Government real chickens here

Government real chickens here

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 17, 2015)

Once upon a time, responsible people raised their own food — gardens and livestock — at home.

Then bad guys who found it too dangerous to be roving bullies formed governments so they could control and loot the production of others, usually in return for claimed protection from others exactly like them, in relative safety. Short-sighted people allowed those bullies to live.

Over time people forgot the origins of government. Governing became so common that people stopped seeing the evil and accepted the bullies and their violations as normal— "how it has always been done"— and otherwise good people began to join the ranks. As soon as they did, however, they were no longer really good, since you can't govern without violating life, liberty, and property, and all government is financed through theft; euphemistically called "taxation".

Most of the bullies started seeing themselves as benefactors— or even the source— of civilization, rather than its enemy. People became addicted to the bribes in the form of jobs and entitlements handed out by government, and became emotionally invested in its existence. Stockholm Syndrome thrived as the violations multiplied.

Among those various violations of life, liberty, and property were "laws" which in some localities outlawed gardens and livestock. In other words, irresponsibility was mandated and enforced.

No real law can forbid such a fundamental human activity, just as no legitimate law can regulate weaponry or self defense in any way. In fact, on a basic level, raising your own food is self defense.

Some of these "laws" forbid front yard gardens. Some dictate what kinds of plants you can grow, often spending billions of dollars faking data to convince people that certain plants are too dangerous to be allowed.

Many places impose rules forbidding even the most basic of livestock: the common chicken. Throughout recent history where there were people, there have been chickens. If you believe anyone has a right to forbid their neighbors raising chickens you'll find a way to justify anything.

When the same bullies who believe they can criminalize chicken raising by their slaves— pardon me, "residents"— keep fowl on their own questionably claimed property, you have a severe case of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.

It's amazing to me what people will tolerate— or even support— once they have been fooled into thinking they need someone else to run their life.

Responsible people still raise their own food-- gardens or livestock or both-- regardless of the "law". Bullies still pretend they have this magical, imaginary quality they call "authority" to somehow trump human rights. Responsible people see the bullies for what they are. Be responsible. Demand they leave the chicken keepers alone. Forever.

.

The biggest danger for travelers

My son recently came for a visit. An incident along the way caused me to post a somewhat cryptic blog entry, which, since he is back home, I now feel safe to explain.

On his way here, just past Oklahoma City, heading west, he saw flashing lights behind his car. He pulled over. The cop informed him that he hadn't been the "required distance" behind a truck in front of him (so I guess that means the cop claimed my son was driving like a cop, since most tailgaters I see are driving those clown cars with the flashing lights on top).

The cop gave him a warning, then as he was "letting him go", noticed he seemed "nervous". Not sure who wouldn't be nervous while in the presence of a member of the Blue Line Gang- a gang which encourages its members to rob, rape, and murder, and then helps them get away with it. I'm sure just about anyone in the presence of those vermin is nervous.

Based upon this "inexplicable" nervousness (haha), the badged tax junkie asked to search the vehicle. Consent was not given. So, the cop called in the drug dog. At the secret signal, the dog "alerted" and the cops took this as "legal justification" to search the vehicle.

No "drugs" were found, but the self-described "pro-gun, conservative" cops were disturbed by the guns my son was bringing along.

So, the cop forced my son to dial me, and took the phone where my son couldn't overhear (he was in their vehicle, in the front seat).

This is where I became involved.

The cop identified himself as Oklahoma Highway Patrol (or "State police", I forget exactly which). Turns out they were actually the narcotics goons, but cops are allowed to lie. He asked if I was expecting a visit from my son. At this point I was terrified there had been a fatal accident, and my mind was racing. I said I was. He said he had pulled my son over for a traffic violation. The cop then asked if I knew my son was bringing firearms. I said I did. (I didn't explicitly know, but my son always brings guns). He said when questioned, my son initially stated he had no firearms with him- I never asked my son if this was true or not, because it's no one's business, and questions like that don't deserve answers. (Yes, I know: Don't talk to cops!)

Now I knew my son was OK- if he could get out of the hands of the Blue Line Gang. My anger started growing. I kept my cool, though. It is a very good thing that my thoughts (usually) get filtered through my brain before coming out my mouth.

