"This is the most crucial election in our lifetime". LOL.
Every single time.
Does anyone still buy that from the v*te pushers?
.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
‘I don’t know’ makes flimsy cover
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 22, 2016)
“I don’t know” can be one of the smartest things you ever say. At least, when you honestly don’t know.
Whenever possible, it should be followed up with finding out what it was you didn’t know. Once you discover a gap in your knowledge, how can you be content to leave it unfilled?
"I don't know" can also be one of the dumbest things you say when you say it because you don't want to know, or don't want to speak the truth.
You can claim you don't know who would be the best president, what government should do, or which laws should be enacted, but you could know. Easily. You don't even need to find out anything new. The answers are inside you. You've known since you were five years old, or younger, that it's not OK to start a fight or take what doesn't belong to you. It takes years of schooling to trick people into believing exceptions exist.
Once you remember what you've known you can see no one is suited to preside over any other person who didn't specifically sign an agreement to be represented by that person. Voting for them isn't enough. Even in the event of a landslide only a small minority of the population voted for the declared winner.
The question of what government should do about anything must be answered with "Nothing. Get out of the way. Stop." Unless everyone lies to children about starting fights and stealing being wrong.
In the same way, if a law violates anyone's liberty it shouldn't be passed or enforced. Not ever.
"I don't know" only works in these instances until you think. You just lost your excuse.
Maybe you wish to avoid the truth by saying you don't know when actually you'd simply rather not face what it is you are supporting.
People seem to believe they look enlightened by not condemning acts which violate person or property, and those who habitually commit those acts. They pretend they are keeping an open mind. They are mistaken.
You don't need to be a victim of murder to come out against murder. Not only murder- the ultimate violation of person- but lesser violations as well. Those who insist you can't understand the complexities involved until you have been on both sides are lying.
So admit you don't know when you honestly don't know. But don't hide behind "I don't know" when facing the truth would make you uncomfortable.
.
“I don’t know” can be one of the smartest things you ever say. At least, when you honestly don’t know.
Whenever possible, it should be followed up with finding out what it was you didn’t know. Once you discover a gap in your knowledge, how can you be content to leave it unfilled?
"I don't know" can also be one of the dumbest things you say when you say it because you don't want to know, or don't want to speak the truth.
You can claim you don't know who would be the best president, what government should do, or which laws should be enacted, but you could know. Easily. You don't even need to find out anything new. The answers are inside you. You've known since you were five years old, or younger, that it's not OK to start a fight or take what doesn't belong to you. It takes years of schooling to trick people into believing exceptions exist.
Once you remember what you've known you can see no one is suited to preside over any other person who didn't specifically sign an agreement to be represented by that person. Voting for them isn't enough. Even in the event of a landslide only a small minority of the population voted for the declared winner.
The question of what government should do about anything must be answered with "Nothing. Get out of the way. Stop." Unless everyone lies to children about starting fights and stealing being wrong.
In the same way, if a law violates anyone's liberty it shouldn't be passed or enforced. Not ever.
"I don't know" only works in these instances until you think. You just lost your excuse.
Maybe you wish to avoid the truth by saying you don't know when actually you'd simply rather not face what it is you are supporting.
People seem to believe they look enlightened by not condemning acts which violate person or property, and those who habitually commit those acts. They pretend they are keeping an open mind. They are mistaken.
You don't need to be a victim of murder to come out against murder. Not only murder- the ultimate violation of person- but lesser violations as well. Those who insist you can't understand the complexities involved until you have been on both sides are lying.
So admit you don't know when you honestly don't know. But don't hide behind "I don't know" when facing the truth would make you uncomfortable.
.
Justifying The State
If you justify the existence of "government"- The State- by saying because of a lack of godliness, "men are not to be trusted", you might have a thinking problem.
Just exactly who do you believe makes up these governments you feel “we need”, if not those men you say are “not to be trusted”?
If god can somehow make men good enough to govern others, why do you doubt his ability to make men good enough to govern themselves? Seems contradictory to me.
.
Just exactly who do you believe makes up these governments you feel “we need”, if not those men you say are “not to be trusted”?
If god can somehow make men good enough to govern others, why do you doubt his ability to make men good enough to govern themselves? Seems contradictory to me.
.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Communication isn't as easy as it looks
Communication doesn't seem like it should be so difficult. And, often people seem to believe they are communicating when they aren't.
Often it's because one particular word is being used to mean different (or even opposite) things by each person. Or sometimes the trouble lies elsewhere.
Sometimes there isn't a precise word to convey the meaning I need. In the past I have invented a few of my own words, but generally I use words already out there.
Then, to try to avoid confusion, I define the words as I use them.
Sometimes people disagree with the particular words I use. And sometimes, they might be right, according to the dictionary definitions. Sometimes I disagree with the dictionary definitions, too.
A few words I have experienced this with are "moral", "anarchy", "freedom", "liberty", and "government".
The dictionary definitions as they stand simply won't work- they are too fuzzy or include opposing concepts under the same word. But, I still need to get my meaning across, and the best way I can see doing that is to define what I mean when I use a certain word. If you have a better idea, let me know.
.
Often it's because one particular word is being used to mean different (or even opposite) things by each person. Or sometimes the trouble lies elsewhere.
