"Laws" are for losers

(Previously posted to Patreon)


Law is what you do when you have poor reasons.

Or, more likely, no reasons at all.

If you believe you need to make a "law" you are admitting you don't have a good reason, so you will have cops shove their guns in people's faces instead.
You are admitting you can't hold your own in a debate.
You can't convince people to go along with you.
Your way isn't better, so you can't afford to let people choose, because they might choose to ignore you. So, like a bad loser, you throw a tantrum and pull a "law" out of your... somewhere smelly, humid and, stifling... and then attack people who don't cooperate.

Of course, you are too cowardly to attack in person, so you hire bullies- cops- to do your attacking for you. It keeps you safe from the consequences of your evil actions.

There are only two kinds of "laws": the unnecessary and the harmful.

Laws against aggression and property violations are unnecessary. You already know these things are wrong. You need no "law" to allow you to defend yourself from them. Does murder or armed robbery have to be illegal for you to know it's wrong? If it does you have an ethical problem. A "law" adds nothing but an excuse to let government punish people. And punishment is NOT justice. Especially when the lie is told claiming "the State" is somehow the innocent victim, and owed fines or the pleasure of caging the offender.

Laws against- or compelling- anything else are harmful. These "laws" are counterfeit. They whittle away at the foundations of civilization.

"Laws" are for losers.

.

You can't go wrong doing right

I've done stupid things and smart things. Good things and bad things.

The outcomes seem to have no correlation whatsoever.

That's a bit disappointing to someone who wants to do smart, good, things and have life work out accordingly. But reality is what it is.

This is also why "pragmatism" fails. You can't know how something will turn out based on your actions, be they pragmatic or idealistic, so do the right thing.

Even if things don't turn out well, at least you didn't do the wrong thing, believing it to be more pragmatic.

.

Still standing for liberty in 2016

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 1, 2016)

As 2015 ends, I find myself thinking one thought: I hope 2016 is better.

To the extent I can control it, I will try to make sure it is for myself and for those around me.

A sad fact of life is you can’t control everything that happens. No matter what, bad stuff can (and will) happen to you and those you care about. That’s just life. But you can control how you respond to events. You don’t have to let them destroy you, or take away all your joy. You don’t have to let the bad stuff win.

So, I will try to make 2016 as good as I can, and if I see opportunities where I am able to improve someone else's year, I'll do that, too.

No, I'm not going to stop calling people out for their support of socialism- not even when they call it "fairness" or "law and order". A spade will always be a spade, and making up "laws" to control anything other than aggression or property violations will always be wrong, as will making up "laws" which consecrate wrongs done in the name of governing.

I will try to be as understanding as I can with those who advocate horrendously awful things- understanding that they have their reasons; often due to their loved ones being among the perpetrators of the growing police state. It's hard to think of those you love as the bad guys who are giving their all to the destruction of American society.

There may be other reasons, too. Some are probably scared of liberty and self determination due to years of indoctrination making them fear the lack of a master; to doubt their ability to live without being told exactly what is mandated and what is forbidden in every circumstance. I'll keep trying to help them shed those fears.

I'll do what I can to help people around me discover the tools to reject the superstitious belief in "authority" and take responsibility for themselves. But, I'll try to not be a pest about it; one-trick-ponies can be tedious.

Life is too short to be a bully, or to be loyal to any government or other gang of bullies. Live your life voluntarily, without violating others. Stand up for those who are violated. It's called "doing the right thing". If enough of us do it 2016 will be a great year, no matter what the Universe flings at our faces.

.

Excuses

If drug abuse turns you into a bad person, you most likely weren't a good person to begin with.

The same is true about most things people will claim corrupted them.

.

Death to schools

 Education is critically important. Much too important to allow government to touch in any way, much less control. My appreciation for education explains my opposition to schooling.

Supporting "public" schools has all the ethical foundation of advocating prison for kids because you fear that otherwise they might starve or have nowhere to sleep.

To claim that without government's "public" schools, kids wouldn't be educated is like claiming that without rapists, some women wouldn't feel wanted.

Blind loyalty to statist institutions is sickening and depressing. Especially when someone ought to know better.

It apparently takes a rare person to face the reality of the evil their loved ones are deeply enmeshed in. It hurts to accept that your loved ones are harming innocent people. But honesty demands you face it.

Those indoctrination camps are how statism keeps spreading. They penetrate the young minds and reproduce once inside. You know what I consider that act, I'll bet.

