Real life conversations

In real life conversations I am almost never the one to bring up politics or ethics first. If I do bring them up, you can be sure someone just said something absurd or evil in my presence. Or, rarely, asked my opinion.

I just don't care enough about politics to bring it up, and ethics... well, talking about it doesn't really make much sense. Just live it and see how it works out.

In fact, often I try to avoid talking about either one when people want to bring up the subject. I value peace, and telling people their views are evil is not conducive to peace. But lying to them in that case doesn't feel right, either.

-

GoFundMe?

.

Apologies

Having some very distracting financial issues, which are closely related to medical issues (not all mine). Writing does help keep me balanced (or distracted), but I am hoping the quality isn't suffering. If so, I apologize and will try to do better.

-

I hope you don't mind that I will be appending this link for a while: GoFundMe?

.

Unearned legitimacy

A problem which infects even libertarians is the attitude that government deserves some sort of honor or respect. They treat it as something "important" or dignified. As though it deserves attention beyond the attention you would pay to a wasp in your car. That it is somehow serious business rather than childish bullying. They lend it an unearned legitimacy.

Poo on all that.

That's the "inside the beltway" superstition that "respectable" libertarian organizations and publications fall victim to. Sometimes even individuals do, too. It's not befitting of libertarians; it's embarrassing.

Sure, you may need to feign respect to keep from being caged or killed when a bully has the drop on you, but remember it's just an act on your part. It's self defense. The bully is still just a bully.

.

Marching to the beat of a different drummer is still marching

Over the course of my life I have known a few people who I believe went off the deep end. A couple of people I really loved became conspiracy hypothesists. Some were just paranoid- believing that someone was out to get them when it was obvious to me that they were victims of their own actions. In one case the guy was just the victim of his brain chemistry.

Because of this I am careful to watch (and test) my own beliefs.

It doesn't mean I am immune to seeing a conspiracy where none exists. I might even miss seeing one that is real. I am not likely to believe things just because everyone says they are so, or because I am called names for not agreeing with someone who claims to have special insight. But conspiracy hypotheses which fail science, observation, and reason don't have a chance with me. I probably won't argue about them- I could be missing something- but most conspiracy hypotheses have gigantic holes that get ignored or poorly patched.

There seems to be a growing tendency to embrace pseudoscience as a way to "buck the system". The problem is, the ideas being rejected probably didn't come from "the system". While "establishment scientists" may use certain ideas, they probably are not the ones to have come up with them. Just as one example, people had figured out that the Earth was roughly spherical thousands of years ago- without NASA's help.

2+2=4 is true, even though it is taught in government schools and used by IRS employees when they calculate how much to steal from you. Don't reject reality just because some bad guys also use it.

Embracing pseudoscience is not a sign you have risen above indoctrination- just that you are being indoctrinated by someone different. "Ancient knowledge" isn't preferable just because it is ancient. Discoveries are made all the time, and those discoveries, when understood, change the way smart people think about things.

It doesn't mean you are "enlightened" to believe this garbage- it means you are gullible AND not able to reason and observe (or even do simple experiments) for yourself.

.

To which "state" are you referring?

"Security of a free State"? That's a ridiculous oxymoron.

You can be free in spite of a State, but you will never find freedom because of a State.

The guys who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights were so deluded on some issues it's not even funny.

But, you could use a different meaning of "State" and be accurate.

Such as, if "state" were taken to mean "condition", rewording "the Security of a free State" as "to secure a state of Freedom"- as in:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a state of Freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is one state I can get behind.

.

Fixing the past by breaking the future

(Previously posted to Patreon)

My support for a group's agenda goes in only one direction. If you are seeking to get rid of "laws" which violate someone's Rightful Liberty I am right there with you.

If, on the other hand, you seek to make new "laws" which you believe will "level the playing field" or make up for past violations, you are not going to have my support.