So the cop said he just wanted to make sure because "you can't be too careful these days". Then he paused. And waited. And waited some more. I suspect he was waiting for me to slavishly agree with his silly assertion. I didn't. So after a long, awkward pause, he said he supposed I would see my son in a few hours. I said "OK".

Then, after hanging up, I got madder still. I realized that had my son been "Black" or "Brown", his risk of being murdered on the side of the road would have grown exponentially. And copsuckers would have said he deserved it.

It is completely unacceptable that these pirates are permitted to infest the roadways and molest travelers. It's getting to be that the risk of a cop encounter is replacing the flat tire as the road trouble you simply have to plan to put up with.

I (still) hate cops.

.

Back to Screwel?

My appreciation for education explains my opposition to "public" schooling.

Invariably, someone will point out that they went to "public" school, and got a good education. Just as invariably, the person making this claim is a statist- which is exactly the flaw in their claim.

You wouldn't expect to let the Taliban school your child without indoctrinating him, so why is it such a radical observation that when any government controls schooling, the result is a person indoctrinated into statism?

.

Keep your own house in order

Yes, trying to establish a "government" is evil. There's just no excuse for it- at least not an ethical one which holds up under examination.

But, what if you "really, really WANT a government"?

Does anyone have the right to form a government? Only as applies to their own life- not to others. "Govern yourself" is another way of saying self control. If your governing is imposed on others, you have become an aggressor and a thief. You have become the bad guy. And since you can't establish a "State" of one, without violating someone else, there is no possible ethical way of establishing a State.

No one has a right to establish a government or a State over others. The "right to rule" can't exist.

Keep your own life in order, and defend it as necessary. If you are able and willing, offer to help others with their defense. But, don't be part of the problem. Don't govern or ask anyone to do so on your behalf.

.

Trying to establish a government is evil

There is no more hideously evil act than trying to establish a government against a free society. Or anywhere. Some other actions are equally evil, but none more so.

And make no mistake- every "government" is against a (possibly hypothetical) free society. You have freedom- and civilization- in reverse proportion to the amount of "governing" imposed on your society. Some of the effects of "government" can be mistaken for civilization, but if that's all that gives the illusion of civilization, then you have no civilization.

Sure, if everyone in a society is evil, then less freedom might be good. But where do you get these people who will govern? And how do you keep them from becoming evil? (You can't) At best you are switching out one evil for another.

In this case, "best" isn't good enough. It isn't good at all. In some cases self defense or escape are the only reasonable options. Establishing a "government" never is.

.

"Authority", evil, and Philip Zimbardo

In a recent Skeptic.com email I read an interview with Philip Zimbardo, famous for the Stanford Prison Experiment, and what it taught some people about the dangers of believing in "authority" and such.

Using the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is also the subject of a movie coming out soon, he discusses whether we all have the potential to be evil. I tend to believe we do- I can feel the stirrings of it inside me under certain circumstances.

But, how exactly does Zimbardo define "evil"?

Zimbardo defines it in The Lucifer Effect thusly: “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.”

So he goes even further than I have when I say evil is: "any act which intentionally harms any person who isn't currently initiating force or violating private property; someone who does not deserve to be harmed at this moment". I approve of his inclusion of those using "authority" to influence others to be evil under the umbrella of evil.

He talks about one of the Abu Ghraib monsters:

In this model, Zimbardo told me that before he went to Iraq, Chip Frederick was an all-American patriot, “a regular church-going kind of guy who raises the American flag in front of his home each day, gets goose bumps and tears up when he listens to our National Anthem, believes in American values of democracy and freedom, and joined the army to defend those values.”

I don't see anything good there. Instead I see the seeds of evil in almost every morsel of the above description. I see nothing in Frederick that recognizes Rightful Liberty and human rights. Instead I see a person deeply brainwashed by a religion (statism) and willing to do horribly evil acts on its behalf. That he became a monster doesn't surprise me in the least.

Yes, we all probably have the capacity for evil behavior, but some superstitions make it more likely to happen. Some make it almost inevitable.

.

The years-long do-si-do of maturing into zero aggression

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.

.

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.
.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.]

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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":

noun
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.

 I 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.

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.

.

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.

.

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...

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.

.