If you can back your opinion up with facts and examples, it ceases to be "just an opinion".
If you can't back up your opinion with facts and examples, it remains "just an opinion".
Not all opinions are equally valid. Some are not valid at all.
Most opinions are neither right nor wrong. Red cars aren't better than blue cars. Chocolate isn't better than vanilla. Star Wars isn't the best movie, nor is Firefly the best TV series. My personal opinions on those matters are my opinions, and don't have any foundation in reality. No matter how strongly I believe them, and no matter how real those opinions are to me.
But the initiation of force is not your right. It's not "just an opinion". Your contrary opinions don't change the fact.
"Laws" violate people. States are harmful. Prohibition is devastating to civilization. Anti-gun policies KILL. Those are facts which can be- and have been- backed up by volumes of examples and history. You may have a differing opinion- and that's your right- but your opinion would be wrong. It is counter to reality.
If you're OK with that, then don't worry about it. Go your own way, think what you think, do what you do.
.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Thinking- too much trouble?
It bothers me that people don't want to think.
Even if they come to conclusions opposite to mine, as long as they can explain why they reached that conclusion I can respect that they gave it thought.
But so many don't want to think, don't want to show their mental work, and then want to claim their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's "opinions" (which are often not actually opinions).
Why do people not like to think?
.
Even if they come to conclusions opposite to mine, as long as they can explain why they reached that conclusion I can respect that they gave it thought.
But so many don't want to think, don't want to show their mental work, and then want to claim their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's "opinions" (which are often not actually opinions).
Why do people not like to think?
.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Troublemaker neighbors
A new family has moved into the neighborhood. I see trouble on the horizon.
This family has an indeterminate number of kids- somewhere between 3 and 5. Mostly pre-teen, it appears. And the kids have no respect for property. At least, no respect for anyone else's property. I have seen them rummaging through 2 neighbors' outdoor things. Including being under one neighbor's car port- riding the exercise bike.
The kids roam wherever they feel like, doing whatever they decide to do, without any thought of property lines.
This new family also doesn't understand how the dumpster works- tossing bags of trash near the dumpster (which wasn't even near full) rather than in it. Then the bags got ripped open by dogs and the contents scattered all over another neighbor's back yard. I picked it all up for her.
My next door neighbor is much more confrontational than I. She has already said she will tell them that behavior is not going to be tolerated in this neighborhood. And I believe her.
Apparently they are buying the house. Not good news. Thankfully, most of my neighbors are very good at minding their own business, but are not going to sit by and watch our own properties violated, nor watch as these kids violate the property of others. It may get interesting.
.
This family has an indeterminate number of kids- somewhere between 3 and 5. Mostly pre-teen, it appears. And the kids have no respect for property. At least, no respect for anyone else's property. I have seen them rummaging through 2 neighbors' outdoor things. Including being under one neighbor's car port- riding the exercise bike.
The kids roam wherever they feel like, doing whatever they decide to do, without any thought of property lines.
This new family also doesn't understand how the dumpster works- tossing bags of trash near the dumpster (which wasn't even near full) rather than in it. Then the bags got ripped open by dogs and the contents scattered all over another neighbor's back yard. I picked it all up for her.
My next door neighbor is much more confrontational than I. She has already said she will tell them that behavior is not going to be tolerated in this neighborhood. And I believe her.
Apparently they are buying the house. Not good news. Thankfully, most of my neighbors are very good at minding their own business, but are not going to sit by and watch our own properties violated, nor watch as these kids violate the property of others. It may get interesting.
.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Good, bad depend on cooperation
Good, bad depend on cooperation
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)
Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.
By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception. The exceptions get noticed precisely because they are exceptions. People tend to not notice what is most common.
Even truly bad guys are only evil part-time. No one could get away with violating everyone they encounter. Regardless of how safe they might believe their special case makes them, someone would put an end to them sooner or later. Probably sooner than later. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. This truth is no threat to decent people, and keeps most bad guys somewhat constrained.