They teach that "authority" is a real thing, and is where you go to learn the truth. They teach that theft and aggression are OK as long as done by "government". They train kids to be compliant and to jump at the sound of a bell. They teach what to believe rather than how to think. I hate them with every quark of my body.

I have witnessed and experienced first hand the destruction they cause to education.

Death to kinderprison. The sooner the better.

.

Lord of all nanobots

I don't believe in intellectual property, but I wish I did, so I act as though I do.

I do this because I respect the efforts of those who create, and I want them rewarded for what they have done.

But I still see it as wishful thinking.

If intellectual property were a real thing, a person who invented self-replicating nanobots would own the rights to them all, no matter who bought some from him, no matter how many generations removed from him the nanobots you are talking about were, and no matter how many there were throughout the Universe.

What would make sentences different than nanobots, concerning IP?

If intellectual property were a real thing, a person would own all rights to a new dog breed he worked a lifetime to create. He would own all the offspring of the dogs he had sold- on through the years and generations.

Both of these examples are the same as saying the author or composer owns the book or song he created.

It would be nice, but it just isn't reality.

.

Giving the bad guys a helping hand, through rules

There are useless rules, and there are harmful rules. And by rules I mean policies, or laws, or whatever people call words strung together in an attempt to control others.

I would like to call useless rules "pointless rules", but I can see the point of some of the useless rules, even as I also see that they can't fulfill their point.

Impaired driving laws are useless. If you don't believe me, just ask my daughter Cheyenne. Oh, wait, you can't because she died in spite of "laws" against drunk driving. The rules didn't kill her, they were just powerless to prevent her death. I wouldn't claim the rules against drunk driving are harmful- at least until you dig deeper and see how those rules influence behavior in ways that actually make innocent people less safe on the roads- but they certainly aren't very helpful. And the ways they are imposed and enforced are quite clearly harmful. They give justification to the weak-minded for some of the worst police state abuses outside of airports.

But, on the surface, laws against driving drunk aren't necessarily harmful. Cheyenne wouldn't have been safer if she had also been driving drunk that morning, so although those who control, and would claim to own, the roads did nothing to protect her, they aren't accomplices in her death, either. Suing them for failing to prevent her death would be useless.

Not so where "no gun zones" are concerned. The rules that establish those areas are worse than useless. They are actively harmful.

Not only will such rules do nothing to prevent a bad guy- who would be a rule-breaker by definition- from ignoring the rule and bringing a gun, especially if he wants to murder people, it would prevent those good guys who want to obey rules- even bad rules- from bringing their guns. In this case suing those who own or control the "gun free" area where a murder happens would be the right thing to do. They may not have pulled the trigger, but they are willing accomplices to any murderer who takes advantage of the killing ground they established for him.

You had better believe that if any of my loved ones were ever murdered in a "gun free zone", I would do my best to sue the rule-makers into poverty. If it discouraged just one other rule-maker from making a rule to turn his venue into a slaughter zone it would be worth it.

If you forbid guns in some area you control, you are directly responsible when anyone is murdered there. And I hope someone makes you suffer for your foolishness.

.

Deserving of death?

If you don't believe someone deserves to die for what they are doing, how wrong can you really believe their acts to be?

I ask this of myself as much as I ask it of you.

I don't believe a teenager cutting across my yard deserves to be killed for trespassing.
I don't believe someone deserves to be killed for v*ting.
I don't believe people who believe government to be necessary deserves to die for that wrongheaded belief.

But I do believe they are wrong in every case I mentioned above.

And, I do believe many wrongdoers can rightly be killed by their victims (or intended victims).

Maybe the reason has something to do with "proportionality", although I'm not a firm believer in that concept either. Or, at least the weight I give some wrongs doesn't seem to align well with the weight others give them.

And, yet... statists. Every single little "offense" against their religion is ultimately punishable by death. But they believe they are the "reasonable ones".

.

Misdirected blame- government is failure

If your best argument against your opponents is to try to blame your own failures on them, you might be a statist.

I sometimes get amused at how often statists try to pin the failures of their religion on those of us who don't buy into their cult.

The Flint water disaster is a current example. Look how many times recently this disastrous failure of government is pointed to as what would happen if libertarians were "in charge" of supplying water.

Somalia- a case of way too much government meddling- is another example. I'm not sure how too much government, fighting to govern people who want no part of it, became anarchist dystopia in the minds of statists, but it has.

