Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Prohibition still has lessons to teach

Prohibition still has lessons to teach

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 3, 2015)

If government is a good idea — which I doubt — it is being done backward.
Currently, the way it works is a law is passed, then enforced, in an attempt to change people’s behavior. If some behavior weren’t being targeted for change, no one would even dream up a law in the first place.

The only reasonable course, where laws are concerned, is the other way around. People's behavior should determine whether or not a law is enforced, and then once it isn't being enforced, the law should be eliminated.

In fact, this is how alcohol prohibition ended up being scaled back. (I say "scaled back" rather than "repealed", since it is still with us today, as evidenced by "liquor licensing", laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sunday, "dry counties", and various other violations of human rights with regard to alcohol.)

Alcohol prohibition was ignored by enough people that it became unenforceable. Being unenforceable, it stopped being effectively or consistently enforced. Juries stopped convicting people they knew had broken the bad law. Eventually the law changed to reflect this fact. Unfortunately we still suffer the societal damage done by that ill-conceived experiment.

Drug prohibition- for drugs other than alcohol, I mean- may take the same path.

One difference between the alcohol prohibitionists of the 1920s and the drug prohibitionists of today is those who wanted alcohol criminalized understood no such authority was allowed under the Constitution, so they changed the Constitution to make their campaign legal, if not right. Drug prohibitionists never bothered to legalize their stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Yes, they chose (and continue to choose) to act in a criminal manner to get what they want. And it has been a disaster to everyone other than those who profit from enforcement, punishment, and other inseparable aspects of black market drug sales.

Abuse of any substance is a bad idea, but no worse than abuse of some imagined authority to control how others live their lives.

If enough good and decent people risk punishment by ignoring a law, any law, that law shouldn't be enforced. Then, always slow to catch up to reality, those who imagine their job is to dream up laws should abolish it. They shouldn't amend it or tweak it to try to make it work better, they should go back and erase the mistake as if it had never happened. All political prisoners held in captivity for breaking the "law" should be immediately released and paid restitution directly from the pockets of those who passed, enforced, and supported the former law.

Or, you can stay on course and be surprised when the results of your stubbornness destroy society.

Bullies are everywhere

Are you scared when confronted by a cop or when in front of a judge?

You should be. If you aren't, you don't know the score.

They have no magical powers; they are just bullies imposing their worthless opinions on you with aggression. Those bullies can ruin your life- or even end it- on a whim. If you fight back- as you have every right to do- they will send endless numbers of their cronies after you.

The best bet is to avoid them. But that can cripple your life, too, because those parasites are everywhere.

Be aware, and don't defend them or their "job".


Monday, May 04, 2015

Cult of death

It's not someone's "authority" that makes them a danger to my life, liberty, and property. "Authority" is imaginary.

It's their willingness to rob, molest, or kill me, based on their belief in their own "authority", that's the danger to me.

Some will kill in the name of their god, and one of the most dangerous death cults is "authority".


Sunday, May 03, 2015

I believe...

I believe it is always wrong to initiate force, but if you believe it is necessary, in the heat of the moment, you should just do it and accept the consequences rather than trying to justify it beforehand.

I believe it is wrong to violate private property.

I don't believe you are being good or compassionate when you dream up justifications to violate person or property.

I believe it is right to defend yourself and your property against violators.

I don't believe a job carves out exceptions.

I believe you should honor your agreements unless doing so would violate any of the above.

I believe if the other party breaks their end of the bargain, the deal's off.

What do you believe?


Friday, May 01, 2015

"Assisted Dying" on Scott Adams' blog

The blog post, found here, presents the views of a person opposed to a "law" "legalizing" physician-assisted suicide.

As always, I am opposed to the very concept of "laws", knowing they are all either unnecessary or harmful. This is another case where not violating the self-ownership of others solves the "problem".

But, as I so often do, I weighed in on the issue. My comment is pasted below (quotes from the post in italics):

Mr. Akins starts out by (and continues throughout) appealing to the "common good", which is a myth; it undermines much of his argument. There are only individuals. What is good for the individual will be the highest good. Those appealing to the "common good" are always using this justification to violate individuals in some way, which wouldn't be good for the "common good", even if such a thing were real.

"What makes you think you have a moral right to medical assistance to kill yourself upon contracting a terminal disease?"
Self ownership. If you own yourself (and if you don't, who does?) then you have the absolute right to end yourself, and to hire someone- voluntarily and without coercion- to assist you if you so choose.

"Why that right in particular and not some other?"
It's not an either/or situation. You have the absolute human right to do anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. That includes hiring someone to help you end your life.

"I don’t think that such a legal right should be created."
There are no such things as "legal rights". There are legal privileges- which is really just the privilege to not have someone else's opinions imposed on you- until that "law" is changed. Rights can't be created or eliminated. They can only be respected or violated.

