not much I can do for your misperceptions of reality.
If you don't want your offspring to drink alcohol, lead by example. Don't allow it on your property. Tell your kids the consequences of you finding them using it anyway. The truthful, objective consequences; not nonsense such as the various legal ramifications of being caught.
The fact that some "concerned citizen" called law enforcement just made the situation get instantly worse when the party-goers suddenly found it preferable to flee rather than remain more safely in place. That's just what such an irresponsible and uncivil action as reporting your neighbors to law enforcement always does.
Vices are not crimes, except in the imagination. Even if this were wrong, it shouldn't be turned into a law enforcement situation. It is strictly a family concern, to be handled as the families involved see fit. Very few things, if any, should ever involve laws and enforcement. To me, this is "much ado about nothing".
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 22, 2015)
Recently there was a situation near Farwell that stirred up a lot of residents. I doubt the backlash is finished.
The reaction reminds me of my cats watching a bird through the window — lots of chattering and gnashing of teeth.
The situation involved young people, a school board member, an after-prom party, and alcohol.
Bear in mind, as far as I know, no one is claiming the adults present even knew any alcohol was on the rural premises.
I also haven't heard any credible claims the alcohol was being used irresponsibly (at least until law enforcement showed up) or causing any actual problems- all such claims I have seen are simply based on arbitrary age criteria, which is meaningless.
I'm not anti-alcohol; I'm an alcohol agnostic. Like any other substance, you can use it safely, or you can abuse it and cause yourself and others harm. Age is not a magic wand; it can't make wrong right or vice versa.
Obviously laws forbidding people below some arbitrary age (which varies around the globe) to drink alcohol won't stop them. In fact, it probably encourages them more than if the whole thing weren't imagined to be a behavior subject to other people's silly legislative opinions, mistakenly called "laws". There's always an appetite to taste the forbidden fruit, even if the fruit is spoiled. Prohibition is a powerful seasoning.
The extended infantilization of young people today also leaves them woefully unprepared to make responsible choices once they are suddenly expected to be adults upon reaching a particular birthday.
If you live in a bubble-wrapped world where you don't realize teens and alcohol will find a way to be together, regardless of your wishes, there's not much I can do for your misperceptions of reality.
If you don't want your offspring to drink alcohol, lead by example. Don't allow it on your property. Tell your kids the consequences of you finding them using it anyway. The truthful, objective consequences; not nonsense such as the various legal ramifications of being caught.
The fact that some "concerned citizen" called law enforcement just made the situation get instantly worse when the party-goers suddenly found it preferable to flee rather than remain more safely in place. That's just what such an irresponsible and uncivil action as reporting your neighbors to law enforcement always does.
Vices are not crimes, except in the imagination. Even if this were wrong, it shouldn't be turned into a law enforcement situation. It is strictly a family concern, to be handled as the families involved see fit. Very few things, if any, should ever involve laws and enforcement. To me, this is "much ado about nothing".
.
Hating bad guys for their actions, not for who they are
Recently Nemesis was manning a cash register when the local "police chief" came through her line. Somewhere in the small talk pleasantries he mentioned that he knows I don't like him.
Amazingly, Nemesis got it right. She told the cop I don't hate him, just his job*.
Yes. He could quit his "job" today and I wouldn't have any issue with him at all. And I doubt he would ever find himself seriously at odds with me, either. Since, as everyone does, he either lives "libertarian" in his personal life, or he is recognized as a bad guy and opens himself up to self defensive violence.
I don't believe in "authority", and that's all his "job" depends on. He is nothing but a bully as long as he holds that "job", no matter how "nice" he may be (and, apparently, he isn't really that nice).
*She also told him not to judge her by me- which I consider a good thing.
.
Amazingly, Nemesis got it right. She told the cop I don't hate him, just his job*.
Yes. He could quit his "job" today and I wouldn't have any issue with him at all. And I doubt he would ever find himself seriously at odds with me, either. Since, as everyone does, he either lives "libertarian" in his personal life, or he is recognized as a bad guy and opens himself up to self defensive violence.
I don't believe in "authority", and that's all his "job" depends on. He is nothing but a bully as long as he holds that "job", no matter how "nice" he may be (and, apparently, he isn't really that nice).