Then you have the cooperative nature of humans.
Most people want to get along. Those who believe people won't try to get along are ignoring the majority of life and focusing on the exceptions.
Cooperation is practically universal, but it is a double-edged sword. When you think of cooperation, you probably think of cooperation's light side. You imagine people joining together to repair a neighbor's damaged house, or pitching in to get a desperately ill kid the medical care she needs. This is healthy cooperation, and it is wonderful.
However, cooperation also has a dark side. Much evil depends on the cooperative nature of people, perverted. Gangs wouldn't cause trouble, and wars of aggression couldn't happen, without the cooperation of large numbers of people joining together to violate others on a massive scale. It's not only the bad guys who cooperate in unhealthy ways, but normal people, too. No dictatorship could stand without the victims cooperating with the majority of the tyrant's commands. Humans are highly cooperative, even when it isn't in their own interest.
Cooperation isn't the problem; using it badly is. Don't cooperate to violate person or property, but only to build up others and protect people and property. Don't cover for those who cooperate with the wrong things.
I try to cooperate for good, while being prepared to encounter those who won't. I have picked up hitchhikers and helped stranded strangers. I have given money to people I knew were in need- and some whose needs I suspected money couldn't fill. I don't regret even the times it didn't go exactly to plan. For the most part, people are amazing. Now, if they would only see where they are being inconsistent and self destructive, and understand when to cooperate, and when they shouldn't, they would be even better.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)
Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.
By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception. The exceptions get noticed precisely because they are exceptions. People tend to not notice what is most common.
Even truly bad guys are only evil part-time. No one could get away with violating everyone they encounter. Regardless of how safe they might believe their special case makes them, someone would put an end to them sooner or later. Probably sooner than later. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. This truth is no threat to decent people, and keeps most bad guys somewhat constrained.
Then you have the cooperative nature of humans.
Most people want to get along. Those who believe people won't try to get along are ignoring the majority of life and focusing on the exceptions.
Cooperation is practically universal, but it is a double-edged sword. When you think of cooperation, you probably think of cooperation's light side. You imagine people joining together to repair a neighbor's damaged house, or pitching in to get a desperately ill kid the medical care she needs. This is healthy cooperation, and it is wonderful.
However, cooperation also has a dark side. Much evil depends on the cooperative nature of people, perverted. Gangs wouldn't cause trouble, and wars of aggression couldn't happen, without the cooperation of large numbers of people joining together to violate others on a massive scale. It's not only the bad guys who cooperate in unhealthy ways, but normal people, too. No dictatorship could stand without the victims cooperating with the majority of the tyrant's commands. Humans are highly cooperative, even when it isn't in their own interest.
Cooperation isn't the problem; using it badly is. Don't cooperate to violate person or property, but only to build up others and protect people and property. Don't cover for those who cooperate with the wrong things.
I try to cooperate for good, while being prepared to encounter those who won't. I have picked up hitchhikers and helped stranded strangers. I have given money to people I knew were in need- and some whose needs I suspected money couldn't fill. I don't regret even the times it didn't go exactly to plan. For the most part, people are amazing. Now, if they would only see where they are being inconsistent and self destructive, and understand when to cooperate, and when they shouldn't, they would be even better.
.
Making an issue of Jenner
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Someone recently shared a silly "conservative" meme which included a picture of Caitlyn Jenner, saying this is a woman only in "Liberal America".
I have never really commented about the Jenner gender issue because I can't see any relevance to my life whatsoever. I'm not seeking a sexual relationship with Jenner. And if not, how could it affect me?
I feel the same with Chelsea Manning for that matter.
I don't even know her. Or him. Or whatever. We'll never meet.
But, it made me think. What exactly is a woman? Are we talking about chromosomes? In that case, you would be right to say Jenner is not a woman. A DNA sample would clearly indicate "male".
Are you talking about morphological features- body shape? Then maybe Jenner is now a woman by that standard. Considering the wide variability of body shapes, maybe some DNA women aren't "really" women.