Sometimes there isn't a precise word to convey the meaning I need. In the past I have invented a few of my own words, but generally I use words already out there.
Then, to try to avoid confusion, I define the words as I use them.
Sometimes people disagree with the particular words I use. And sometimes, they might be right, according to the dictionary definitions. Sometimes I disagree with the dictionary definitions, too.
A few words I have experienced this with are "moral", "anarchy", "freedom", "liberty", and "government".
The dictionary definitions as they stand simply won't work- they are too fuzzy or include opposing concepts under the same word. But, I still need to get my meaning across, and the best way I can see doing that is to define what I mean when I use a certain word. If you have a better idea, let me know.
.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Beliefs full of holes
There are many things I used to believe- and speak passionately in defense of- that I no longer believe.
In arguing the issues with others, they pointed out the holes in my beliefs, and I (eventually, reluctantly, painfully) saw they were right. It was unpleasant. But, I'd rather change my beliefs than hold on to something I now saw couldn't quite be the way I believed it was.
The funny thing is, they weren't always happy with where seeing the holes led me. They had pointed out the holes, assuming I would come to agree with their position, when the trouble was I already saw the holes in their beliefs, so I couldn't go there. And sometimes, what looks like a hole to someone else, is only the hole they are looking through.
The more of those holes I saw, and the more of my beliefs that had to be modified because of seeing them and fixing the problem, the more I moved toward anarchism. There were other changes, too, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.
I'm sure, looking at history, I still have holes in my beliefs left to discover. And I hope I'll be as willing to see them, when they are pointed out, as I have been in the past.
So, yes, keep speaking up. Keep trying to show people the holes in their beliefs. But if you have holes in your own beliefs- whether you are aware of them or not- don't be surprised if people don't come to agree with you, but choose a third path. Or dismiss the holes you imagine you are seeing while looking through your own.
.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Are YOU a monster?
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Your feelings make no difference. The "law" makes no difference. If you ban guns on property you manage, You Are A Monster.
You are telling the world you don't care about anyone's safety- except the safety of people who come to your property armed and intent on murder.
Again: your feelings are irrelevant, as are "laws". Those things don't change the truth of what you are doing. You are helping murderers carry out their attacks. Yes, YOU!
Because- and you know you've heard this countless times, yet you fail to grasp the reality of it: Bad guys who already don't mind breaking "laws" forbidding rape, murder, theft, or whatever ARE NOT GOING TO BE BOTHERED BY THE FACT THEY ARE BREAKING ANOTHER RULE!!! The ONLY effect your rule might have is to keep good armed people away- the very people you NEED to have around when the bad guys saunter past your silly signs.
I can't stress this enough because rules like yours KILL PEOPLE all the time. If you ban guns on property you are responsible for, you are saying you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for a political agenda. You are not being "reasonable" or cautious, or even "law abiding". You are being a monster who is loudly proclaiming that innocent lives don't mean squat to you.
And if you justify it with "laws" and such, you are also a coward; unwilling to ignore deadly rules for the sake of appearances.
It is appalling and sickening that people like you are mistakenly given any responsibility over anything.
.
.
Your feelings make no difference. The "law" makes no difference. If you ban guns on property you manage, You Are A Monster.
You are telling the world you don't care about anyone's safety- except the safety of people who come to your property armed and intent on murder.
Again: your feelings are irrelevant, as are "laws". Those things don't change the truth of what you are doing. You are helping murderers carry out their attacks. Yes, YOU!
Because- and you know you've heard this countless times, yet you fail to grasp the reality of it: Bad guys who already don't mind breaking "laws" forbidding rape, murder, theft, or whatever ARE NOT GOING TO BE BOTHERED BY THE FACT THEY ARE BREAKING ANOTHER RULE!!! The ONLY effect your rule might have is to keep good armed people away- the very people you NEED to have around when the bad guys saunter past your silly signs.
I can't stress this enough because rules like yours KILL PEOPLE all the time. If you ban guns on property you are responsible for, you are saying you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for a political agenda. You are not being "reasonable" or cautious, or even "law abiding". You are being a monster who is loudly proclaiming that innocent lives don't mean squat to you.
And if you justify it with "laws" and such, you are also a coward; unwilling to ignore deadly rules for the sake of appearances.
It is appalling and sickening that people like you are mistakenly given any responsibility over anything.
.
.
America: it was probably a nice concept
I can get irritated when people get tied up in definitions and words.
And, yet, I can do the same thing.
Many years ago I said "If you love America, fear the US", and "The US is the greatest threat America has ever faced". Many people don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll explain.
It bothers me that people use the words "The United States" (or even worse, "The US") to refer to America. It bothers me less now that I recognize the evil of every State, but it does still bother me some. It's a flaw.
But, lets trace the course of this trainwreck.
Originally, there were just people. They formed communities and some of them tied their identity to those communities. Some of the communities merged, and merged again, and joined to become states. A tragic mistake, but it is as it is.
Over time, in one of the places on Earth, those states united to become a nation, a sort of compound state: America. Again, there is nothing good about nations- any nations- but we are talking about what happened, not what should have happened.