I may agree that "laws" or society have been violating you. Perhaps for thousands of years. And I oppose that. However I can't support you trying to turn the tables and using government to violate someone else in the name of "fairness". Becoming the same as your enemy just makes you the bad guy.

This is why I oppose "affirmative action" and all such "equality laws". New "laws" weren't necessary- just get rid of any old ones that caused the problem. By passing new "laws" you copied the violent behavior of those who violated you. By making new "laws" you demonstrate that you don't believe you are good enough to make it on your own merits, but need to force others to favor you, or to oppress those who aren't you.

It's a libertarian thing- to support someone's desire to stop being violated while opposing their chosen coercive method to achieve it.

.

U.S. Police State infographic

Here's one of those infographics for you.


 
Source: CriminalJusticeDegreeHub.com

The right way to live

Regardless of current fashion, there really is a right way to live, and a seemingly endless number of wrong ways. Not all behaviors are equally valid- just as not all opinions are equally valid. Some are simply wrong. Maybe they are innocently misguided, or they may be willfully evil. You should be able to evaluate and judge for yourself, using reason.

How can you tell the Zero Aggression Principle, and by extension, libertarianism/anarchism is the "right way"- the ethical way- to live?

Just consider these questions:

How would the world be if everyone lived by it?
What if most people lived by it?
What if no one lived by it?

I have addressed these questions, and explored the answers, in a Patreon post.

.

Kentucky clerk’s morals fall flat

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 11, 2015)

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

First of all it needs to be understood that everyone has a right to live by their faith, but no one has a right to a government job — a right that can’t exist.

If a job would require you to do things you believe are wrong, don't take the job. If you hold a job and the requirements change so you would be asked to do things you believe are wrong, it is your responsibility to find a different job. No need to raise a fuss to get attention, just resign and move on. It's that simple.

This clerk's morals seem fluid. She has apparently never had a problem with processing divorces. Or with living on money forcibly extorted from the local residents. She seemingly never questioned whether it's ethical to hold a position which licenses basic human rights; activities not subject to government permission.

What if she refused to issue marriage licenses for anyone who had been previously divorced? If she were living consistently by her faith, she would not only be refusing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

What if she were Muslim and her faith forbade her issuing drivers licenses to women? Would her supporters still be standing with her decision?

This is why her claim of standing up for her morals falls utterly flat with me. Her morals seem to be a convenience, giving her an excuse for refusing to do something she doesn't want to do. It's like if I were a janitor, but claimed my morals forbade me cleaning the new toilets.

She wasn't letting anyone else in her office issue marriage licenses, either, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter.

I don't believe in government, and certainly don't believe government has any "authority" to issue licenses for anything, including marriage. Knowing this, should I take a government job which includes issuing licenses and then refuse to do so? Should I still expect to be paid?

But jail? She should not have been jailed for refusing to do her job. It was a ridiculous penalty, calculated to cause maximum drama. If a person won't do their job, they should be fired, not caged.

None of this would be an issue if government were forced out of the marriage business- where it never had any business getting involved in the first place.

-

(Note: I said anyone who doesn't do their job needs to be fired. My editor said no one is "authorized" to fire Ms. Davis. So I changed the wording for the newspaper column. I put the original wording back for the blog. I still believe anyone who doesn't do what they were hired to do needs to be fired. It's not my fault the State sets itself up to fail.)

.

Theories, or justification?

So many "political theories" seem to only exist to justify the "statist quo".

I try to make sure my own political theory doesn't fall into the opposite trap of only existing to justify the opposite of the status quo.

So I test it. I examine it. I pick it apart in my mind. And, when it fails the test, I change it.

So far the result is that I get rid of more and more justifications for statism of any kind.

It's liberating. Give it a try.

.

Give them the chance

People already know they should be libertarian.

They know right from wrong. They know using violence against the nonviolent or those who aren't violating property is wrong. They know violating property is wrong.

Their only problem is they have been tricked into imagining irrational exceptions to these truths. This indoctrination has taken a lifetime to achieve. It takes one honest moment to shed.