-
*She also told him not to judge her by me- which I consider a good thing.
.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Good guys live Rightful Liberty- and so do bad guys almost all the time
Almost all people live their lives in a libertarian way.
If they didn't they'd be killed. Quickly.
It's only when they get a position of power over other people that they feel safe in being nonlibertarian/authoritarian.
That power might be a gun held on their mugging victims, or it might be a political position- but I'm making a distinction where none actually exists. Using coercion and threats to get your way is "the political method", as opposed to "the economic method" where everyone wins. "Why" you behave politically doesn't even matter.
Don't initiate force, and don't violate the private property of another.
The thing is, almost everyone already lives their personal life in a libertarian manner, and recognizes those who don't as the bad guys.
It's only when bad guys take advantage and wrap themselves in the superstition of "authority" that theft becomes "taxation", trespassing becomes "code enforcement", rape becomes "cavity search", murder becomes "officer safety", and mass murder becomes "war". I simply choose to not be superstitious. How about you?
.
If they didn't they'd be killed. Quickly.
It's only when they get a position of power over other people that they feel safe in being nonlibertarian/authoritarian.
That power might be a gun held on their mugging victims, or it might be a political position- but I'm making a distinction where none actually exists. Using coercion and threats to get your way is "the political method", as opposed to "the economic method" where everyone wins. "Why" you behave politically doesn't even matter.
Don't initiate force, and don't violate the private property of another.
The thing is, almost everyone already lives their personal life in a libertarian manner, and recognizes those who don't as the bad guys.
It's only when bad guys take advantage and wrap themselves in the superstition of "authority" that theft becomes "taxation", trespassing becomes "code enforcement", rape becomes "cavity search", murder becomes "officer safety", and mass murder becomes "war". I simply choose to not be superstitious. How about you?
.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
The truth laughs at your objections
You can laugh at it.
You can ridicule it.
You can deny it.
You can hate it.
The truth doesn't change.
The "libertarian" way of living among other people is still the only ethical way. Any other way- every other way- involves slavery. Every other way is evil.
.
You can ridicule it.
You can deny it.
You can hate it.
The truth doesn't change.
The "libertarian" way of living among other people is still the only ethical way. Any other way- every other way- involves slavery. Every other way is evil.
.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Scummy sheriffs
A lot of supposed liberty lovers hate cops, but support the office of sheriff. I suppose if you could find a sheriff who actually respected Rightful Liberty and stood as a guard between his bosses (you) and the bad guys who seek to violate you (freelance and professional politicians) a sheriff might be OK.
But...
I have never lived in a place with a halfway decent sheriff. And I have lived lots of places. All the sheriffs I have had the misfortune of being around were all communistic control freaks; most were "conservative".
In an "open carry" state I was threatened by the sheriff that if he ever caught me out of my house with a gun- unless I had a permit or hunting license- he would arrest me. In violation of "state law". Obviously I ignored his threats.
In another state the sheriff refused to even consider my request for a permit to sell black powder. He wouldn't even speak to me about it or acknowledge my request. Yeah, asking for permission is slave behavior, but you know the drill, especially when suppliers demand proof you got permission.
Another place I lived had a sheriff who threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way and handcuffed some of his victims to a fence until the politicians gave in to his demands. He was celebrated as being "tough on crime".
And here, the sheriff will arrest people for "illegal weapons" and drugs at the drop of a hat, and opposes any change in the "laws" that empower him to do so, and doesn't even acknowledge that he is a bully for doing so.
They are all scum.
.
But...
I have never lived in a place with a halfway decent sheriff. And I have lived lots of places. All the sheriffs I have had the misfortune of being around were all communistic control freaks; most were "conservative".
In an "open carry" state I was threatened by the sheriff that if he ever caught me out of my house with a gun- unless I had a permit or hunting license- he would arrest me. In violation of "state law". Obviously I ignored his threats.
In another state the sheriff refused to even consider my request for a permit to sell black powder. He wouldn't even speak to me about it or acknowledge my request. Yeah, asking for permission is slave behavior, but you know the drill, especially when suppliers demand proof you got permission.