Sometimes the people who lived in America liked to point out that America consisted of states which had united, and would describe America as "the united states of America", just like I could describe myself as a combination of various body parts, which if I wanted to spell it out, I could do by saying I consist of "the various parts of Kent". Yet, I remain Kent, and the united states of America remains America.
Or, does it?
Now it seems the "Union" has become more important than America in the minds of most people. "United States" is routinely capitalized, and often "America" is dropped altogether. "America" has become unimportant.
That's like me being called "The Various Parts" instead of "Kent".
The attractive promises made at the founding of America have all been broken now. Wise people see this is where "government" always leads, and why establishing one, even with possibly "good intentions", is a horrible mistake.
This particular nation has gone from being "America" to being "the US", and the US is getting further along the path toward... well... nothing good.
It's the fault of those who continue to support government- especially by working for it. The blame that rests with people in the military and cops is exponentially greater than the blame anyone else bears- they are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. They are the hired guns of the enemy- both in your hometown and around the planet. Their treachery is unforgivable.
Left to play itself out, this ends only one way- regardless of the symbol that will come to represent it.
And, yet, I can do the same thing.
Many years ago I said "If you love America, fear the US", and "The US is the greatest threat America has ever faced". Many people don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll explain.
It bothers me that people use the words "The United States" (or even worse, "The US") to refer to America. It bothers me less now that I recognize the evil of every State, but it does still bother me some. It's a flaw.
But, lets trace the course of this trainwreck.
Originally, there were just people. They formed communities and some of them tied their identity to those communities. Some of the communities merged, and merged again, and joined to become states. A tragic mistake, but it is as it is.
Over time, in one of the places on Earth, those states united to become a nation, a sort of compound state: America. Again, there is nothing good about nations- any nations- but we are talking about what happened, not what should have happened.
Sometimes the people who lived in America liked to point out that America consisted of states which had united, and would describe America as "the united states of America", just like I could describe myself as a combination of various body parts, which if I wanted to spell it out, I could do by saying I consist of "the various parts of Kent". Yet, I remain Kent, and the united states of America remains America.
Or, does it?
Now it seems the "Union" has become more important than America in the minds of most people. "United States" is routinely capitalized, and often "America" is dropped altogether. "America" has become unimportant.
That's like me being called "The Various Parts" instead of "Kent".
The attractive promises made at the founding of America have all been broken now. Wise people see this is where "government" always leads, and why establishing one, even with possibly "good intentions", is a horrible mistake.
This particular nation has gone from being "America" to being "the US", and the US is getting further along the path toward... well... nothing good.
It's the fault of those who continue to support government- especially by working for it. The blame that rests with people in the military and cops is exponentially greater than the blame anyone else bears- they are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. They are the hired guns of the enemy- both in your hometown and around the planet. Their treachery is unforgivable.
Left to play itself out, this ends only one way- regardless of the symbol that will come to represent it.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Feelings don't alter reality
It happens from time to time; I have been feeling really discouraged and down for the past week or so. This makes it hard to write, among other things.
Events of the past few months have probably not helped.
But, no matter how I feel, I still know where I stand. I know what I know to be true, and I want to know what I don't yet know. Whether it confirms the things I suspect, but don't know, or disproves them. I'd rather know I've been wrong than "feel smart". In fact, I love learning that something I thought was true isn't- even if it means I have to adjust.
No matter what is going on in my head, I know I have no right to initiate force. I know I have no right to violate your property. I know you owe me nothing beyond respecting my life, liberty, and property, and that if you don't do this minimum, I can defend myself from you or your agents with a clear conscience. I know my existence places no obligation on you beyond this.
And, for the most part, as long as you don't have a government "job", I know you'll probably live up to it. Almost all the aggression and property violations I have experienced in my life were committed by people using the excuse of "government"- and the few violators who were freelance I was able to deal with. Or not.
I don't know how every little problem will be solved if I don't allow myself to use (or advocate) aggression or theft. Or even if every problem can be solved without aggression and/or theft. I suspect there are unsolvable problems out there, and even if I wish it weren't true, I am OK if that's just the way reality is. It changes nothing to feel otherwise.
Regardless of how I feel, there is a firm foundation propping me up. It may not be much, but it's enough. It has to be.
.
Events of the past few months have probably not helped.
But, no matter how I feel, I still know where I stand. I know what I know to be true, and I want to know what I don't yet know. Whether it confirms the things I suspect, but don't know, or disproves them. I'd rather know I've been wrong than "feel smart". In fact, I love learning that something I thought was true isn't- even if it means I have to adjust.
No matter what is going on in my head, I know I have no right to initiate force. I know I have no right to violate your property. I know you owe me nothing beyond respecting my life, liberty, and property, and that if you don't do this minimum, I can defend myself from you or your agents with a clear conscience. I know my existence places no obligation on you beyond this.
And, for the most part, as long as you don't have a government "job", I know you'll probably live up to it. Almost all the aggression and property violations I have experienced in my life were committed by people using the excuse of "government"- and the few violators who were freelance I was able to deal with. Or not.
I don't know how every little problem will be solved if I don't allow myself to use (or advocate) aggression or theft. Or even if every problem can be solved without aggression and/or theft. I suspect there are unsolvable problems out there, and even if I wish it weren't true, I am OK if that's just the way reality is. It changes nothing to feel otherwise.