They are probably already libertarian in their heart of hearts. The external statist shell is a mask.

By sharing libertarianism with them you are not trying to "trick them into it", you are giving them permission to be honest with themselves. To be what they already know they should be.

They may still try to fight you, but I hope you offer the chance to everyone you know anyway.

.

Lies statists tell:

Not a comprehensive list. of course...

They died for your freedom.
Not all cops are bad.
You must respect the office of president, even if you don't respect the man.
Without government there would be chaos.
Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.
"This system" may not be perfect, but it's the best there is/the best there can be.
I'm not a statist; only those other guys who are nothing like me are statists.
It's for the children.
It's for the good of society.
It's for your own good.
It's a necessary evil.
Your vote counts/matters.


I'll bet you can think of more lies statists tell.

.

"Good", actions, and cops

(Previously posted to Facebook)

"Good" isn't always subjective- there are certain absolutes.

It is never good to violate other people's liberty or property- except in self defense against aggression, or in defense of private property. Period. You may believe it to be "necessary", but it's not good.

If you picked the fight, it is not self defense.

If there is no individual victim, it isn't in defense of the innocent.

If your job requires you to violate other people's liberty or property, you can't be a good person while performing that job.

Police are required to violate people's life, liberty, and property by enforcing "laws" as a condition of keeping the job, and to continue receiving the paycheck (which is financed by violating property through "taxation").

Therefore, no matter how "nice" a cop may act, he can't be good and remain a cop.

There is no such thing as a "good cop".

.

Giving the bullies a pat on the back

I see news about government employees and happenings as a glowing report on the exploits of beloved bullies and thugs.

To illustrate:

"In local news, Buster broke into a couple of houses over the weekend, and made a sweet haul he plans to share with the community. He intends to give back a portion of each score. Be sure and show him support whenever you run into him around town. 

"Billy Bob had a real fine rape this week. He enjoyed himself immensely and said he plans to look into the possibility of making it a regular thing. Watch out girls! (wink, wink) 

"The local mob discussed allowing residents to vote on whether they will fork over 10% of their property this next year, or 8% this year, with the amount increasing by 10% yearly thereafter. The loot will be used to expand the concentration camp on the edge of town- without which, chaos would ensue. Be sure and vote- it's your right and duty! 

"In international news, crime bosses from both sides of the Atlantic met to work out details of how they will use you as slaves and divide the spoils among themselves. They have promised each other to not take action against each other, personally, and to not rob each others slaves without working out some sort of deal first."

That is how most "news" sounds to me. It's utterly sickening that people believe it is somehow less repugnant when the bullies call themselves "government".

.

It may make you angry, but...

Here's a clue: When someone points out the silliness of your position or otherwise disagrees with your absurd claim, it isn't necessarily a sign they are angry. You may be projecting.

Statists generally seem very angry. They collapse into heaps of profanity and aggression at the slightest prodding.

But, when they see you point out the absurdity of their beliefs, they accuse you of being angry. Often in the midst of their mental breakdown.

Statism is a strange, sick religion.

.

Non-Libertarians cause of trouble

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 4, 2015)


What’s one of the fastest ways to get in serious trouble? By acting in ways libertarians warn against. Can this be right?

Aren’t libertarians supposed to be troublemakers who oppose cooperation and generosity? Aren’t they known as rugged individualists who advocate “every man for himself?”

Think again.

The heart of libertarianism is the principle that no one has the right to use violence- even gently or "for your own good"- against anyone who is neither already using violence, nor violating private property. The principle which goes hand-in-hand with this one reminds you to not violate the property of another. That's really all there is to it. Everything else is just working out details and getting rid of exceptions.

I frequently see people getting in trouble precisely because they aren't living up to libertarian principles. They initiate force- this means they use physical force first. They violate property through theft, trespassing, or by preventing the owner from using the full value of his property. They try to cheat and defraud people. Then, when the consequences come home to roost they often seem to be shocked by the turn of events.

