Babies start off not understanding the Zero Aggression Principle. But it's one of the first "social" things they learn.
Then it takes years to teach them it doesn't apply. Or at least, that bullies and bully groupies want them to believe it doesn't apply when the bully calls himself "government".
For those who continue to mature, they eventually re-learn the ZAP and see that the exceptions really aren't. Consistency matters. Bullies are bullies no matter their "job" or justification. And nothing justifies initiating force.
.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
What you do is no one's business
Yes, please do.
What you do is no one's business
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 10, 2015. This one never got put online at the CNJ website, as it had the misfortune to be published the day they are cyberattacked. But here it is now.)
Everyone is looking for more of the things they love; things to bring some joy into their life. Everyone's joy, and the things which trigger it, is different, and that's not only OK, it's great.
I love a lot of things, including, but not limited to, certain people, wildlife, karaoke, wilderness trails, mountains, deserts, forests, liberty, functional antiques, guns, knives, and swords. And, if you know me, I'm sure you already suspected I love hats.
Whatever it is you love, it is wonderful to find people who love some of the same things-- to have someone with whom to share your enjoyment. Shared joy is one of the greatest human experiences. Sometimes others can also introduce you to things you never thought about exploring, and when you're lucky you might even find something new to love.
If not, thank them for their time and move on.
No matter how different we are, you and I probably share some common interests. We may even love some of the same things, or one of us may be waiting for an introduction to something we don't yet know we would love, and which we would then have in common. You never know until you try. Discovery is one of the great things about being alive.
But even if I don't love something you love, I am perfectly happy to not interfere with things which bring you joy. I have no desire to regulate away your fun, even if it's something I really don't like. Not even if it annoys me in some way. Because as long as you don't violate someone or their property you have the absolute right to do whatever you want, regardless of my opinion or the law. No matter whether I understand it or your attraction to it, or even if I think a person would have to be crazy to like what you like.
I would never send the law after you for doing something which "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Thomas Jefferson said. All he meant by this is that if what you do doesn't aggress against anyone nor against their private property, it isn't anyone's business. I am content to let you pursue your happiness. Even, in many cases, if you don't respect the same liberty in others. Someone has to take the first step toward being civilized, after all.
If what you enjoy involves violating people or property, though, I think you need a new hobby, and I hope someone defends themselves from your aggression. There is a universe of great things out there. Don't waste your time violating others.
.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Wherein I say something racist
As of about an hour ago, if my son were "Black", he'd probably be dead- or at least caged- at the hand of cops.
He's OK.
This is why I don't care who you are, I don't want cops committing enforcement against you (molesting you). Ever. If you are OK with it when the cops molest "those people", whoever that might be to you, you are not on the side of liberty- you are siding with bullies.
F'ing Nazis.
But why did I have to be born into a police state? Some people are fine with that. I am not.
.
He's OK.
This is why I don't care who you are, I don't want cops committing enforcement against you (molesting you). Ever. If you are OK with it when the cops molest "those people", whoever that might be to you, you are not on the side of liberty- you are siding with bullies.
F'ing Nazis.
But why did I have to be born into a police state? Some people are fine with that. I am not.
.
You are what you do
When you get to the bottom of it, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad person. There is only what you are doing right now.
Of course, there is also the weight of what you choose to do the most- your history. Your acts add up to you.
But, if you are a cop you are always living on stolen money and living under oath to enforce counterfeit laws. So at best, even when doing something good, a cop is still committing evil at the same time.
The best a cop can ever be is neutral- and that's if he is doing a LOT of good constantly.
Stop being a cop and throw off that yoke.
.
Of course, there is also the weight of what you choose to do the most- your history. Your acts add up to you.
But, if you are a cop you are always living on stolen money and living under oath to enforce counterfeit laws. So at best, even when doing something good, a cop is still committing evil at the same time.
The best a cop can ever be is neutral- and that's if he is doing a LOT of good constantly.
Stop being a cop and throw off that yoke.
.
Sunday, August 09, 2015
Economic lesson learned
A giant corporation (business + government) is messing with my household finances.
Nemesis works for one of the most popularly hated corporations. They owe her around a thousand dollars for some vacation time she took months ago. The mismanaging manager (who has since been promoted) neglected to do the final step to pay employees for vacation time which had already been approved. There are apparently 8 other employees in the same position- some owed much more.
When the mismanaging manager was promoted, and couldn't be reminded any more about the vacation pay, Nemesis went to a regional manager to beg for her money. He looked into the situation and said everything was in order, and he doesn't understand why she was never paid. Then while looking into the problem he discovered all the others who were also owed for vacation time (and numerous other employee-harming "oversights")
Seems like it would have then been a simple matter to pay the money that was owed.
But, no.
That was a couple of months ago, at least. The "process" is still ongoing, with phone calls to the head office (to speak one-on-one to the "Big Deals") scheduled next week, to get to the bottom of this problem. But still no estimate of when the money might be paid.
In the meantime, in the real world, bills go unpaid, and no one owed is concerned about the why of it. As much as I try to not get wrapped up in the drama of it all, I find myself irritated. Partly at Nemesis' choice of employer (but it could be worse, she keeps talking about applying at a "public" school), but mostly by people not keeping their end of a deal and starting a domino effect of problems.