Another place I lived had a sheriff who threw a tantrum when he didn't get his way and handcuffed some of his victims to a fence until the politicians gave in to his demands. He was celebrated as being "tough on crime".
And here, the sheriff will arrest people for "illegal weapons" and drugs at the drop of a hat, and opposes any change in the "laws" that empower him to do so, and doesn't even acknowledge that he is a bully for doing so.
They are all scum.
.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Random Acts of Anarchy Day!
Don't forget Random Acts of Anarchy Day today. Do something right, without asking permission. You'll be glad you did.
Support?
.
-
Support?
.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Don't be stupid
I admit it. I'm a softie. It makes me sad when people hurt themselves. And when, over and over, they keep making the same mistakes with the same tragic results.
Or when, because of stupidity, they keep harming others- although this is more likely to make me angry.
And nothing is so stupid (and blatantly inconsistent) as supporting statism. It pains me to witness it.
It doesn't help anyone to avoid saying it is stupid, either.
Support?
Or when, because of stupidity, they keep harming others- although this is more likely to make me angry.
And nothing is so stupid (and blatantly inconsistent) as supporting statism. It pains me to witness it.
It doesn't help anyone to avoid saying it is stupid, either.
-
Support?
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Laws are just opinions of bullies
Laws are just opinions of bullies
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 15, 2015)
If you were sitting alone in your own home, would you seek permission to read one of your books? Or to write one? Would you be concerned with whether you are allowed to scratch an itch?
Would you wonder if you need a license to watch TV? Don’t laugh — TV licensing is a reality in Great Britain and many other places.
Might you call an inspector for a permit before you make a sandwich?
As long as you weren't violating anyone's person or private property would you feel guilty about sipping a glass of tea?
So why would you feel guilty about sticking a gun in your waistband, going out to your unregistered car, driving to a friend's house and buying some marijuana- peacefully, without first seeking someone's permission or finding out whether it's allowed?
If you'd feel bad about it, I'll bet it has to do with those things being against the law.
"Laws" are nothing but the opinions of bullies. Opinions thought of as legitimate only because of the power of those bullies to impose their opinions on everyone else through their hired guns. Sometimes their opinions match reality, such as their opinion that you shouldn't murder or commit a robbery.
Most of the time, however, their opinions don't align with reality at all, such as when they hold the opinion you should pay a yearly ransom on your house, get their permission to own and use a car, claim you can't be permitted to buy or sell certain things, or you can't be allowed to smoke anything you want. No one has the right to force their opinion as to whether you can operate a business out of your home on you, nor about what price you can negotiate for anything you are willing to sell-- including your labor.
Opinions called "laws" are always either unnecessary or downright harmful.
The only reason the harmful opinions aren't ignored even more completely than they already are is because of the prevalence of a superstition: the belief in "authority". It's equivalent to a belief in astrology, but is actually much more harmful to the individual and, by extension, to civilization.
As long as your actions don't violate the person or property of another, no one-- not one person on the planet-- has the right to stop you. It's not that you have a right to do those things, it's that the right to stop you can't exist. It's based on this myth of "authority". Even if your actions and choices offend other people, or they use the excuse of "the common good", it changes nothing. Widespread civil disobedience is long overdue.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 15, 2015)
If you were sitting alone in your own home, would you seek permission to read one of your books? Or to write one? Would you be concerned with whether you are allowed to scratch an itch?
Would you wonder if you need a license to watch TV? Don’t laugh — TV licensing is a reality in Great Britain and many other places.
Might you call an inspector for a permit before you make a sandwich?
As long as you weren't violating anyone's person or private property would you feel guilty about sipping a glass of tea?
So why would you feel guilty about sticking a gun in your waistband, going out to your unregistered car, driving to a friend's house and buying some marijuana- peacefully, without first seeking someone's permission or finding out whether it's allowed?
If you'd feel bad about it, I'll bet it has to do with those things being against the law.
"Laws" are nothing but the opinions of bullies. Opinions thought of as legitimate only because of the power of those bullies to impose their opinions on everyone else through their hired guns. Sometimes their opinions match reality, such as their opinion that you shouldn't murder or commit a robbery.