Regardless of how I feel, there is a firm foundation propping me up. It may not be much, but it's enough. It has to be.
.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Find the humor
When you are swimming against the current it helps to have a sense of humor about it all.
I enjoy watching movies and TV shows and considering solutions that don't involve theft or coercion to the melodramatic problems they pose- everything voluntary.
It gets easier all the time.
I also overhear (or read) people getting all worked up over things that wouldn't even be an issue in a free society. Like whether "illegal immigrants" should be permitted to have drivers licenses, and how the state can do that and still be "Real ID compliant". What? Talk about making nothin' out of nothin'... carry the nothin'...
It's like imaginative children worrying about whether Batman could defeat Spiderman during a zombie attack, using Calvin and Hobbes' cardboard box time machine as a weapon.
And that can also make me smile, as long as I don't get caught up in the absurdity of it all.
Yes, there are serious problems out there that shouldn't be ignored, but life can't be all work and no play, or what's the point?
It can also be amusing to propose a liberty-respecting solution and sit back and watch the teeth-gnashing. It's like tossing a dye-containing steak to a pack of ravenous hyenas; their faces get covered in funny colors but they can't see it.
.
I enjoy watching movies and TV shows and considering solutions that don't involve theft or coercion to the melodramatic problems they pose- everything voluntary.
It gets easier all the time.
I also overhear (or read) people getting all worked up over things that wouldn't even be an issue in a free society. Like whether "illegal immigrants" should be permitted to have drivers licenses, and how the state can do that and still be "Real ID compliant". What? Talk about making nothin' out of nothin'... carry the nothin'...
It's like imaginative children worrying about whether Batman could defeat Spiderman during a zombie attack, using Calvin and Hobbes' cardboard box time machine as a weapon.
And that can also make me smile, as long as I don't get caught up in the absurdity of it all.
Yes, there are serious problems out there that shouldn't be ignored, but life can't be all work and no play, or what's the point?
It can also be amusing to propose a liberty-respecting solution and sit back and watch the teeth-gnashing. It's like tossing a dye-containing steak to a pack of ravenous hyenas; their faces get covered in funny colors but they can't see it.
.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Obama’s anti-gun orders criminal
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 15, 2016- Obviously, in spite of the headline, the criminal actions don't stop with Obama, but extend to every politician, bureaucrat, or cop who has ever advocated, passed, or enforced even the most "minor" anti-gun "law".)
Are you worried by Obama’s latest anti-gun executive orders? Don’t be. He and his accomplices have no more authority to make up laws regarding guns than I do to demand you paint your house orange.
Don’t believe me?
Consider: The Second Amendment — which, as an amendment, over-rides anything to the contrary in the original Constitution — makes devising or enforcing any law as to guns, by any level of government, a serious crime. You are not bound to obey criminals, not even if they claim they are enforcing a law.
Second of all, even repealing the Second Amendment can't make the core human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, in any way you see fit, everywhere you go, without ever asking permission from any government employee, go away. Nothing can.
The right existed before the first government was forced on a population, it will exist long after the last government decomposes on the corpses it helped pile up, and it exists everywhere in the Universe where any human being lives. Including North Korea, Chicago, or the post office- in spite of any claims to the contrary.
No one who works for government has any say in who buys, sell, owns, or carries a gun. They have no say in anything regarding any weapons they don't personally own. Not legally; not morally.
This is common sense about guns. It is reasonable, and it is true.
Don't think bullies won't arrest (kidnap, under color of law) or murder you for exercising your rights, though. Bad guys will always be on the prowl to get you. Be alert.
It is up to you to either pretend anti-liberty executive orders and laws have authority over you, or to recognize they don't and live in liberty. No one can make this choice for you.
Liberty is the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate anyone else. Liberty, including the unconditional human right to own and to carry weapons (what "keep and bear arms" means), is your birthright. Liberty, though, never includes a right to threaten or harm anyone who isn't violating you, since that would damage the other person's rights.
Rights are equal and identical no matter who you are, where you were born, or where you happen to be.
So, do the right thing, don't worry about what politicians or their hired guns say, and watch out for those who live to violate you. It's the human thing to do, regardless of what bubbles up from the cesspools of government.
.
Are you worried by Obama’s latest anti-gun executive orders? Don’t be. He and his accomplices have no more authority to make up laws regarding guns than I do to demand you paint your house orange.
Don’t believe me?
Consider: The Second Amendment — which, as an amendment, over-rides anything to the contrary in the original Constitution — makes devising or enforcing any law as to guns, by any level of government, a serious crime. You are not bound to obey criminals, not even if they claim they are enforcing a law.
Second of all, even repealing the Second Amendment can't make the core human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, in any way you see fit, everywhere you go, without ever asking permission from any government employee, go away. Nothing can.
The right existed before the first government was forced on a population, it will exist long after the last government decomposes on the corpses it helped pile up, and it exists everywhere in the Universe where any human being lives. Including North Korea, Chicago, or the post office- in spite of any claims to the contrary.
No one who works for government has any say in who buys, sell, owns, or carries a gun. They have no say in anything regarding any weapons they don't personally own. Not legally; not morally.