But, avoiding corporations doesn't ensure there won't be a problem.
I have mostly avoided corporations for employment, I have almost exclusively worked for small, family businesses. That has it's own dangers.
Years ago, the business I was working for hit hard times. I loaned the owners some money to get over some bumps and then I allowed them to fall behind paying me for my hours worked. Eventually they got 6 weeks behind on my paycheck, and I said I couldn't keep working without pay, so they started trying to catch up. They would pay me out of the register for each day at the end of the day, and would write checks every week or so to catch up on the back pay. I kept careful track of where I stood. When they claimed we were caught up, I am certain they still owed me for a full week of pay. I showed them all the records I had kept, but they disagreed. I never got the money.
(Year later that same business was intimately involved in the complete and utter trainwreck that almost destroyed me, and they tried really hard to destroy my reputation along with my financial life.)
But it isn't only me.
A few years back, Nemesis was working "home health" for a woman. She allowed the woman to owe her for a few weeks' pay. She never got that, either. If I had known what was going on at the time I would have shared my experience with allowing employers to fall behind. Not that I would have been listened to.
If you allow yourself to be owed money, you are best off to consider it a loan and never expect to be repaid. If you can't afford that, don't let anyone owe you- especially not your employer.
.
Nemesis works for one of the most popularly hated corporations. They owe her around a thousand dollars for some vacation time she took months ago. The mismanaging manager (who has since been promoted) neglected to do the final step to pay employees for vacation time which had already been approved. There are apparently 8 other employees in the same position- some owed much more.
When the mismanaging manager was promoted, and couldn't be reminded any more about the vacation pay, Nemesis went to a regional manager to beg for her money. He looked into the situation and said everything was in order, and he doesn't understand why she was never paid. Then while looking into the problem he discovered all the others who were also owed for vacation time (and numerous other employee-harming "oversights")
Seems like it would have then been a simple matter to pay the money that was owed.
But, no.
That was a couple of months ago, at least. The "process" is still ongoing, with phone calls to the head office (to speak one-on-one to the "Big Deals") scheduled next week, to get to the bottom of this problem. But still no estimate of when the money might be paid.
In the meantime, in the real world, bills go unpaid, and no one owed is concerned about the why of it. As much as I try to not get wrapped up in the drama of it all, I find myself irritated. Partly at Nemesis' choice of employer (but it could be worse, she keeps talking about applying at a "public" school), but mostly by people not keeping their end of a deal and starting a domino effect of problems.
But, avoiding corporations doesn't ensure there won't be a problem.
I have mostly avoided corporations for employment, I have almost exclusively worked for small, family businesses. That has it's own dangers.
Years ago, the business I was working for hit hard times. I loaned the owners some money to get over some bumps and then I allowed them to fall behind paying me for my hours worked. Eventually they got 6 weeks behind on my paycheck, and I said I couldn't keep working without pay, so they started trying to catch up. They would pay me out of the register for each day at the end of the day, and would write checks every week or so to catch up on the back pay. I kept careful track of where I stood. When they claimed we were caught up, I am certain they still owed me for a full week of pay. I showed them all the records I had kept, but they disagreed. I never got the money.
(Year later that same business was intimately involved in the complete and utter trainwreck that almost destroyed me, and they tried really hard to destroy my reputation along with my financial life.)
But it isn't only me.
A few years back, Nemesis was working "home health" for a woman. She allowed the woman to owe her for a few weeks' pay. She never got that, either. If I had known what was going on at the time I would have shared my experience with allowing employers to fall behind. Not that I would have been listened to.
If you allow yourself to be owed money, you are best off to consider it a loan and never expect to be repaid. If you can't afford that, don't let anyone owe you- especially not your employer.
.
Statists by any other name would advocate governing
[Previously posted as a status on Facebook]
Some people who advocate governing others don't like to be called statists. Seems odd to complain about reality, but OK.
They advocate the existence of States, but are upset at being called on it. They say the word "statist" applies only to near totalitarians. Of course, it's only a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. But, if the word hurts their feelings, let's make up a word just for them. Maybe I'll call them "gentlists". That sounds gentle, harmless, and sweet, right?
So, a gentlist would be anyone who believes governing others is a legitimate human endeavor. It says nothing about how they advocate doing it, or the level of governing they approve.
So, maybe some gentlists only want a little bit of control over the non-aggressive acts of others. Maybe they only want a little bit of aggressive theft committed under the euphemism "taxation". Maybe they only advocate kidnapping those engaged in free market economic trades sometimes; if the trades are disliked by a vocal subset of the population. Maybe they turn their heads and pretend their gentlism isn't enforced by the implied threat of murder in every single case- especially if people comply so universally under the threat that death rarely results. We could call these "min-gentlists"- they want what they consider to be the minimum level of gentlism.
Other gentlists might want almost total control of your every action. They might demand you give all your property to them, and dole it out according to a central plan. These totaligentlists would obviously be more extreme than the min-gentlists, but again, it is not a difference in kind, only in degree.