Are you talking about how Jenner thinks of herself/himself? Let Jenner think of Jenner however Jenner wants to think of Jenner. It's not your concern, and only a jerk would insist on making an issue of it in person. I constantly encounter people who think of themselves as ethical or smart, when the evidence is quite clear they aren't. Unless there is some specific reason it needs to be refuted, why bother?
Body modification is very popular these days- tattoos, piercings, inserts, etc. Maybe this is a special type of body modification. Less shocking than some, to my way of thinking. How does it harm you?
On the other hand, the body is the lowest layer of what "we" wrap ourselves in. In that case it is similar to clothing or a uniform. We constantly identify people by their clothing or uniform. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with the body being changed like a suit of clothes.
It's not for me, but why would I concern myself with what others do?
So, the reason I haven't made an issue of Jenner's transformation before now is that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Jenner is happier now, good for her.
.
Someone recently shared a silly "conservative" meme which included a picture of Caitlyn Jenner, saying this is a woman only in "Liberal America".
I have never really commented about the Jenner gender issue because I can't see any relevance to my life whatsoever. I'm not seeking a sexual relationship with Jenner. And if not, how could it affect me?
I feel the same with Chelsea Manning for that matter.
I don't even know her. Or him. Or whatever. We'll never meet.
But, it made me think. What exactly is a woman? Are we talking about chromosomes? In that case, you would be right to say Jenner is not a woman. A DNA sample would clearly indicate "male".
Are you talking about morphological features- body shape? Then maybe Jenner is now a woman by that standard. Considering the wide variability of body shapes, maybe some DNA women aren't "really" women.
Are you talking about how Jenner thinks of herself/himself? Let Jenner think of Jenner however Jenner wants to think of Jenner. It's not your concern, and only a jerk would insist on making an issue of it in person. I constantly encounter people who think of themselves as ethical or smart, when the evidence is quite clear they aren't. Unless there is some specific reason it needs to be refuted, why bother?
Body modification is very popular these days- tattoos, piercings, inserts, etc. Maybe this is a special type of body modification. Less shocking than some, to my way of thinking. How does it harm you?
On the other hand, the body is the lowest layer of what "we" wrap ourselves in. In that case it is similar to clothing or a uniform. We constantly identify people by their clothing or uniform. Perhaps people are uncomfortable with the body being changed like a suit of clothes.
It's not for me, but why would I concern myself with what others do?
So, the reason I haven't made an issue of Jenner's transformation before now is that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Jenner is happier now, good for her.
.
The situation
Someone I met a while ago mentioned something that has really stuck with me. They said most people who hold non-libertarian views aren't very good at explaining what they do believe, or any principles their beliefs might be based upon.
She was right.
My view of the situation is more simplistic:
She was right.
My view of the situation is more simplistic:
 |
| The libertarian point. The statist response. |
Monday, September 21, 2015
"Legalize"? No need. Just stop illegalizing.
All the words used to describe making something which was once made "illegal" legal again miss the mark for me.
"Legalize", "decriminalize"... eh. I don't care for the words because they seem to carry the idea that "law" is a real thing.
I would rather see things completely removed from the province of "law", where they should never have been shoved in the first place.
That "-ize" suffix seems to imply a certain made-upness. If something isn't really random, you can make it seem random by "randomizing" it. So, if something has been deemed "illegal" you can give it the appearance of "legality" by "legalizing" it. But, the "law" was the bizarre act, not removing the "law".
That way of speaking seems to make the artificial condition- the propped up state- become the foundation which anchors the discussion. It makes the natural condition seem like the unnatural one. It is putting the illusion above reality; the lie above the truth.
The "law" is the illusion. The made up condition. If something isn't really wrong you can make it appear so (to some people) by making up a rule. You have "illegalized" it, in spite of reality and ethics. At least the word "criminalize" takes this into account, although most people don't seem to notice its artificiality.
I think I will strive to avoid talk of "legalizing" or "decriminalizing" and try to speak with the assumption of liberty.
.