I'm sure there have been other examples I'm not thinking of right now. It's the best they can do. It's the only argument they have: to point to their endless failures and try to pin it on us.

I would laugh, if so many people didn't parrot their insanity.

But, back to the Flint, Michigan water problem. Why do statists believe clean water can only come from a centralized government facility? Do they miss the fact of all the bottled water out there, provided by companies large and small, all over the world? What about the water filters you can buy to clean water for yourself? Both household scale and individual.

Centralization is a way to guarantee BIG failure- to hurt lots of people at one time.

Decentralization limits harm by giving people a choice. Don't like that the water from your faucet smells bad and looks like murky tea? Stop buying the nasty water and buy good water from someone else.

And don't make the case that the government water is "free", because you know it isn't. You ARE buying it. And, by buying it through government, you are forced to pay for it even if you decide to buy clean water elsewhere. That's the only reason government can keep raking in the money for failure: succeed or fail, you have no choice but to keep paying. Just like government schools- another spectacular failure we are supposed to fear the lack of. And police.

The failures of all these are not reasons why we must keep settling for them, it is an illustration of why choice is better than compulsion.

They are testimony to the utter stupidity of continuing to keep government around and paying for it.

Even though its supporters want you believe its failure can be blamed on Liberty.

.

Wishing good will to liberty lovers

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 25, 2015. Merry Christmas.)

In this season of “Peace on Earth, good will toward men,” ask yourself if you are supporting the opposite.

Liberty activist Larken Rose points out that so many who say they want “peace on Earth” still support war-mongering politicians, and while talking about “good will toward men” they advocate widespread authoritarian aggression.

He also brings up how people "repeat a story about a baby being born in an animal's food trough after the baby's parents were forced to travel great distances in order to be registered and taxed... while condoning that everything be registered and taxed."

If you are under the impression you can find peace and good will through government, you may fall for anything. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.

If you seek peace on Earth, don't attack anyone, and don't support those who do. Peace is never aggressive; only defensive. To have peace means to be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself and others from those who don't want peace. However, you aren't defending yourself if you invade someone's home, order them around, and attack them because you believe they are a threat when they resist your meddling. If this is your idea of defense, you are confused and working against peace on Earth.

If you want good will toward men, stop treating people as they would rather not be treated. It means treating people as potential friends unless they give you a good reason to do otherwise, and then just staying out of their way as long as they let you.

It means helping out when you can, if your help is welcome- without harming anyone else in the process.

Those who think welfare is the same as generosity need to learn you can't be generous with something which isn't yours to give. It is generous to give of your own time or money; it is slavery to force someone to work for someone else, and theft to force them to hand over a percentage for the "common good". If your plan to help others relies on armed government employees and threats of fines or imprisonment, you obviously don't understand "helping".

Peace on Earth, good will to men. Live it by minding your own business, understanding what's your business and what isn't, and respecting where your rights begin and end. Then stop supporting those who do the opposite, whatever their flimsy justifications.

Merry Christmas to all peaceful, good people everywhere. The non-reformed Grinches are on their own.

.

I am not a "left libertarian" for the exact same reason I am not a "right libertarian".

Regardless of claims to the contrary, "left" and "right" are incompatible with liberty.

Some months ago I ran across this: Why I Am a Left Libertarian. As I often do with things that attempt to revive the zombie of "right vs left" I shrugged and promptly forgot it.

But, recently someone brought it to my attention again and asked me to address it.

So, I will.

I know a lot of people who call themselves "left libertarians" hark back to the origins of the idea of political "right vs left" to show why libertarianism is always of the "left". But I point back to those origins to demonstrate exactly why I am neither.

And here, taken from that column, is the important point:

"...it was in the French Legislative Assembly in the fall of 1791 that the terms Right and Left were first used in this political sense. As the Durants tell it, when the assembly convened, the 'substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. . .occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere.' The liberals, meanwhile, 'sat at the left.'"

Did you see that? Here it is again:

"Some fifty-odd years later, after another French Revolution (the one that took place in 1848) had unseated the last French king, Louis Philippe, the same seating arrangement was revived for the newly elected legislative assembly of the Second Republic. As has often been noted, two of the newly elected legislators who sat together on the left side of that assembly in 1848 and 1849 were the free market economist and publicist for free trade Frederic Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first man ever to publicly declare himself an anarchist."