The foundational beliefs are identical- that there exists somewhere a right to control other people and take their property when it suits those who have been put in charge. The only difference is in how blatant they are willing to be about it, and how quickly they want to escalate their violence, and perhaps, where they plan to focus their governing. But the end is the same. And what you call it is really pretty irrelevant in the end.
So, be a whiny statist if it makes you somehow feel better.
Or, suck it up. If you advocate something, own it. Otherwise you look like a fool who knows he is advocating evil and wants to avoid being ashamed for doing so. It makes you look like someone who needs to change, and deep down inside, KNOWS it.
.
Some people who advocate governing others don't like to be called statists. Seems odd to complain about reality, but OK.
They advocate the existence of States, but are upset at being called on it. They say the word "statist" applies only to near totalitarians. Of course, it's only a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. But, if the word hurts their feelings, let's make up a word just for them. Maybe I'll call them "gentlists". That sounds gentle, harmless, and sweet, right?
So, a gentlist would be anyone who believes governing others is a legitimate human endeavor. It says nothing about how they advocate doing it, or the level of governing they approve.
So, maybe some gentlists only want a little bit of control over the non-aggressive acts of others. Maybe they only want a little bit of aggressive theft committed under the euphemism "taxation". Maybe they only advocate kidnapping those engaged in free market economic trades sometimes; if the trades are disliked by a vocal subset of the population. Maybe they turn their heads and pretend their gentlism isn't enforced by the implied threat of murder in every single case- especially if people comply so universally under the threat that death rarely results. We could call these "min-gentlists"- they want what they consider to be the minimum level of gentlism.
Other gentlists might want almost total control of your every action. They might demand you give all your property to them, and dole it out according to a central plan. These totaligentlists would obviously be more extreme than the min-gentlists, but again, it is not a difference in kind, only in degree.
The foundational beliefs are identical- that there exists somewhere a right to control other people and take their property when it suits those who have been put in charge. The only difference is in how blatant they are willing to be about it, and how quickly they want to escalate their violence, and perhaps, where they plan to focus their governing. But the end is the same. And what you call it is really pretty irrelevant in the end.
So, be a whiny statist if it makes you somehow feel better.
Or, suck it up. If you advocate something, own it. Otherwise you look like a fool who knows he is advocating evil and wants to avoid being ashamed for doing so. It makes you look like someone who needs to change, and deep down inside, KNOWS it.
.
Saturday, August 08, 2015
Cop talk
[Cop approaches person who is neither initiating force nor violating property]
Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"
Human: "Just who do you think you are, molesting me in this way?"
Cop: "I'm a police officer."
Human: "So? That doesn't answer my question."
Cop: "I am an officer of the law and I have the authority..."
Human: "You have what?"
Cop: "Authority..."
Human: "Where do you believe it came from, this 'authority'?"
Cop: "The people..."
Human: "Where did these 'people' get it, and how did they transfer it to you?"
Cop: "As a society, we..."
Human: "Who is 'we'? I didn't consent to any of this."
Cop: "If you don't like it, change the law or move to Somalia."
[Just kidding. You know the cop would have shot before this point.]
.
Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"
Human: "Just who do you think you are, molesting me in this way?"
Cop: "I'm a police officer."
Human: "So? That doesn't answer my question."
Cop: "I am an officer of the law and I have the authority..."
Human: "You have what?"
Cop: "Authority..."
Human: "Where do you believe it came from, this 'authority'?"
Cop: "The people..."
Human: "Where did these 'people' get it, and how did they transfer it to you?"
Cop: "As a society, we..."
Human: "Who is 'we'? I didn't consent to any of this."
Cop: "If you don't like it, change the law or move to Somalia."
[Just kidding. You know the cop would have shot before this point.]
.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Making a mess of things, and demanding thanks for it
Cops and other worthless government bullies can only make themselves seem useful by creating problems and getting in the way of you solving them.
Remove them and the problems they create, and you wouldn't believe you "need" them.
As they say, bullies of government break your leg, force others to pay for your crutches, and then tell you how grateful you should be that they were there to help you.
I'm not falling for it.
.
Remove them and the problems they create, and you wouldn't believe you "need" them.
As they say, bullies of government break your leg, force others to pay for your crutches, and then tell you how grateful you should be that they were there to help you.
I'm not falling for it.
.
Wednesday, August 05, 2015
Definitions based on feelings
Every word seems to have at least two opposing definitions. A definition preferred by those who love it, and one preferred by those who hate it.
See: Anarchy.
See: Socialism.
I'm not saying both definitions aren't 100% accurate- they may be. Just that, depending on how you feel about a subject, you will choose to use the "official" definition you prefer.
And, as long as you inform people which definition you are using, I have no problem with that.
.
See: Anarchy.
See: Socialism.
I'm not saying both definitions aren't 100% accurate- they may be. Just that, depending on how you feel about a subject, you will choose to use the "official" definition you prefer.
And, as long as you inform people which definition you are using, I have no problem with that.
.
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks
Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 3, 2015)
If you enjoy watching people flailing around over different ways to control each other, the past couple of weeks has probably been entertaining for you.