This is common sense about guns. It is reasonable, and it is true.
Don't think bullies won't arrest (kidnap, under color of law) or murder you for exercising your rights, though. Bad guys will always be on the prowl to get you. Be alert.
It is up to you to either pretend anti-liberty executive orders and laws have authority over you, or to recognize they don't and live in liberty. No one can make this choice for you.
Liberty is the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate anyone else. Liberty, including the unconditional human right to own and to carry weapons (what "keep and bear arms" means), is your birthright. Liberty, though, never includes a right to threaten or harm anyone who isn't violating you, since that would damage the other person's rights.
Rights are equal and identical no matter who you are, where you were born, or where you happen to be.
So, do the right thing, don't worry about what politicians or their hired guns say, and watch out for those who live to violate you. It's the human thing to do, regardless of what bubbles up from the cesspools of government.
.
What's the Constitution good for?
There is only one thing the US Constitution is good for: showing how the US government refused to be held back, and refused to abide by the contract it agreed to. That's it.
It was a mess from the beginning- it set up a State. Never a wise move, nor an ethical one.
Then, the bullies who tested its limits and got away with it- and by that I mean they lived another day- stretched it beyond all recognition.
The only time I'll bother mentioning the Constitution is when I want to show how criminal the government is.
Might as well toss it aside (you, I mean- the government already did so) and get on with surviving in a world where some bullies call themselves "government" and make it their goal to violate you and your property however they can get away with.
Don't pretend the Constitution ever protected your rights. Don't think you can save it and protect your rights into the future by getting politicians to anoint the "right" Supreme Courtjester. You, and you alone, are responsible for protecting your rights. I'll help if and when I can. But a long-dead document isn't going to help a bit.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Labels, like reality, can be limiting
The popular aversion to "labeling" ("I reject gender stereotypes"... "I don't call myself 'libertarian'") seems really silly to me.
Seems these people are too self-absorbed to admit that they aren't completely unique in every aspect of their lives. It's trendy and hip. But it's also painfully pretentious.
Yes, you probably do have a gender, whether you want to be identified by that gender or not. Very, very few people are perfectly balanced between genders; most tend more toward one than the other- usually almost completely. You may have qualities usually associated with both genders- that changes nothing. And it's nothing to be ashamed of- nor to celebrate. Get over yourself. And stop trying to make people feel bad for referring to you as "he" or "she".
And, if you recognize you have no right to initiate force you are libertarian. You might be a really bad libertarian if you choose to initiate force anyway, but only libertarians recognize that they have no right to initiate force.
I get it- labels can be "limiting". Especially if you are mislabeled or choose to label yourself deceptively. But, in those cases you can change, ignore the label, or demonstrate why it's wrong. And reality is always limiting. Often you can do this or that, but not both. Children don't like that reality and try really hard to deny it.
Labels are a tool, and like any tool can be good or bad. Use them wisely, but accept they are going to be used, whether you like it or not.
.
Seems these people are too self-absorbed to admit that they aren't completely unique in every aspect of their lives. It's trendy and hip. But it's also painfully pretentious.
Yes, you probably do have a gender, whether you want to be identified by that gender or not. Very, very few people are perfectly balanced between genders; most tend more toward one than the other- usually almost completely. You may have qualities usually associated with both genders- that changes nothing. And it's nothing to be ashamed of- nor to celebrate. Get over yourself. And stop trying to make people feel bad for referring to you as "he" or "she".
And, if you recognize you have no right to initiate force you are libertarian. You might be a really bad libertarian if you choose to initiate force anyway, but only libertarians recognize that they have no right to initiate force.
I get it- labels can be "limiting". Especially if you are mislabeled or choose to label yourself deceptively. But, in those cases you can change, ignore the label, or demonstrate why it's wrong. And reality is always limiting. Often you can do this or that, but not both. Children don't like that reality and try really hard to deny it.
Labels are a tool, and like any tool can be good or bad. Use them wisely, but accept they are going to be used, whether you like it or not.
.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Taxing Big Business
Corporations, "Wall Street", and "Big Business" don't ever pay "taxes". No matter how you "tax" them, the consumer- the "little guy": YOU and me- will always be the ones paying the "tax".
That's not meanness on their part. It is a simple economic reality "Big Business" couldn't change even if it wanted to.
"Taxes" are a cost of doing business for them- as is hiring accountants and lawyers to deal with the "taxes". If they don't figure in that cost while calculating the price they charge you, they go out of business.
"Big Business" can absorb this cost into the cost of doing business more easily than a small business can, so it will affect their costs (and customers) less than it would a small business. So, the "tax" hurts small business more than it hurts "Big Business", eliminating competition- those "taxes" are anti-business, anti-choice, and anti-consumer.
It's simple, it's harsh, and it's true.
So, if you advocate raising their "taxes" for any reason, you are "taxing" yourself. And me. And "taxing" me is robbing me, and I don't appreciate it one little bit. Knock it off!
.
That's not meanness on their part. It is a simple economic reality "Big Business" couldn't change even if it wanted to.
"Taxes" are a cost of doing business for them- as is hiring accountants and lawyers to deal with the "taxes". If they don't figure in that cost while calculating the price they charge you, they go out of business.