Do you see the problem?

"Right" and "left" are notions reserved for those who want to govern you, or at least play the governing game. Maybe they want to govern you toward liberty, but they are still working to use government- the enemy of Rightful Liberty- to free you. How is that working out?

If you fall for the idea of "right" and "left" you aren't nearly as liberated as you could be. There is authoritarianism, also known as bullying, and there is libertarianism- also known as self-ownership, or "everything voluntary". No government involved. Liberty is not of the "right" or "left". It is superior to the methods of those who would govern- the tactics of the bullies.

So, call yourself what you want, but I am not a part of the "Left" nor of the "Right".

.

Don't be a Naxi

Naxi- A 21st Century authoritarian, police state apologist. Highly nationalistic. A fan of cops and the military, seeing them as incapable of doing wrong (other than a few obvious and inconvenient "bad apples").

Xenophobic; suspicious of "them", whoever they may be.

Loves government institutions as long as they are being run by those they want running them, and are doing what the individual Naxi believes they should be doing.

Drawn to government "jobs", and blindly supportive of them even when not employed by government.

Can often be identified by their mating calls, which include: "If you hate government, move to Somalia", "Love it or leave it", "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization".

Not to be confused in any way with "Nazi", because that might trigger those who misuse Godwin's Law in a way which protects the bad guys from valid comparison.

.

You and I are going wherever history takes us. Basically just going along for the ride, like it or not. We can't change that.

What we can try to do is stir up some eddies to affect where history goes. Stir things up a little. Try to have an effect. It may not work, but you never know. At least it gives you something to do in the meantime.

Even minding your own business and just taking care of your day-to-day life will have some kind of effect. So, be content to do that if that's what you feel is the best you can do.

Since you can never tell where any action will push history, I recommend you make sure to do the right thing every time. Then let history flow where it may. Whatever comes of it, you did the right thing.

.

Not every rule has exceptions

I just bumped into another of this guy's videos and in it he gets so close to being sensible this time. Much better than that other video I watched years ago, yet he can't quite make that last leap toward being right. It is frustrating.

He talks about some instances where rules were ignored because the alternative of following the rules would have been dumb or wrong. And, I agree, sometimes you have to ignore the rules.

And then he falls into a gaping pit.

He says "A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule."

So, "wise" people know when rape is good. When slavery is needed. When theft is justified.

Those pesky principles that say otherwise!

I am so glad I am not "wise" by his estimation, because, he equates evil with wisdom.

Now, if he didn't claim every rule needs exceptions, I could agree.

Counterfeit rules don't need to be followed. Even some good rules need to be ignored sometimes due to circumstances. But not every rule.

You have no right to initiate force- but that doesn't alter the fact that you might want to push someone out of the way of an out-of-control bus. This isn't an exception to the rule- you still have no right, but you choose whether to step outside of what you have a right to do if you believe it is worth it- and you accept the consequences. Acting in this way isn't an exception to the rule, it is part of it.



.

When boldness isn't

Many years ago, in one of the less pleasant places I have lived, there was a rash of convenience store robberies.

The sheriff took bold action by stationing armed deputies in the back of random convenience stores. Robbers couldn't be sure if the store they were planning to hold up was one of the stores picked that day or not.

According to the narrative as I remember it, the robberies pretty much stopped. If that's accurate, it is a good thing. But...

The problem is, the sheriff's act wasn't bold. It was more of the same. Just more armed government employees instead of the real solution: reminding people of their right (and I would say, duty) to be self-responsible armed individuals.

Instead of some minor percentage of convenience stores having an armed defender, almost all of them could have been protected. Without paying overtime to any tax junkie.

The sensible solution to just about everything is so clear, but it always proves the uselessness of government, so it will never be advanced by statists.

.

In the long run, government is its own greatest enemy.

It can't exist without making enemies of the good people.

It can't exist without attracting the bad people.

This isn't sustainable, and it's why governments always fall eventually. (So far, to always be replaced by another in the ultimate act of Utopian wishful thinking.)

If you believe yourself to be a good person, yet you support government, or have become a part of it, you need to re-examine yourself. There's a disconnect there somewhere. Either you aren't as good as you thought, or you are seriously out of place.

.

Murder, for whatever reasons

Murder is murder. It is the killing of someone who isn't violating the person or property of anyone- the killing of an innocent person.

That doesn't change if you do it for God and Country.