"Legalize", "decriminalize"... eh. I don't care for the words because they seem to carry the idea that "law" is a real thing.
I would rather see things completely removed from the province of "law", where they should never have been shoved in the first place.
That "-ize" suffix seems to imply a certain made-upness. If something isn't really random, you can make it seem random by "randomizing" it. So, if something has been deemed "illegal" you can give it the appearance of "legality" by "legalizing" it. But, the "law" was the bizarre act, not removing the "law".
That way of speaking seems to make the artificial condition- the propped up state- become the foundation which anchors the discussion. It makes the natural condition seem like the unnatural one. It is putting the illusion above reality; the lie above the truth.
The "law" is the illusion. The made up condition. If something isn't really wrong you can make it appear so (to some people) by making up a rule. You have "illegalized" it, in spite of reality and ethics. At least the word "criminalize" takes this into account, although most people don't seem to notice its artificiality.
I think I will strive to avoid talk of "legalizing" or "decriminalizing" and try to speak with the assumption of liberty.
.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Oh, the contradictions
I'm libertarian.
According to characterizations I have been subjected to, this means I must be a young, old rich white "bleeding heart liberal", knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "conservative" male who is idealistic, Utopian, Dystopian, pessimistic, too trusting and paranoid, and so poor I am reduced to living in my mom's basement.
Even though my parents have no basement (I do have a cellar at my house, though. Tornadoes and such. But it's not for living in.)
At least, that is how statists see it. Statists are crazy.
.
According to characterizations I have been subjected to, this means I must be a young, old rich white "bleeding heart liberal", knuckle-dragging Neanderthal "conservative" male who is idealistic, Utopian, Dystopian, pessimistic, too trusting and paranoid, and so poor I am reduced to living in my mom's basement.
Even though my parents have no basement (I do have a cellar at my house, though. Tornadoes and such. But it's not for living in.)
At least, that is how statists see it. Statists are crazy.
.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Dull 'Hawk-isms 2
More things I have recently posted as Facebook statuses:
- If your crops are being devoured by locusts, and withering from lack of rain, and your solution is to change your socks, you may be a voter.
- Stating that your premise is not falsifiable isn't a compliment.
- People get confused about bullies.
Some believe that bullies are "authority" you believe in if they threaten you into compliance.
Some people are silly.
- There is no ethical difference between the person who ridicules the statement that taxation is theft and the person who ridicules the statement that slavery is wrong.
- The Patriot's Day in April is in celebration of liberty.
The "Patriot's" Day in September is in celebration of government.
Same name, opposite purposes.
- "Why do you pay taxes if you don't believe in authority?"
Hypothetically speaking... Because I believe in bullies who will kidnap me if I don't comply with their mugging, and will murder me if I resist their efforts to kidnap me. It has nothing to do with "authority"- it's simple bullying. A mugging.
"Authority" isn't a real thing. It is a mental problem in those who believe in "authority".
- Personally, I am glad actions have consequences. If they didn't, no one would ever learn to behave.
And, since actions have consequences whether I like it or not, I might as well like it.
- Those who say that the phrase "taxation equals slavery" belittles the plight of those who have suffered chattel slavery are missing the point.
Yes, chattel slavery is worse.
However, that doesn't diminish the evil of "taxation".
Murder is worse than attempted murder, but that does nothing to excuse attempted murder.
Plus, once you excuse one form of slavery (or other violation of person or property) on the basis of it not being "as bad as" another form, you have left the high ground and are wallowing in the sewer. You are leaving wiggle room for those who want to do evil things to others without feeling bad about it.
- Sometimes I wish I could photograph my face when I read certain status updates.
Those which are in ALL CAPS and have "creative grammar" and "spelling" to the point I can't even figure out what they are ranting about.
Sometimes I suspect they might be saying something I'd agree with- but so poorly I can't be sure. These make me sad.
The apparent statist rants which fit the above make me happy, since it confirms my bias against statists by confirming my suspicions that statists are statists precisely because they are stupid.