What exactly are these behaviors which are most likely to get people into trouble? Fighting, attacking, raping, robbing, defrauding, trespassing, and murdering. All acts your libertarians friends are constantly reminding others to not commit.

Some people also get in trouble because they neglect to defend themselves from those who commit these anti-libertarian acts. Defensive violence is never wrong- even if it isn't always smart, such as when you are outnumbered or outgunned. You aren't obligated to defend yourself or others, but you'll have more respect for yourself if you do. It's usually the right thing to do.

Of course, today the other fast way to get in trouble might seem contradictory: being libertarian. Living your Rightful Liberty by doing things no one has a right to forbid or control. Things which lawmakers who lack libertarian principles have decided to declare illegal, or subject to rationing, even though those things don't violate person or property. You can't always avoid these bullies and the exceptions they pretend to carve for themselves. Beware of them.

Non-libertarians make excuses for those exceptions as long as they are committed by government employees under the excuse of "law", but it doesn't make the acts of violation right.

Do the right thing. Stay out of trouble for doing the wrong thing. Act libertarian even if you don't believe in the principles.

.

The most ethical way to live

(Previously posted to Patreon)

How would the world be if everyone lived by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP)? It would be Utopia. No one would ever even debate whether an act is aggression or not since even self defense would be unnecessary. This is not a world any of us will ever experience.

What if, instead of thinking about that Utopian scenario, we just think what would happen if most people followed the ZAP most of the time? Because this is the real world you and I already exist in. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but with the potential to be much better.

People already understand they have no right to initiate force. Most people follow this pretty well. They buy instead of steal, and request rather than punch. People already know the ZAP is the right way to live, even if they don't know how to put it into words.

If it were not the case, even statism would quickly collapse. It is the reluctance to initiate force which keeps bullies safe. If no one were concerned about whether an act justified a violent response, no IRS agent would survive his first audit. No cop would survive his first day molesting "speeders". Yes, even tyrants and bullies rely on people following the ZAP while pretending they are exempt due to their "job".

The only way to make things better would be to stop pretending there are people and "jobs" which qualify for that imaginary exemption. Stop calling acts of theft or aggression by the statist euphemisms that seem to excuse them.

But, switching gears a bit... What if no one ever followed the ZAP? Civilization would be impossible. Society would collapse. No peaceful encounter would be possible.

Looking at these 3 possibilities clearly illustrates that to live by the Zero Aggression Principle is the most ethical way to live- bar none.

.

First they ignore you...

One of the quotes I see used the most often to give hope to people like you and me, is this one from Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

What isn't mentioned in that quote is you have to be grounded in reality first. Skip that important part and "they" will probably never move beyond laughing at you. Or, if you do "win", it will be a fleeting victory.

If you are grounded in reality, you have won before they have even moved beyond ignoring you, they just don't know it yet.

.

Statists' false choices

Statists love the false choice:

Either accept theft and aggression, or live without roads.
Either accept theft and aggression, or see the end of education.
Either accept theft and aggression, or you'll be a helpless victim of theft and aggression. (?!?)
Either accept theft and aggression, or do without wild spaces.
Either accept theft and aggression, or say goodbye to justice.

Sorry. That isn't how reality works.

.

How to be popular

Being rabidly statist is a good way to become well-respected and popular. To be looked upon with regard in your community. This is just the result of being a believer in the main religion of your locality. Of being an ardent follower.

Or even a "leader".

Being a non-believer results in marginalization. Non-believers aren't taken seriously. They are pushed aside and not given any consideration. Relegated to the position of "no one".

Statism is still the primary religion, globally. Other religions take a back seat to statism. Other religions seem to be mostly useful as excuses to prop up statism and give it a veil of legitimacy.

But, the believers are still wrong. Their religion is empty and evil. If you can lower yourself that much for popularity, I suppose you deserve it.

.