"Big Business" can absorb this cost into the cost of doing business more easily than a small business can, so it will affect their costs (and customers) less than it would a small business. So, the "tax" hurts small business more than it hurts "Big Business", eliminating competition- those "taxes" are anti-business, anti-choice, and anti-consumer.
It's simple, it's harsh, and it's true.
So, if you advocate raising their "taxes" for any reason, you are "taxing" yourself. And me. And "taxing" me is robbing me, and I don't appreciate it one little bit. Knock it off!
.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
No explanation necessary
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are for "Black Lives Matter" one month and "Ranchers' Lives Matter" another month. And if new information comes out, you don't have to change your position. "Non-Aggressor Lives Matter" is all you need to proclaim.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are for "marriage equality" this month, and for the right of bakers to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding next month.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are against "Sobriety checkpoints" one month, and think those who drive drunk are responsible for restitution next month. Or, a couple of hours later.
Consistency is crucial.
.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are for "marriage equality" this month, and for the right of bakers to refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding next month.
If you stay consistently on the side of Rightful Liberty you don't have to explain why you are against "Sobriety checkpoints" one month, and think those who drive drunk are responsible for restitution next month. Or, a couple of hours later.
Consistency is crucial.
.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Military or prison
I used to see some troublemaker teens and understand the State's offer of "military or prison".
But then I started observing, and using my brain.
I understand the thinking behind it: teens who keep getting into trouble seem to need discipline and structure, and something to give their lives meaning. Joining the military will supposedly provide that and put them into a supervised culture of camaraderie and cooperation.
So does prison.
Plus both justify more theft ("taxes") and government control. And we are told endlessly how unsafe "we" would be without either one.
Prison fosters an "us vs them" mentality among those who have gone through it- forever dividing them from everyone in society who hasn't gone through the same thing, and making them see everyone else as- at least- partly an enemy of sorts. It may (may) solve some behavior problems, but it just supersizes others.
Some people who go through prison want you to know. They make it the pivotal point in their life- one they dwell on the rest of their life, letting it define them as a person, and basing the rest of their lives on that event.
Same with the military.
Some people go through the military and move on. Some I have had the misfortune of knowing personally can't seem to do that. No matter how many years ago they got out, they never leave. They are never again free. They still let it define them, and probably always will. They are the ones getting angry while reading this.
So, "military or prison" isn't really a choice. And I can't support either institution.
.
But then I started observing, and using my brain.
I understand the thinking behind it: teens who keep getting into trouble seem to need discipline and structure, and something to give their lives meaning. Joining the military will supposedly provide that and put them into a supervised culture of camaraderie and cooperation.
So does prison.
Plus both justify more theft ("taxes") and government control. And we are told endlessly how unsafe "we" would be without either one.
Prison fosters an "us vs them" mentality among those who have gone through it- forever dividing them from everyone in society who hasn't gone through the same thing, and making them see everyone else as- at least- partly an enemy of sorts. It may (may) solve some behavior problems, but it just supersizes others.
Some people who go through prison want you to know. They make it the pivotal point in their life- one they dwell on the rest of their life, letting it define them as a person, and basing the rest of their lives on that event.
Same with the military.
Some people go through the military and move on. Some I have had the misfortune of knowing personally can't seem to do that. No matter how many years ago they got out, they never leave. They are never again free. They still let it define them, and probably always will. They are the ones getting angry while reading this.
So, "military or prison" isn't really a choice. And I can't support either institution.
.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Be pro-life AND pro-choice
Anti-abortion is not the same as pro-life.
Not unless you are also against prohibition, cops, prisons, the military, and government in general. Then you could claim to be pro-life and I won't consider you a hypocrite.
I know no one personally, in real life, who is anti-abortion and also pro-life.
Instead I know a lot of people who are anti-abortion for religious reasons, and who are also supporters of prohibition, cops, prisons, the military, and government, supposedly also for religious reasons, and who don't seem to recognize their hypocrisy.
On the other hand, pro-choice is not pro-liberty if your choices differ from the choices they want you to make.
To be really pro-life would mean you are also really pro-choice.
Choose to not prevent people from living free of being violated, controlled, robbed, kidnapped, or being forced to deal with people they'd rather not. Choose to not prevent them from living according to their own religious beliefs, while you live by yours. Choose to not prevent them from engaging in acts you feel are wrong, as long as they don't force you to go along or fund them. Choose to not prevent them from doing anything they want, as long as they are not using violence against the non-violent or those who are not violating private property, and are not violating the property of others.
Sure, that will mean people will do things you think are wrong. Just like you will be doing things others think are equally wrong. Both of you can speak out, ridicule, and insult the other. As long as you don't physically attack or trespass- which necessarily includes making up "laws" to try to impose your will on the others.
If you are attacked or your property is violated, defend yourself. If you see someone else being victimized, defend them if you want. There will be consequences. Accept them, or don't act.
Be truly pro-life and pro-choice.
.
.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Government just another disaster
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 8, 2016)
Maybe it’s a personal fault, but I like blizzards. I enjoy anything interesting and challenging.
The way to keep “interesting and challenging” from becoming a disaster is by planning ahead.
I try to be as ready as possible for emergencies or problems. I have kerosene lamps in case of a blackout. I also have a fireplace, and fun and games that don’t require electricity — not even batteries.