Most of the time, however, their opinions don't align with reality at all, such as when they hold the opinion you should pay a yearly ransom on your house, get their permission to own and use a car, claim you can't be permitted to buy or sell certain things, or you can't be allowed to smoke anything you want. No one has the right to force their opinion as to whether you can operate a business out of your home on you, nor about what price you can negotiate for anything you are willing to sell-- including your labor.
Opinions called "laws" are always either unnecessary or downright harmful.
The only reason the harmful opinions aren't ignored even more completely than they already are is because of the prevalence of a superstition: the belief in "authority". It's equivalent to a belief in astrology, but is actually much more harmful to the individual and, by extension, to civilization.
As long as your actions don't violate the person or property of another, no one-- not one person on the planet-- has the right to stop you. It's not that you have a right to do those things, it's that the right to stop you can't exist. It's based on this myth of "authority". Even if your actions and choices offend other people, or they use the excuse of "the common good", it changes nothing. Widespread civil disobedience is long overdue.
How to be a statist
How do statists not feel horrible about themselves? Look at the awful things they condone. How can they not see themselves as bad guys?
Well, they follow a particular ritual to hide what they do: They change the name of certain evil acts so they can pretend to be moral while condoning those acts under the euphemisms while simultaneously condemning the same acts with different (honest) names.
To a statist theft is wrong, but "taxation" is OK- even though the acts are identical. And the examples are seemingly endless.
This is how otherwise good people end up supporting hideous acts and those who commit them.
Support?
.
Well, they follow a particular ritual to hide what they do: They change the name of certain evil acts so they can pretend to be moral while condoning those acts under the euphemisms while simultaneously condemning the same acts with different (honest) names.
To a statist theft is wrong, but "taxation" is OK- even though the acts are identical. And the examples are seemingly endless.
This is how otherwise good people end up supporting hideous acts and those who commit them.
-
Support?
.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Upsetting the Muslims
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Muslims get very upset when they are treated differently than other religious people. But they have to understand why. They are consciously, willingly associating with a group which encourages its more radical members to maim and murder.
I'm sorry, but I want social pressure put on people like that. I want them to be made uncomfortable for whom they choose to associate with.
Just like I want cops to be treated badly unless they turn from their gang.
Or how I'd like to see DemoCRAPublicans treated badly until they reject statism.
Bad choices deserve uncomfortable consequences.
If you associate yourself, willingly, with a group whose "members in good standing" do bad things (initiate force or violate private property) that are consistent with the "principles" of the group- even if you object that you don't do those things personally- I would like to see you made uncomfortable.
I'm not saying anyone should initiate force against you, or violate your property, but shun you and talk about you; embarrass you and pressure you to leave the evil group behind. Or cause you to loudly advocate change by rejecting- without condition- the evil practices and by transferring your discomfort to the bad guys in your group, while working to change the twisted "principles" that lead the members to do those bad things.
And, if you can't change the group, the only right choice is to abandon it and become its enemy. If that means you don't get into your "Heaven", or get your cop pension, well... some rewards are not what they appear to be.
Support?
Muslims get very upset when they are treated differently than other religious people. But they have to understand why. They are consciously, willingly associating with a group which encourages its more radical members to maim and murder.
I'm sorry, but I want social pressure put on people like that. I want them to be made uncomfortable for whom they choose to associate with.
Just like I want cops to be treated badly unless they turn from their gang.
Or how I'd like to see DemoCRAPublicans treated badly until they reject statism.
Bad choices deserve uncomfortable consequences.
If you associate yourself, willingly, with a group whose "members in good standing" do bad things (initiate force or violate private property) that are consistent with the "principles" of the group- even if you object that you don't do those things personally- I would like to see you made uncomfortable.
I'm not saying anyone should initiate force against you, or violate your property, but shun you and talk about you; embarrass you and pressure you to leave the evil group behind. Or cause you to loudly advocate change by rejecting- without condition- the evil practices and by transferring your discomfort to the bad guys in your group, while working to change the twisted "principles" that lead the members to do those bad things.
And, if you can't change the group, the only right choice is to abandon it and become its enemy. If that means you don't get into your "Heaven", or get your cop pension, well... some rewards are not what they appear to be.
-
Support?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)