I'm talking about the conflicting reactions coming from Terribly Sincere People over a spate of recent events. It would be comedy gold if people didn't take these silly things so seriously and then use them against each other.
On one hand, you have people who hate a flag which flew for a few brief years over some slave states, continuing to worship a flag which flew over slave states before, during, and after the controversial flag became, quite literally, history. This triumphant federal flag continues to fly over expanded slavery even today.
People conveniently refuse to notice Lincoln didn't free one single slave, anywhere. Instead he enslaved everyone more or less equally. Regardless of which version of the story you believe, the Confederate States ended a relationship which was never supposed to be a "'til death" pact (the union would never have formed in the first place if it were) and were viciously told "No, you can't leave". This echoes an abusive spouse beating the one who tries to get out of the marriage, violently forcing them to stay.
Then, speaking of marriage, you have people celebrating being allowed to seek government permission to marry, when government never legitimately had the power to regulate marriage in the first place. The proper course would have been to recognize that fact and ditch the whole marriage license scam, rather than expanding it to include more people. Yes, I understand it is nice to not have bullies able to use "law" as their excuse for violating you, but the root problem is the bullies and their "laws", not the fact that their "laws" didn't cover everyone.
And you still have people working diligently to divide people of different "races", based on an evil murderer's acts which were supposedly inspired by the aforementioned Confederate flag, so we'll see each other as enemies instead of seeing who the real enemy is.
Bullies who want to tell you how you are allowed to live love when you focus on trivial things they choose for you to think about instead of seeing what really matters. If they can get you to hate other people based upon their symbols, their genes, or who they love, they can get you to ignore the fact if you exercise your Rightful Liberty, then, according to their rules, you are a criminal. Like a stage magician they get your attention with sparklies, then like a pickpocket, they steal your life, liberty, and all of your property.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 3, 2015)
If you enjoy watching people flailing around over different ways to control each other, the past couple of weeks has probably been entertaining for you.
I'm talking about the conflicting reactions coming from Terribly Sincere People over a spate of recent events. It would be comedy gold if people didn't take these silly things so seriously and then use them against each other.
On one hand, you have people who hate a flag which flew for a few brief years over some slave states, continuing to worship a flag which flew over slave states before, during, and after the controversial flag became, quite literally, history. This triumphant federal flag continues to fly over expanded slavery even today.
People conveniently refuse to notice Lincoln didn't free one single slave, anywhere. Instead he enslaved everyone more or less equally. Regardless of which version of the story you believe, the Confederate States ended a relationship which was never supposed to be a "'til death" pact (the union would never have formed in the first place if it were) and were viciously told "No, you can't leave". This echoes an abusive spouse beating the one who tries to get out of the marriage, violently forcing them to stay.
Then, speaking of marriage, you have people celebrating being allowed to seek government permission to marry, when government never legitimately had the power to regulate marriage in the first place. The proper course would have been to recognize that fact and ditch the whole marriage license scam, rather than expanding it to include more people. Yes, I understand it is nice to not have bullies able to use "law" as their excuse for violating you, but the root problem is the bullies and their "laws", not the fact that their "laws" didn't cover everyone.
And you still have people working diligently to divide people of different "races", based on an evil murderer's acts which were supposedly inspired by the aforementioned Confederate flag, so we'll see each other as enemies instead of seeing who the real enemy is.
Bullies who want to tell you how you are allowed to live love when you focus on trivial things they choose for you to think about instead of seeing what really matters. If they can get you to hate other people based upon their symbols, their genes, or who they love, they can get you to ignore the fact if you exercise your Rightful Liberty, then, according to their rules, you are a criminal. Like a stage magician they get your attention with sparklies, then like a pickpocket, they steal your life, liberty, and all of your property.
.
Socialism
Frequently when I mention socialism in a negative way, someone will complain. Recently, I said something about socialism, equating it with statism, whether it was the pope, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Republicans, or some other type of statist promoting it.
Specifically:
Democrats, Republicans, and anyone else who believes "society" is a thing superior to the individual is a socialist.
If you believe in "laws", "national borders", "public schools", "taxes", "gun control", marriage licensing, drivers licenses, or any other nonsense which violates Rightful Liberty, you are a socialist of some sort.
Statism equals socialism. And it is slavery by another name.
Someone objected. I was accused of "rewriting the dictionary". He also said:
"Socialism has a particular definition that fits specific criteria. Not all statism is socialism."
OK... let's work this out.
Socialism's "particular definition":
nounI see nothing in that definition which would go against what I said. "Communities" can not own property just by virtue of it being in their area. To own property you either need to buy it from the rightful owner, be gifted with it, or homestead it. Sure, if a "community" joins together, voluntarily, to buy property- and no one is forced to participate against their will- you would have non-aggressive socialism. But that's not the reality of how it comes about.
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Instead, socialists believe they are entitled to control your property whether you agree or not. That control might come in the form of outright theft of your property- especially if it is seen as a "means of production". It often manifests as "taxation". Or it might come in the form of sneakier theft, such as "regulations" which control how you choose to use your property (including your body and life). It might come in the form of licenses which limit what you are permitted to do with your life, liberty, or property- sometimes based upon the flimsy excuse of "public property access". Like roads.