I doesn't change it into non-murder if you are a cop and kill someone for not complying with your orders fast enough to suit you. Or for choosing to run from someone they quite reasonably see as a threat. Or for striking back when approached by someone who, by the "uniform", proclaims gang membership and the associated history of aggression.

It doesn't change it into something less if you go with a military force to some other part of the world and kill people who are trying to repel the invaders.

It doesn't have loopholes for "executing" a person who was convicted of a crime they didn't commit, through deception and fudged crime lab results.

It doesn't matter if you believe your God says you must kill those who don't believe the same as you do.

If you intend to murder- whatever you choose to call it- I hope your intended victim or someone coming to their aid kills you first. Every single time. No exceptions.

.

Most confused on human rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 18, 2015)

Most people’s understanding of human rights is upside down and backward.

The question isn’t whether you have the right to own and to carry a gun or a sword; drive a car regardless of license or registration; make, sell, or buy meth; use your property as you see fit; smoke Cannabis; write, sing, or say whatever words you want to express; open a business; or anything else that has been claimed at one time or another to be a right.

The point is no one- regardless of any justification- has the right to forbid you to do any of those things. All real rights are a right to not have something done to you.

Confusing the issue of rights is a way to control your thoughts and keep you thinking inside the box.

If people actually understood rights, the debate would be turned on its head; it would stop being about what you have a right to do, and become about what others have no right to do to you.

This is why the imaginary right to govern and control others can't exist and therefore can't be delegated to anyone under any conditions- it is based on someone doing to others things they have no right to do.

Most people still believe in this kind of imaginary authority, though, and grasping sociopaths are eager to take advantage of this primitive, superstitious belief and gain political power- or to get hired. Government extremists want to make you see rights as privileges; things to be doled out as rewards, or rented from bureaucrats. No one can demand you license a right without becoming the villain, themselves.

Anyone who claims to have such power is admitting to being a bully.

The only things you have no right to do are those things which violate the person or property of another. Violate, not offend. This means just about every "law" is stepping outside what anyone has a right to do by forbidding things which don't violate person, property, or mutually voluntary choice. You have no right to make up "laws" of this sort, and doing so anyway makes you the offender.

However, your right- for example- to own and to carry a gun doesn't make me obligated to buy you one, nor pay for your ammunition. No one has a right to stand in your way of providing it for yourself, but that's as far as it goes.

.

What should government do?

(Previously posted to Patreon.)


What should government do?

That is the question that drives politics. And it's a stupid question.

Once you understand the nature of The State- what most people mean when they use the word "government"- you understand there is only one way to answer the question.

Government should do nothing other than get out of the way and stop. Stop everything.

Stop making up "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property. Stop enforcing the "laws" already on the books. Stop existing altogether.

But people like to argue over what they believe government should do. They mistake this passion for being informed and enlightened. Then they can argue over different policies and outcomes. They can hate each other for the choices they would make. Choices no one has any business making.

Slightly more honest people might say "I don't know" when asked "What should the government do about.... whatever?" They might believe they don't have enough information to make an intelligent argument for what government should do about everything. But you can only say that if you intentionally stay ignorant. You have all the data you need.

Aggression is wrong. Theft is wrong. Government can't exist without aggression and theft- without those it becomes something other than government. So, government is wrong. Government shouldn't. Anything. Ever. Period.

Saying "I don't know" in answer to this question is an attempt to avoid responsibility. An attempt to avoid being scorned for doing the right thing.

I'm sorry if you can't see how your pet issue could be solved without a gang relying on theft and aggression to solve it, but that's your failing, not mine. Good luck outgrowing that..

People fret over the oddest things

Such as hierarchies.

People who worry about hierarchies, and who believe them to be incompatible with anarchy, bewilder me.

There are legitimate hierarchies and illegitimate ones.

If I hire you to do a specific job for me, my insistence on you doing that job is a legitimate hierarchy.

If you are elected into some position and claim that gives you the "authority" to order me around, that is an illegitimate hierarchy.

If I can't specify certain outcomes in exchange for my paying you, then I'm not going to pay you. In fact, I won't trade with you at all- "pay" doesn't have to mean only money. It doesn't mean I am "over" you in any way, but it means we agreed that I would give you something in exchange for something else. I am not exploiting you unless I force you into an arrangement where you aren't willing to be. In which case self defense seems to be in order, not whining over hierarchies.

.