I have emergency food and water. Most importantly, I have enthusiasm for any chance to test it all.
I am a little disappointed I almost never have a blackout. It's a testament to the power (pun intended) of the companies who actually have to keep customers relatively happy. They are motivated to do a great job. Guys with guns won't show up to kidnap you if you disconnect from the electric pole- unlike the government monopolies you are forced to use, and pay for even if you find a better option.
Besides the opportunity to use my provisions, I also enjoy seeing what I missed and need to improve. It's a learning experience and I love learning.
Sometimes those around me don't enjoy adventures as much as I do. This provides another test.
I try to enjoy other challenges too, but it can be harder. To me an impersonal blizzard is more fun to deal with than similarly destructive groups of people who only exist to make life more difficult and dangerous- in practice if not by intention. Government employees do this when they impose themselves into a difficult situation and manage to make it worse; getting in the way of those who don't need their "help". Blizzards don't show up, then demand your thanks and strut around as if you couldn't live without them.
For that matter, neither do hurricanes, earthquakes, and plagues- all of which are less destructive in the long run than government.
But, you can prepare for the inevitability of natural events, and you can do the same for the malevolent winds of government. It won't always be around. Eventually our descendants will shake their heads in amazement that we tolerated it, but for now look upon it as you would any other bothersome reality you need to learn to navigate around.
Maybe you can even turn it into a game so your children will be better at surviving it than you are. It works with blizzards and blackouts; it can work for other disasters, too.
.
Maybe it’s a personal fault, but I like blizzards. I enjoy anything interesting and challenging.
The way to keep “interesting and challenging” from becoming a disaster is by planning ahead.
I try to be as ready as possible for emergencies or problems. I have kerosene lamps in case of a blackout. I also have a fireplace, and fun and games that don’t require electricity — not even batteries.
I have emergency food and water. Most importantly, I have enthusiasm for any chance to test it all.
I am a little disappointed I almost never have a blackout. It's a testament to the power (pun intended) of the companies who actually have to keep customers relatively happy. They are motivated to do a great job. Guys with guns won't show up to kidnap you if you disconnect from the electric pole- unlike the government monopolies you are forced to use, and pay for even if you find a better option.
Besides the opportunity to use my provisions, I also enjoy seeing what I missed and need to improve. It's a learning experience and I love learning.
Sometimes those around me don't enjoy adventures as much as I do. This provides another test.
I try to enjoy other challenges too, but it can be harder. To me an impersonal blizzard is more fun to deal with than similarly destructive groups of people who only exist to make life more difficult and dangerous- in practice if not by intention. Government employees do this when they impose themselves into a difficult situation and manage to make it worse; getting in the way of those who don't need their "help". Blizzards don't show up, then demand your thanks and strut around as if you couldn't live without them.
For that matter, neither do hurricanes, earthquakes, and plagues- all of which are less destructive in the long run than government.
But, you can prepare for the inevitability of natural events, and you can do the same for the malevolent winds of government. It won't always be around. Eventually our descendants will shake their heads in amazement that we tolerated it, but for now look upon it as you would any other bothersome reality you need to learn to navigate around.
Maybe you can even turn it into a game so your children will be better at surviving it than you are. It works with blizzards and blackouts; it can work for other disasters, too.
.
Rule by Defectives
(Previously posted to Patreon)
This obsession with trying to structure the world around defective people is annoying, and probably a really bad idea. Both for the individuals being coddled, and for society as a whole. Maybe even for civilization.
It's nice to do helpful things for the defective, when you can. And to encourage them to do things for themselves. What isn't nice is damaging everyone else by the effort to accommodate them. A "lowest common denominator" society is a dying society. Or, as L. Neil Smith has written, "Euro-American welfare statism's preoccupation with 'the halt and the lame' isn't an iota healthier than the obsession of ancient Egypt's priest-kings with death."
Seems like no matter what you want to do these days, there is some group of victims out there saying you can't, or you'll be hurting them.
Maybe I'm just not nice, but I just don't have much sympathy for those who think their defects entitle them to whittle away at everyone else's freedom.
Everyone is defective; not everyone is "a defective".
I'm defective. My eyesight is horrible. I'm emotionally scarred by my daughter's recent death. I'm tall enough that I constantly hit my head on things built for short people- and sometimes it really hurts (and is why I usually wear a hat, even indoors). I am unsuited for the modern world in ways I can't articulate. But I don't demand everyone make the world safe for my defects, at the expense of everyone else. It is my responsibility to accommodate myself and my needs. I know what my defects are, and I can learn- I will learn- to navigate around them.
But the defective victim whiners don't want that responsibility.
If I am allergic (one of the most over-used justifications today) to tobacco smoke or peanuts, I understand that my allergy- my defect- will limit my freedom to go where I want. It doesn't give me the right, created out of thin air, to tell you where you are allowed to smoke or eat peanuts. That's between you and the property owner.
If I go into a business and bump my head on all their doorways or hanging signage, it is my responsibility to either duck or go elsewhere.
If I can't read a sign because of my eyesight, it doesn't create a responsibility in others to make bigger signs or to give me better glasses- even if not being able to read the sign could kill me.