When you choose to opt out, you are attacked. Robbed, molested, kidnapped, and maybe even murdered.
Now, let's look at the claim that "not all statism is socialism".
Every form of statism takes private property from the individual owners, exactly as I laid out above. It's simply what statists do. There couldn't be statism without socialism, even if there could hypothetically be socialism of a voluntary sort. Statism gives the stolen property (stolen by "taxation", regulation, red tape, or whatever) to The State, which is claimed to be "the community as a whole" in just about all cases of "gentle statism". The more brutal forms of statism don't even try to claim government is the people.
All statism is socialism, but not all socialism is necessarily statist in nature. Just most of it, and all of it when it isn't by unanimous consent.
Socialism sucks, but as long as you do it voluntarily, without forcing anyone to participate, and have no penalties for opting out, go right ahead. I'll still choose Liberty.
.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Has the orgy pit been scraped and buttered?
Because the orgy is coming.
You might call it "the election", but what it is is an orgy of socialism. People are allowed to choose who will claim ownership of their life, liberty, and property. Liberty and freedom aren't even on the ballot.
And, yet, most people are excited about it, fighting over which "floater" is the best choice to run your life.
You life doesn't need to be run by anyone but you.
Sure, no matter what you choose to do about this orgy, some floater is going to be declared "the winner" for every contest. But do you really want to get your hands dirty picking the floater? How can you choose a favorite deadly disease? Who's your favorite slave master?
There is one socialist getting a lot of attention for admitting he is a socialist. The rest may deny it, but they are socialists, too. They all believe "society" is entitled to your property- they just may bicker over which segment of "society" deserves it more.
Well, this orgy holds nothing that appeals to me, so I'll sit it out. Enjoy the buttery slipping and sliding, though.
_
Still looking for feedback.
.
You might call it "the election", but what it is is an orgy of socialism. People are allowed to choose who will claim ownership of their life, liberty, and property. Liberty and freedom aren't even on the ballot.
And, yet, most people are excited about it, fighting over which "floater" is the best choice to run your life.
You life doesn't need to be run by anyone but you.
Sure, no matter what you choose to do about this orgy, some floater is going to be declared "the winner" for every contest. But do you really want to get your hands dirty picking the floater? How can you choose a favorite deadly disease? Who's your favorite slave master?
There is one socialist getting a lot of attention for admitting he is a socialist. The rest may deny it, but they are socialists, too. They all believe "society" is entitled to your property- they just may bicker over which segment of "society" deserves it more.
Well, this orgy holds nothing that appeals to me, so I'll sit it out. Enjoy the buttery slipping and sliding, though.
_
Still looking for feedback.
.
Sunday, August 02, 2015
Latest issue of SI
I know a lot of people who would probably like a gift subscription- or would be offended by one. I forget which...
Articles include :
Click for embiggenization
Articles include :
"Voting: Do it Harder"
"The Pledge of Allegiance- Does it Make You Cry, Too?"
"How Government Invented Roads"
"Count the Ways Laws Keep You Alive"
"Government's Greatest Gift- The Internet- and Regulating it"
and
"Utopia is Just One More Law Away".
.
Dealing with strong willed, stupid childish people
Statists are like strong willed children. Pat them on the head, wink at them and their stubborn insistence on clinging to their insane notions, and then go your own way, leaving them to do the same. As long as they don't try to stop you.
Unfortunately, they are also like somewhat stupid children.
They are scared, so they dream up fantastical scenarios of horror. They don't understand your reality-based reassurances, so they get angry. They don't understand the words you use, so they assign their own meaning to the words to reinforce their fears and superstitions. They throw tantrums because they don't understand and they don't want to listen to those who know better.
I suppose this means I should have a lot of patience with them- being like strong willed, stupid children and all. And I think I usually do.
But, beyond patience, what might actually get through to them? To insert a germ of reality into their brains, where it might eventually grow?
What approach would work best with someone like that? Other than simply killing them all, I mean.
.
Unfortunately, they are also like somewhat stupid children.
They are scared, so they dream up fantastical scenarios of horror. They don't understand your reality-based reassurances, so they get angry. They don't understand the words you use, so they assign their own meaning to the words to reinforce their fears and superstitions. They throw tantrums because they don't understand and they don't want to listen to those who know better.
I suppose this means I should have a lot of patience with them- being like strong willed, stupid children and all. And I think I usually do.
But, beyond patience, what might actually get through to them? To insert a germ of reality into their brains, where it might eventually grow?
What approach would work best with someone like that? Other than simply killing them all, I mean.
.
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Decisions, decisions...
I'm trying to decide whether to continue paying to keep KentForLiberty.com online.
The quarterly bill is due the middle of this month, and this month has a lot of extra expenses I need money for. I'll need to decide before the bill comes due*.
I have reproduced all the pages here at the blog, so they wouldn't exactly be lost, but all the links to pages on the website which I have put different places over the years would be dead- including those in all the blog posts here. Plus, the link to this blog would revert back to what it was before it was "blog.kentforliberty.com", which would cause more trouble and confusion.