.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
They don't work for me.
(Previously posted to Patreon)
"Government works for us."
You, maybe. Not me.
If they did, I would fire them all immediately. They don't work for me.
I would never hire someone to do a "job" I don't want done. They don't work for me.
I no more believe "government" works for me than I believe the Sicilian mafia or any random carjacker works for me. Even if they use things they stole from me to continue their career, they don't work for me.
The mafia might use money stolen from me to burn my competition to the ground, and that might benefit me. But they don't work for me.
The carjacker may shoot some guy I hate, but he doesn't work for me.
So, don't include me in your "us" when you claim the "government" works for us. They don't work for me.
And, if you ever try to implicate me by saying "We are the government", I will be sorely tempted to violate the ZAP and punch you in the nose. That's about the nastiest insult I can imagine.
.
"Government works for us."
You, maybe. Not me.
If they did, I would fire them all immediately. They don't work for me.
I would never hire someone to do a "job" I don't want done. They don't work for me.
I no more believe "government" works for me than I believe the Sicilian mafia or any random carjacker works for me. Even if they use things they stole from me to continue their career, they don't work for me.
The mafia might use money stolen from me to burn my competition to the ground, and that might benefit me. But they don't work for me.
The carjacker may shoot some guy I hate, but he doesn't work for me.
So, don't include me in your "us" when you claim the "government" works for us. They don't work for me.
And, if you ever try to implicate me by saying "We are the government", I will be sorely tempted to violate the ZAP and punch you in the nose. That's about the nastiest insult I can imagine.
.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The "immigration" disconnect
(Previously posted to Patreon)
If you pour water down an animal's burrow, do you get angry when the animal flees- and runs across your foot?
If so, I would say you are not too bright.
In the same way, if you make someone's home territory unlivable do you react with anger when refugees come pouring out and end up in your vicinity?
This is the situation I see with "immigration".
Through the Middle East wars for oil (excuse me- against Islamists), and the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, US policy (and invasion) has made people's homes unlivable, and they sensibly flee, looking for somewhere else to live. If this angers you, then be angry at those driving the people out of their homes, not the people trying to survive in the face of bad situations.
No, you aren't causing the problem. Those who claim to be acting on your behalf are. Using money stolen from you. Sometimes with your approval. Repudiate them and their acts- loudly and repeatedly. Don't let anyone believe you support the situations that cause the problem in any way. Don't encourage the bullies to make America so bad that the migrants will decide to leave- because that is the end result of closing the "borders", endless war, and prohibition. The result will not be solved until you end the cause.
.
If you pour water down an animal's burrow, do you get angry when the animal flees- and runs across your foot?
If so, I would say you are not too bright.
In the same way, if you make someone's home territory unlivable do you react with anger when refugees come pouring out and end up in your vicinity?
This is the situation I see with "immigration".
Through the Middle East wars for oil (excuse me- against Islamists), and the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, US policy (and invasion) has made people's homes unlivable, and they sensibly flee, looking for somewhere else to live. If this angers you, then be angry at those driving the people out of their homes, not the people trying to survive in the face of bad situations.
No, you aren't causing the problem. Those who claim to be acting on your behalf are. Using money stolen from you. Sometimes with your approval. Repudiate them and their acts- loudly and repeatedly. Don't let anyone believe you support the situations that cause the problem in any way. Don't encourage the bullies to make America so bad that the migrants will decide to leave- because that is the end result of closing the "borders", endless war, and prohibition. The result will not be solved until you end the cause.
.
Death in "no guns" zones
When I see a "no guns" sign, I interpret it to mean "We hope you die!"
Or, at the least, "Your life means nothing to us".
More death, in yet another "gun free zone", makes me want to print up new cards to hand out any time I enter one of these Free For the Killing zones. Instead of a card saying I won't spend money with them, maybe one with a different message would be appropriate:
I am happy to report that our little local grocery store got rid of its "no guns" sign several months ago- so I have started going there much more often.
.
