Taking flag doesn’t stop beliefs

Taking flag doesn’t stop beliefs

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 24, 2015)

Silly fights over the Confederate flag — actually the Confederate Navy Jack- are still being waged weeks after an evil mass murderer was seen holding it in photographs. The real issue, aggression, gets pushed aside by a non-issue: a flag.

Some people who fly the Confederate flag are undoubtedly racists, as are some who fly any flag. Many aren't racists, but fly it because of love for "The South" today. For them, the Confederacy may have nothing to do with it. Some who fly the flag are showing support for separation from a tyrannical government- I agree with them.

I never owned a Confederate flag. I never felt the desire to have one-- until they started being banned and stigmatized.

I was never much interested in the War of Northern Aggression, other than recognizing it as the second American Revolution; the one the wrong side won.

No, it wasn't "about slavery", although many tried mightily to make it so after it began. It appears they succeeded. Government schools promoting the winning side's propaganda have done a good job rewriting history and making people believe ending slavery was what the war was about. I'm vehemently opposed to slavery of every kind, which is why I'm libertarian.

It also wasn't a civil war, by definition, since the Confederates weren't fighting the Federals for control of the US government, but had divorced the abusive union and set up their own household. The North forced them back into an unhealthy relationship against their will. Again, "public schooling" slants the narrative to benefit the winning side.

But so what if racists fly Confederate flags? If you equate Confederate flags with racists, you should encourage racists to fly them openly. Don't you want racists advertising themselves as such so you'll know who they are?  How will you know who needs to be ostracized if you ban or socially suppress the flags? (Oh, wait, that might be illegal and the state might force you to bake a same sex, Confederate wedding cake against your will if you refuse to do business with someone who hates you!)

Personally I like when those who want to violate me display symbols to let me know what they think of me. If the flag gains popularity among non-racists, then you still win by taking away its sting.

The only real wrong is using violence against someone who isn't physically harming anyone else, nor violating anyone's private property. Ideas and beliefs can't be banned- even if they are ridiculous. Making them illegal or dangerous to hold only reinforces them. You get more of what you try to forcibly stomp out.

.

Statist words

You can tell a statist by his words.

Such as, using "The sandbox" to refer to wherever in the Middle East the US military is invading and violating this week. I'm sure the statists had a name for Vietnam, too.

"Our" when followed by "president", "congress"/"congressman", "representatives", "mayor", "police", "government". "Our" is often worse than "we" or "us".

"Rule of Law" is a big red flag. The word "illegal" is related.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a statist hymn. It is recited and revered by statists.

There are other words which set off alarms, but they may just be false alarms. Words like "patriot", "duty", "service", and "brothers". And "fair", concern, and justice. With these words, context is everything.

Words not only mean things, they have meaning behind their meaning. They can tell you a lot about the person using them. Pay attention.

.

Democracy vs Republic

Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Republic: Two wolves* and a lamb write a constitution saying everyone's rights must be respected within certain parameters. The wolves, pretending the conditions have been met, eat the sheep in accordance with the "law".

*Added: Of course, it could just as easily be one wolf and two sheep.

.

Want to turn me into a statist?

You don't appreciate something until you have to do without.

My experience making fire with primitive methods has made me appreciate lighters (even if I feel guilty when I use them- like I'm cheating).

Having to find and prepare my own water has made me appreciate tap water and bottled water.

Eating weeds in the wilds has made me appreciate fast food.

The lesson I get from that is that it is hard to truly appreciate something until you have to do without it.

So, if you truly want me to appreciate The State, keep it far, far away from me until I come seeking it. I won't ever believe it is necessary while it is being shoved down my throat and rubbed in my face. Do you believe I will starve for The State if deprived of its attentions and "services"? Let's give it a try!

.

Please remember!

People's expectations have really withered.

I guess if you are accustomed to daily torture, slightly less torture is an improvement.

But it still isn't ideal.

People who live in America, under the bullies of the United States, have such low expectations of freedom or liberty that they feel grateful to be "allowed" to buy a gun, get a prescription without jumping through too many hoops, get through a "check point" without too much trouble, or board a plane without a strip search.

That's not liberty.

People have forgotten what Rightful Liberty even looks like.

I spend my time trying to remind them- or show them if they have nothing of it to remember.

.

The Odd Beliefs of statists

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Blah blah blah your president blah blah blah..."

"Excuse me, but I don't have a president."

"Sure you do, whether you admit it or not."

"How?"

"Blah blah blah political process, blah blah consent of the governed, blah blah blah even if you don't vote, it is a vote, blah blah..."

"I don't believe in any of those superstitious beliefs."

"It doesn't matter, you are partially responsible for whoever is elected president because of blah blah blah..."

"Well, in that case, you are responsible for President Vladimir Putin, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong-un, and all the other head bullies around the world.
What? You say you didn't vote for them? Hmmm... I thought you were arguing that it didn't matter whether I play the political game or not, I am still responsible for whichever bully claims to be 'in charge'..."

Recently I was talking to someone when he uttered those words: "your president". Why he is my president and not the speaker's president I have no idea. Perhaps it is because the speaker is "conservative" and I am not. Still, Obama is much closer in ideology to the speaker than to me.

In reality, the conversation got derailed by someone else right after he told me, I do have a president whether I admit it or not, so I didn't have the chance to dig deeper into that bizarre delusion. And I'm not one to keep going back to a topic once its moment has passed.

But, it really got me thinking. If I have a president, that would mean I also have a pope. And an Ayatollah. But I don't. And neither do you, unless you explicitly consent.

Statists harbor such odd, magical, beliefs.

.

"Race" or culture?

I know I say sexist things. I honestly believe there are obvious differences between the sexes. Neither is "better", but they are different. And both have their own problems.

I may sometimes say "racist" things.

I don't know if there are real differences between the "races"- or if "race" is even an actual thing. I suspect what most people call "racial" differences are actually differences in culture.

There are definitely cultural differences, and some cultures are simply better than others. You can tell by how they look upon aggression and theft. Statism is a degenerate culture which cuts across all other cultural lines.

I don't concern myself with anything about you other than how you treat others. Do you live by the Zero Aggression Principle? Do you respect the property of others? That's enough- the minimum- to be a decent person. You can stop there and I'll have no problems with you- nor you with me. You might go above and beyond, and if so, I sing your praises.

Your sex, gender, "race", skin color, preferences, sexuality, hobbies, kinks, loyalties, job, or anything else are secondary to that one important thing: do you violate others? None of those things are any of my business unless you make them my business. None of those things can justify violating others. There is simply no excuse.

If your culture "makes" you violate others, I have a problem with your "culture", and I would like to see it changed or eliminated. If you use your "culture" as justification for violating others I would like to see you change or be eliminated. Through acts of self defense- at the scene of the attack. I really have no pity.

.

Safety for the aggressors?

If I should be concerned about "officer safety"- that silly belief which causes so much innocent death- shouldn't I be just as concerned about rapist safety?

If I can't ("legally") carry a gun near cops, due to their cowardice and fear of being shot (in self-defense, no doubt), does this mean rapists also deserve to do their "job" without fear?

Many statists apparently believe so. That's the basis of all those anti-gun "laws". Safety for the bad guys, at the expense of the decent people.

.

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.

.