I average just under 100 visits per day at KentForLiberty.com.
Is it worth keeping online? I don't really know.
Weigh in with your thoughts.
*The cost has been covered- thank you. So it will stay online for at least another 6 months. But, I would still like any thoughts as to whether the website is worth it.
.
The quarterly bill is due the middle of this month, and this month has a lot of extra expenses I need money for. I'll need to decide before the bill comes due*.
I have reproduced all the pages here at the blog, so they wouldn't exactly be lost, but all the links to pages on the website which I have put different places over the years would be dead- including those in all the blog posts here. Plus, the link to this blog would revert back to what it was before it was "blog.kentforliberty.com", which would cause more trouble and confusion.
I average just under 100 visits per day at KentForLiberty.com.
Is it worth keeping online? I don't really know.
Weigh in with your thoughts.
*The cost has been covered- thank you. So it will stay online for at least another 6 months. But, I would still like any thoughts as to whether the website is worth it.
.
Nip it in the bud, or look where it leads
I've been watching the show "Hell on Wheels" on Netflix. It's pretty violent, but mostly enjoyable- although there are several nasty characters I want to see die horribly.
Anyway, an episode I watched recently really got my hackles up. In it a very small group of "government" shows up and kills (hangs) a guy for shooting a card cheat.
This government is outnumbered, no one present (other than them) believes the guy deserves what they are doing to him, but everyone just stands by and lets them get away with it. The "execution" could have been stopped if even one person had the courage or principles to stop it.
Sure, it's fiction, but it illustrates the problem pretty accurately: The Tiny Dot ruling everyone else.
I just think that if every time some bullies moved in and said "We are government- you are now going to obey us" they had been shot (speared, knifed, clubbed, eaten, pushed over a cliff, etc.) for their act of aggression (make no mistake, attempting to establish a government IS an act of aggression), this cancer now eating away at civilization would never have gotten a toehold.
It's now too late to nip it in the bud, and that's going to cause a lot of trouble in the future.
.
Anyway, an episode I watched recently really got my hackles up. In it a very small group of "government" shows up and kills (hangs) a guy for shooting a card cheat.
This government is outnumbered, no one present (other than them) believes the guy deserves what they are doing to him, but everyone just stands by and lets them get away with it. The "execution" could have been stopped if even one person had the courage or principles to stop it.
Sure, it's fiction, but it illustrates the problem pretty accurately: The Tiny Dot ruling everyone else.
I just think that if every time some bullies moved in and said "We are government- you are now going to obey us" they had been shot (speared, knifed, clubbed, eaten, pushed over a cliff, etc.) for their act of aggression (make no mistake, attempting to establish a government IS an act of aggression), this cancer now eating away at civilization would never have gotten a toehold.
It's now too late to nip it in the bud, and that's going to cause a lot of trouble in the future.
.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Self trust
I have seen many pathetic excuses for anti-gun "laws" and attitudes, but one of the most pitiful is the "I don't trust myself" excuse.
I've known people who said they "shouldn't be allowed" to drive or carry a gun, because they get too angry and would hurt someone.
Seems like in this case, it isn't the car or gun that is the problem- it is the anger issues and the lack of self control to avoid aggressively acting out on that anger. It's also pretty clear to me that if a person can't be trusted, the tool they possess doesn't matter. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with a car, or a hammer, or a job, or around kids, or... well, they can't be trusted- period.
However, what I have usually found is that when one of those "untrustworthy" people actually starts carrying a gun, the self control takes root and starts to grow. Expect nothing, and that's what you'll usually get. Expect responsibility, and it has a chance to develop. The hothead either learns to control it, or they end up in "legal trouble" or dead. With dead being the preferable outcome in that case.
I'm sure not everyone would develop self control and responsibility, though. Maybe even in those hopeless cases it would be good for those people to arm themselves and let the problem solve itself. Darwinization works- it's just that, unfortunately, the irresponsible among us do sometimes take some decent people with them. Which is why I learned to avoid certain people.
.
I've known people who said they "shouldn't be allowed" to drive or carry a gun, because they get too angry and would hurt someone.
Seems like in this case, it isn't the car or gun that is the problem- it is the anger issues and the lack of self control to avoid aggressively acting out on that anger. It's also pretty clear to me that if a person can't be trusted, the tool they possess doesn't matter. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with a car, or a hammer, or a job, or around kids, or... well, they can't be trusted- period.
However, what I have usually found is that when one of those "untrustworthy" people actually starts carrying a gun, the self control takes root and starts to grow. Expect nothing, and that's what you'll usually get. Expect responsibility, and it has a chance to develop. The hothead either learns to control it, or they end up in "legal trouble" or dead. With dead being the preferable outcome in that case.
I'm sure not everyone would develop self control and responsibility, though. Maybe even in those hopeless cases it would be good for those people to arm themselves and let the problem solve itself. Darwinization works- it's just that, unfortunately, the irresponsible among us do sometimes take some decent people with them. Which is why I learned to avoid certain people.