Or, at the least, "Your life means nothing to us".
More death, in yet another "gun free zone", makes me want to print up new cards to hand out any time I enter one of these Free For the Killing zones. Instead of a card saying I won't spend money with them, maybe one with a different message would be appropriate:
By forbidding guns to your customers you prohibit their best chance of surviving any attack with the least chance of being harmed. By this act YOU are accepting liability for my safety in your business, and will be held personally accountable if any harm comes.
I am happy to report that our little local grocery store got rid of its "no guns" sign several months ago- so I have started going there much more often.
.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Government less honest thieves
Government less honest thieves
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)
What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?
For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference.
Perhaps there is a difference, after all.
Those in the first group, who are willing to steal shoes and phones, and kill those who resist, are generally willing to take all the risks themselves. They rarely pretend to be committing their acts for anyone's benefit but their own. They don't pretend you owe them gratitude after they rob you. They never point to an imaginary social contract as justification for their acts. They don't generally claim your "contribution" needs to be repeated on a yearly basis. They often expect to face resistance, and don't generally find much sympathy when they get shot for their efforts. Of the two, they are the more honest thieves.
The other group, those who tax, claim to be acting out of generosity, or to be protecting you from someone worse. Their most bizarre claim of all: they claim "authority" to take your property to hire a gang to protect your property.
Yet, thieves they are; backing their theft with the threat of deadly force. If you refuse to comply, the taxers will continue to escalate the force they use until, at some point, unless you give in before then, they will send an armed gang to take you into custody to be caged, and kill you if you resist. Yet they claim "taxation is voluntary".
I am by no means opposed to everything "tax" money is spent on. I am opposed to not giving people a real choice. "Move to Somalia if you don't like it" doesn't count as choice.
You can't be generous with other people's money, but only with your own. If you pretend to protect someone by doing anything they feel the need to be protected from, your claims are empty.
If you want something you can't afford, invite others to join you in pooling resources to finance it. If you can't get enough people to help you, consider it a clear message that what you want isn't important to enough others, and move on with your life. Or start trying to convince more people why they should want what you want, and to be willing to chip in to get it.
Anything less is hilariously hypocritical.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)
What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?
For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference.
Perhaps there is a difference, after all.
Those in the first group, who are willing to steal shoes and phones, and kill those who resist, are generally willing to take all the risks themselves. They rarely pretend to be committing their acts for anyone's benefit but their own. They don't pretend you owe them gratitude after they rob you. They never point to an imaginary social contract as justification for their acts. They don't generally claim your "contribution" needs to be repeated on a yearly basis. They often expect to face resistance, and don't generally find much sympathy when they get shot for their efforts. Of the two, they are the more honest thieves.
The other group, those who tax, claim to be acting out of generosity, or to be protecting you from someone worse. Their most bizarre claim of all: they claim "authority" to take your property to hire a gang to protect your property.
Yet, thieves they are; backing their theft with the threat of deadly force. If you refuse to comply, the taxers will continue to escalate the force they use until, at some point, unless you give in before then, they will send an armed gang to take you into custody to be caged, and kill you if you resist. Yet they claim "taxation is voluntary".
I am by no means opposed to everything "tax" money is spent on. I am opposed to not giving people a real choice. "Move to Somalia if you don't like it" doesn't count as choice.
You can't be generous with other people's money, but only with your own. If you pretend to protect someone by doing anything they feel the need to be protected from, your claims are empty.
If you want something you can't afford, invite others to join you in pooling resources to finance it. If you can't get enough people to help you, consider it a clear message that what you want isn't important to enough others, and move on with your life. Or start trying to convince more people why they should want what you want, and to be willing to chip in to get it.
Anything less is hilariously hypocritical.
.
Pointless points
Some people, whenever they say something about someone else, always seem to feel the need to include irrelevant points about that person. "This guy came in the store- he was 'Black'..." or "This guy I know- he's gay..."
And almost never does the story have anything to do with the details they parenthetically add.
I don't see the point.