If I am distraught due to my daughter's death, it doesn't create a right for me to punch people who joke about death.
Yes, taking responsibility for myself will make my life more difficult. Learning to deal with it will hone my senses and cognitive abilities. Coddling me to remove every bump from my path will only make me more defective than I was before.
That the consequences in the case of allergies could be more serious than me bumping my head doesn't shift responsibility to someone else.
I am much, MUCH more likely to try to accommodate those who don't make demands or throw "laws" at me. Once you make demands I will view you as a jerk, and I will probably enjoy seeing your discomfort. Perhaps that's another of my defects.
.
This obsession with trying to structure the world around defective people is annoying, and probably a really bad idea. Both for the individuals being coddled, and for society as a whole. Maybe even for civilization.
It's nice to do helpful things for the defective, when you can. And to encourage them to do things for themselves. What isn't nice is damaging everyone else by the effort to accommodate them. A "lowest common denominator" society is a dying society. Or, as L. Neil Smith has written, "Euro-American welfare statism's preoccupation with 'the halt and the lame' isn't an iota healthier than the obsession of ancient Egypt's priest-kings with death."
Seems like no matter what you want to do these days, there is some group of victims out there saying you can't, or you'll be hurting them.
Maybe I'm just not nice, but I just don't have much sympathy for those who think their defects entitle them to whittle away at everyone else's freedom.
Everyone is defective; not everyone is "a defective".
I'm defective. My eyesight is horrible. I'm emotionally scarred by my daughter's recent death. I'm tall enough that I constantly hit my head on things built for short people- and sometimes it really hurts (and is why I usually wear a hat, even indoors). I am unsuited for the modern world in ways I can't articulate. But I don't demand everyone make the world safe for my defects, at the expense of everyone else. It is my responsibility to accommodate myself and my needs. I know what my defects are, and I can learn- I will learn- to navigate around them.
But the defective victim whiners don't want that responsibility.
If I am allergic (one of the most over-used justifications today) to tobacco smoke or peanuts, I understand that my allergy- my defect- will limit my freedom to go where I want. It doesn't give me the right, created out of thin air, to tell you where you are allowed to smoke or eat peanuts. That's between you and the property owner.
If I go into a business and bump my head on all their doorways or hanging signage, it is my responsibility to either duck or go elsewhere.
If I can't read a sign because of my eyesight, it doesn't create a responsibility in others to make bigger signs or to give me better glasses- even if not being able to read the sign could kill me.
If I am distraught due to my daughter's death, it doesn't create a right for me to punch people who joke about death.
Yes, taking responsibility for myself will make my life more difficult. Learning to deal with it will hone my senses and cognitive abilities. Coddling me to remove every bump from my path will only make me more defective than I was before.
That the consequences in the case of allergies could be more serious than me bumping my head doesn't shift responsibility to someone else.
I am much, MUCH more likely to try to accommodate those who don't make demands or throw "laws" at me. Once you make demands I will view you as a jerk, and I will probably enjoy seeing your discomfort. Perhaps that's another of my defects.
.
A healthy relationship with government?
There is no such thing as a healthy relationship with government.
If you ignore it, you are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
If you hate it, you'll probably obsess over hating it.
If you love it, you are loving a disease; a defect.
If you trust it, it's like a "friend" who keeps stabbing you in the back.
If you use it as a tool against other people you are a bully.
If it uses you or violates you, you will be hurt and may feel like a victim.
If you work for it, I just don't know what to say. Well, yeah I do.
.
If you ignore it, you are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
If you hate it, you'll probably obsess over hating it.
If you love it, you are loving a disease; a defect.
If you trust it, it's like a "friend" who keeps stabbing you in the back.
If you use it as a tool against other people you are a bully.
If it uses you or violates you, you will be hurt and may feel like a victim.
If you work for it, I just don't know what to say. Well, yeah I do.
.
Monday, February 08, 2016
Government is evil- that's NOT "just an opinion"
The question of whether government is good or bad isn't a simple matter of opinion.
Unless you believe it can be OK to use violence against the non-violent who are also not violating your property (aggression), or you believe property violation (theft) is OK.
Governments only exist through aggression and property violations. You can try to weasel-word your way around that fact, but the fact remains. So then you have to decide if that's OK.
If you decide it's not OK, how can you believe it's a matter of opinion that something which only exists by being built of a foundation of aggression and theft is OK.
And if you decide it is OK, why would you stop at those acts committed by government employees? Maybe it would be OK for any random person to just walk up and kill you or your daughter, or take your house and kick you out naked.
Either it's OK or it's not.
Hint: It's NOT.
.
Unless you believe it can be OK to use violence against the non-violent who are also not violating your property (aggression), or you believe property violation (theft) is OK.
Governments only exist through aggression and property violations. You can try to weasel-word your way around that fact, but the fact remains. So then you have to decide if that's OK.
If you decide it's not OK, how can you believe it's a matter of opinion that something which only exists by being built of a foundation of aggression and theft is OK.
And if you decide it is OK, why would you stop at those acts committed by government employees? Maybe it would be OK for any random person to just walk up and kill you or your daughter, or take your house and kick you out naked.
Either it's OK or it's not.
Hint: It's NOT.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)