.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
"Soft statists" and the irredeemable statists
I have nothing but contempt for "government" and those who support it.
Well, that's not quite true.
I have a lot of pity for most "soft statists"- the people who are just statists because no one has ever expected more of them. The ones who are what they are because it's the "culture" they grew up in, and no one ever pointed out to them how inconsistent and hypocritical it is. And how it doesn't work because it can't work- new "laws" are clear evidence of this. They can be reached, with opportunity, time, and patience.
I also have pity for elderly statists who can't seem to change a lifetime of indoctrination at this late date. They can't be reached, and do a lot of damage, but their time is running out.
My contempt is reserved for those who have been shown the nature of statism and still won't reject the evil. They've been shown a better way and still refuse to grow up. Those who look for any objection they can muster to keep stealing and committing acts of enforcement- or asking others to commit those acts of their behalf. And, yes, I realize a lot of it is grounded in cowardice- due to them being afraid to take responsibility for their own life. Or imagining horrible outcomes of Rightful Liberty while glossing over horrible outcomes of statism which are occurring all around them right now- no speculation required.
So, contempt and pity for statists. Pity for those never given the chance to reject statism, and contempt for those who have been shown better and still refuse to grow up.
.
Well, that's not quite true.
I have a lot of pity for most "soft statists"- the people who are just statists because no one has ever expected more of them. The ones who are what they are because it's the "culture" they grew up in, and no one ever pointed out to them how inconsistent and hypocritical it is. And how it doesn't work because it can't work- new "laws" are clear evidence of this. They can be reached, with opportunity, time, and patience.
I also have pity for elderly statists who can't seem to change a lifetime of indoctrination at this late date. They can't be reached, and do a lot of damage, but their time is running out.
My contempt is reserved for those who have been shown the nature of statism and still won't reject the evil. They've been shown a better way and still refuse to grow up. Those who look for any objection they can muster to keep stealing and committing acts of enforcement- or asking others to commit those acts of their behalf. And, yes, I realize a lot of it is grounded in cowardice- due to them being afraid to take responsibility for their own life. Or imagining horrible outcomes of Rightful Liberty while glossing over horrible outcomes of statism which are occurring all around them right now- no speculation required.
So, contempt and pity for statists. Pity for those never given the chance to reject statism, and contempt for those who have been shown better and still refuse to grow up.
.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Not in best interest to be disarmed
Not in best interest to be disarmed
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 26, 2015)
Once again a group of disarmed people has fallen victim to a murderer. Peaceful, friendly people attending church, while convinced by "authority" to be sitting ducks, welcomed the murderer into their midst and were gunned down. Words can't convey how evil that premeditated act was.
The blood dancing monsters of the various "gun control" groups, more honestly referred to as "mass murder cheerleaders"- and governments- have blamed the people who didn't commit the murder, and sought to violate the innocent for the hideous acts of a thug. The president lies by claiming this doesn't happen in other countries to convince people to demand to be disarmed.
The truth is an attack can come anywhere at any time. Even where you feel safe. Those attacks are more likely to be attempted- and to succeed- in places where people have been forbidden from carrying guns.
Yes, that's right. Every single "no guns" sign you see, such as at the mall here, is going to be completely ignored by anyone whose mind is made up to murder. If obeyed at all, it will only be obeyed by people who have no murderous intent. People who are already plotting to break the supreme law and commit murder won't hesitate breaking a rule forbidding guns on premises. Even if there are metal detectors at the door, the bad guy will just go in shooting rather than waiting until he is inside.
A "no guns" sign or policy only weeds out the people who might stand between a mass murder and his targets. Instead of enhancing safety, it sacrifices it on the altar of appearances. A "no guns" sign is a warning that your life doesn't matter at all to the property owners.
Anti-gun mouthpieces blame the guns. Racists blame race problems. The superstitious blame a flag. Some even blame the victims for not ignoring the rule and arming themselves anyway. The observant notice the medications the vast majority of mass murderers have been prescribed. Too few blame the murderer.
I am glad to see some people responding to this latest attack by promising if something like this is attempted again, they will shoot back. Maybe they remember Luke 22:36-- "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Today's sword is the personal firearm. It's terrible it took this attack to inspire them to take responsibility for their own safety, but better late than never.
No one ever disarms you with your best interests in mind. Anyone wanting to disarm you, under any pretext, is your mortal enemy. If you cooperate you are only offering yourself as a sacrifice to their scheme.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for June 26, 2015)
Once again a group of disarmed people has fallen victim to a murderer. Peaceful, friendly people attending church, while convinced by "authority" to be sitting ducks, welcomed the murderer into their midst and were gunned down. Words can't convey how evil that premeditated act was.
The blood dancing monsters of the various "gun control" groups, more honestly referred to as "mass murder cheerleaders"- and governments- have blamed the people who didn't commit the murder, and sought to violate the innocent for the hideous acts of a thug. The president lies by claiming this doesn't happen in other countries to convince people to demand to be disarmed.
The truth is an attack can come anywhere at any time. Even where you feel safe. Those attacks are more likely to be attempted- and to succeed- in places where people have been forbidden from carrying guns.