If someone is telling about me, such as saying I was eating a burrito, making a point to mention I was wearing a hat- when the hat doesn't enter the story in any way- would be silly. Well, making the effort to include irrelevant details about people based on their "race" or "orientation" is just as dumb.
.
And almost never does the story have anything to do with the details they parenthetically add.
I don't see the point.
If someone is telling about me, such as saying I was eating a burrito, making a point to mention I was wearing a hat- when the hat doesn't enter the story in any way- would be silly. Well, making the effort to include irrelevant details about people based on their "race" or "orientation" is just as dumb.
.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Nature, or choice?
"White" people don't wake up one morning and choose to be "White", and decide that being "White" means they need to hate everyone who isn't "White".
But cops do wake up one morning and decide to join a gang which only continues to exist to attack people, enforce theft against people, force people to obey counterfeit rules which are often harmful and almost always in violation of their Rightful Liberty.
That's why the "argument" is a non-sequitur. And why there is no such thing as a "good cop".
It's not labeling- it's an acceptance of reality and ethics.
.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Innocent until proven guilty
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a good way to run a court or arbitration service, but a lousy way to live. I know that sounds harsh.
People are either guilty or they aren't. Your decision (or court verdict or even evidence) doesn't change their guilt or innocence. You might be wrong either way.
But, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless I know from first hand experience that they either did what they are accused or, or are likely to have done it based on a history I have personal knowledge of.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is being nice, but it can also be foolish and suicidal. Instead, I'll give even the "proved" guilty the benefit of the doubt, while never going to condition white, no matter who it is. If, from personal experience, I know they are guilty and dangerous, though, all bets are off.
.
People are either guilty or they aren't. Your decision (or court verdict or even evidence) doesn't change their guilt or innocence. You might be wrong either way.
But, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless I know from first hand experience that they either did what they are accused or, or are likely to have done it based on a history I have personal knowledge of.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is being nice, but it can also be foolish and suicidal. Instead, I'll give even the "proved" guilty the benefit of the doubt, while never going to condition white, no matter who it is. If, from personal experience, I know they are guilty and dangerous, though, all bets are off.
.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
My ignorance
There are plenty of things I don't know enough about. There isn't enough time to learn everything about everything which might affect me. Sometimes ignorance leads to suspicion or fear. I understand that.
What I don't understand is when people let their ignorance-based fear control them, and then use that fear as an excuse to control others.
Just for example- I don't understand fracking well enough to know whether it is harmful to groundwater or to know whether it causes earthquakes. The "stuff" I have heard against fracking sounds "reasonable", and makes me highly suspicious of the technique. But I don't know enough to really say with any confidence one way or the other. And you probably don't either even if you believe you do.
My safetyness makes me want to err on the side of caution. But not enough to get politicians and "laws" involved, since that is something I know beyond any doubt to be harmful.
.
What I don't understand is when people let their ignorance-based fear control them, and then use that fear as an excuse to control others.
Just for example- I don't understand fracking well enough to know whether it is harmful to groundwater or to know whether it causes earthquakes. The "stuff" I have heard against fracking sounds "reasonable", and makes me highly suspicious of the technique. But I don't know enough to really say with any confidence one way or the other. And you probably don't either even if you believe you do.
My safetyness makes me want to err on the side of caution. But not enough to get politicians and "laws" involved, since that is something I know beyond any doubt to be harmful.
.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Kidnap survivors and heroes
A person who has been kidnapped ("arrested") for breaking a counterfeit rule isn't necessarily a hero. Even though they didn't initiate force or violate property while committing their "crime".
A hero is someone who goes through that without giving in to the temptation to do the wrong thing, and comes out stronger and even more principled than before.
At least, that is the person I see as heroic.
.
A hero is someone who goes through that without giving in to the temptation to do the wrong thing, and comes out stronger and even more principled than before.
At least, that is the person I see as heroic.
.
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Seeing the real aggressor
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Society, a country, or a world can't violate or initiate force against you. It's always done an individual at a time.
Even if everyone votes to violate you, it is up to someone to agree to carry out that vote. That one individual will be the one violating you, not all the voters. Although they certainly aren't making matters better.
If I tell Bob to go hit you in the nose, Bob (if he carries it out) is the one guilty of hitting you in the nose. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. I'm not saying it was right of me to tell him to violate you- it wasn't- but the ultimate blame rests on the person stupid or evil enough to do the wrong thing just because some moron told him to. Or millions of morons.
In the same way, it doesn't matter if voters approve some violation by a landslide margin. The real guilt lies with the person stupid or evil enough to enforce the vote.
I don't think it's even possible to be violated by hundreds of people at once. There is always a place where the mob meets the individual, and it is those few people at the edge doing all the violating, no matter how many are behind them.
If you feel violated by someone far away, whom you have never seen or met, you are looking for an excuse to feel victimized.
I may despise Michael Bloomberg and his anti-liberty bigotry, but in spite of the "laws" he is buying across the country, I don't feel he has ever personally violated me. I wouldn't lift a finger to save his parasitic life, but I probably wouldn't ever put forth the effort to punch him in the nose, either. If his "laws" ever violate me, it is purely through the action of some cop or bureaucrat who is in my face, not some vile vermin thousands of miles away.
.
Society, a country, or a world can't violate or initiate force against you. It's always done an individual at a time.
Even if everyone votes to violate you, it is up to someone to agree to carry out that vote. That one individual will be the one violating you, not all the voters. Although they certainly aren't making matters better.
If I tell Bob to go hit you in the nose, Bob (if he carries it out) is the one guilty of hitting you in the nose. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. I'm not saying it was right of me to tell him to violate you- it wasn't- but the ultimate blame rests on the person stupid or evil enough to do the wrong thing just because some moron told him to. Or millions of morons.
In the same way, it doesn't matter if voters approve some violation by a landslide margin. The real guilt lies with the person stupid or evil enough to enforce the vote.
I don't think it's even possible to be violated by hundreds of people at once. There is always a place where the mob meets the individual, and it is those few people at the edge doing all the violating, no matter how many are behind them.
If you feel violated by someone far away, whom you have never seen or met, you are looking for an excuse to feel victimized.
I may despise Michael Bloomberg and his anti-liberty bigotry, but in spite of the "laws" he is buying across the country, I don't feel he has ever personally violated me. I wouldn't lift a finger to save his parasitic life, but I probably wouldn't ever put forth the effort to punch him in the nose, either. If his "laws" ever violate me, it is purely through the action of some cop or bureaucrat who is in my face, not some vile vermin thousands of miles away.
.
Seeing clearly
I recently got new glasses. First time in over 14 years! Well, technically, I got new lenses in some frames I already had on hand- bought a year ago in anticipation. (If anyone wants to donate to my vision fund, I'd certainly welcome it.) I can see again- with both eyes. This is a good thing.
My vision has always been bad. I got my first glasses about the time I turned 7. I can still remember how strange it felt to realize I hadn't been seeing well before. Until I had something to compare how I was seeing to how I should be seeing, I didn't know I wasn't seeing the world as it was. I didn't know things were out of focus.
Well, the same goes for statists.
Until they are shown what the world really looks like, they can't know they are seeing an out of focus, distorted version of reality. I make it my goal to let a few of them look through my spectacles as often as I can. If they squeeze their eyes shut and don't want to see reality, that's on them. I've done my part.
.
My vision has always been bad. I got my first glasses about the time I turned 7. I can still remember how strange it felt to realize I hadn't been seeing well before. Until I had something to compare how I was seeing to how I should be seeing, I didn't know I wasn't seeing the world as it was. I didn't know things were out of focus.
Well, the same goes for statists.
Until they are shown what the world really looks like, they can't know they are seeing an out of focus, distorted version of reality. I make it my goal to let a few of them look through my spectacles as often as I can. If they squeeze their eyes shut and don't want to see reality, that's on them. I've done my part.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)