Yes, that's right. Every single "no guns" sign you see, such as at the mall here, is going to be completely ignored by anyone whose mind is made up to murder. If obeyed at all, it will only be obeyed by people who have no murderous intent. People who are already plotting to break the supreme law and commit murder won't hesitate breaking a rule forbidding guns on premises. Even if there are metal detectors at the door, the bad guy will just go in shooting rather than waiting until he is inside.
A "no guns" sign or policy only weeds out the people who might stand between a mass murder and his targets. Instead of enhancing safety, it sacrifices it on the altar of appearances. A "no guns" sign is a warning that your life doesn't matter at all to the property owners.
Anti-gun mouthpieces blame the guns. Racists blame race problems. The superstitious blame a flag. Some even blame the victims for not ignoring the rule and arming themselves anyway. The observant notice the medications the vast majority of mass murderers have been prescribed. Too few blame the murderer.
I am glad to see some people responding to this latest attack by promising if something like this is attempted again, they will shoot back. Maybe they remember Luke 22:36-- "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Today's sword is the personal firearm. It's terrible it took this attack to inspire them to take responsibility for their own safety, but better late than never.
No one ever disarms you with your best interests in mind. Anyone wanting to disarm you, under any pretext, is your mortal enemy. If you cooperate you are only offering yourself as a sacrifice to their scheme.
.
"Mandatory" is the deal-breaker
A while back I signed an online petition against mandatory vaccinations.
I am not "anti-vaccines"; I am anti-mandatory vaccines. And just about anything else, too.
Well, today, the "White House" staff sent a response to all the petition's signatories.
.
Here it is (feel free to skim- I did):
A Response to Your Petition on VaccinesThank you for signing this We the People petition on mandatory vaccines.The evidence about vaccines' safety and benefits is both strong and consistent -- but don't just take our word for it. We reached out to the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy -- the Nation's Doctor -- who wanted to respond to you personally on this issue.Here's what he had to say:We all want our children to be safe and healthy, and nothing is more important than that -- and the United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history.When it comes to laws regarding vaccines, there are two important things to keep in mind.First, states and localities determine these kinds of vaccine requirements and exemption policies. Right now, all states require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance, and there are some employers, such as health care facilities and day cares, that require vaccination to protect their employees as well as their customers (for example, hospitalized patients, people living in long-term health care facilities, and infants attending day care).Second, the science is quite clear that vaccines are vital to our fight to quell and eventually eliminate highly contagious diseases. Vaccines undergo rigorous scientific study and testing for both safety and efficacy before they are approved for use. Following licensure and use among the U.S. population, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration continue to monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.Over the years, billions of people have received vaccines, which have, in turn, saved hundreds of millions of lives in the United States and around the world. For example, prior to the development of the measles vaccine, many children died in the United States as a result of measles and many more were hospitalized each year. After the introduction of the measles vaccine, the number of infections and deaths dropped precipitously.While the vast majority of people in the United States get vaccinated, there are some communities where vaccination rates are low, and this can increase the risk for vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. If we continue to see growing pockets of people who are not vaccinated, measles and other contagious diseases will regain a foothold in our country and spread.Many of the most contagious illnesses can be prevented thanks to vaccines -- and as a result, one of the most important things people can do to protect themselves and their children is to get vaccinated.It's also important to note that not vaccinating your children doesn't just affect your own kids. It affects your neighbors, your children's classmates, family members -- your community. Some people cannot get immunized for medical reasons (for example, due to an allergic reaction or compromised immune system), a small percentage of people won't develop immunity even though they receive a vaccine, and babies are too young for certain vaccines. These children and adults rely on the rest of us to be vaccinated in order to protect them from exposure to life-threatening illnesses. The recent death due to measles of a Washington state woman with a suppressed immune system illustrates the importance of immunizing as many people as possible to provide a high level of community protection against measles.We encourage all parents to talk to their doctor or health care professional about vaccinating their children. There are cases in which some specific children will have a medical reason to delay or not get certain vaccines, and your doctor will be able to help guide you in these matters.We all have a role to play. Vaccinations are one of the great triumphs of science and public policy, and we should make their benefits available to everyone.As the Surgeon General makes clear, "Vaccines are safe and effective ways to prevent disease and death. They are necessary. They save lives."And as the President himself said earlier this year, "There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."If you're concerned about your health, the science is clear: Vaccinate yourself and your children.For more information about vaccination, please visit www.vaccines.gov.
Well, isn't that special.
Against my better judgment, I replied (not that I believe it will be read):
So basically no one on your side is smart enough to figure out that the issue isn't vaccines, it's MANDATORY vaccines.I would be opposed to mandatory food.No one has the right (and certainly not the "authority" since "authority" is nothing but a superstition) to control the body of another. It's really sad that someone you call "The Nation's Doctor" isn't smart enough to understand that. No thank you- I'll find my own doctor. One who puts healthcare over politics.
Edit- Later:
Hello,Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent.To contact the White House, please visit:Thank you.
So, you set up an email address, it gets "too much" email, so you ignore it all. Nice. Idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)