"...it involves a violation of the innate human dignity of the individuals who commit suicide."
In your opinion. So don't participate. Death probably violates "the innate human dignity of the individuals" no matter how it occurs, so this is a nonsense excuse.

"Our culture has been affected by a view that downplays or rejects the dignity of human beings."
Again, your opinion. I believe that saying you can make up a rule that violates self ownership is rejecting the dignity of humans a lot worse than respecting that right- even when it offends you- could ever do.

"We’re either ugly bags of mostly water or we’re human beings with intrinsic dignity."
Yes. And bags of water can be owned by someone else, and the owner can do with those as he sees fit without degrading their dignity (which they don't have). You don't have that right where humans are concerned.

"Just because you are older or in poorer health doesn’t mean that you have any less a right to life."
Of course not. You also have a right to own and to carry weapons. Would you like me to force you to do so against your wishes?

"...and so your life must still be respected."
Yes, and denying a person the freedom and liberty to do with that life as they see fit- as long as they aren't violating anyone else- does not respect their life at all.

"Just as we must respect the dignity that others have, we must respect our own dignity. "
And how did it become your right to tell others how that respect for the self must be put into action?

"A person killing himself is not a desirable outcome."
Again, in your opinion. Getting a terminal disease is also not a desirable outcome- but the universe doesn't seem to care. Probably the person seeking assisted suicide wouldn't have chosen to get the disease and be facing the choice. But it's not your choice to make for him.

"The innate human dignity that we possess demands that we seek another solution, such as treating the cause of the situation."
Why? What if no treatment is possible? Because that's the reality. Are you obligated to seek unicorns just because someone else believes you should?

"Because physician-assisted suicide involves others in suicide—doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc.—it also involves a violation of their dignity."
They always have the right to refuse to participate. Any "law" which says they must help no matter their wishes would be wrong- but I don't think that's what anyone is promoting.

"Just as torturing another person is wrong even if the other person wants to be tortured."
Your opinion. I happen to agree this time, and wouldn't do it, but if it is mutually consensual it's none of your business. Nor mine.

"...legalizing physician-assisted suicide would produce various other problems..."
Why do you assume these would result? You think everyone- or a vast majority- would choose assisted suicide? If so, then your speculations might hold, but as long as there are a lot of people who wouldn't choose it, your objections and fearmongering don't work.

"I’m in favor of getting your grandmother the pain relief she needs in her last month of life."
Why do you assume physical pain is the only thing that could be causing her to want to die? What about being trapped in a body that no longer works, and seeing it shutting down more each and every day- knowing there is only one destination. Knowing she will never again walk through a meadow, or make love, or enjoy her favorite meal. How can your pain drugs deaden this pain without causing a coma? Why is that better than death?

"I could paint the plight of the victims of such laws in similar terms (e.g., 'Why do you favor a policy that would lead heartless doctors and greedy insurance companies to deny my grandmother the pain relief that she desperately needs and instead pressure her to kill herself against her will?')."
You could, but you'd be lying. It's the anti-drug "laws" that most get in the way- doctors are scared of losing their licenses or being arrested for "over-prescribing" pain meds.

" 'once my family wants me dead it is time to go anyway.' This statement is very alarming. The value of the individual is not the subject of a collectivist determination, even of one’s own family."
This wasn't about the family making the determination.

"Today, pain can be eliminated by drugs, for it is possible to place someone in a medically induced coma"
Why is this preferable to death? Because they could wake up? (To agonizing pain.) Just keep them in a coma til they die so they won't wake up in pain? Again, why is this preferable?

"...as the pains associated with age and/or disease occur, we find that we can deal with them better than we thought."
In which case, "we" probably won't be seeking assisted suicide.

"Thus many individuals who could end all pain by a medically induced coma may rationally decide that they would prefer to remain conscious and experience the benefits of consciousness, even if it means living with a certain level of pain."
And these would not be the people seeking assisted suicide.

"I was absolutely determined to make sure that my wife got all the medical care she wanted to have, and I made sure she did."
But what if "all the medical care she wanted to have" included help dying once she knew it was inevitable? Would you have then felt justified in violating her wishes? What's the difference?

"I think virtually everyone would agree that certain, highly destructive weapons simply should not be available for purchase by the general public"
Then those same weapons should certainly not be "owned" by governments, which are always made up of people indoctrinated to believe they are "above" such "silly notions" as "right and wrong". I'd trust my neighbor with a nuke before I'd trust any president or prime minister.

"My point is that physician-assisted suicide is wrong in and of itself..."
Then how about a new field that is not a physician, but instead a "suicide facilitator"? With completely different and more relevant training.

"But there are situations when we are suffering to the point that we might feel imprisoned"
If your body doesn't move and you must have others perform basic bodily functions for you, you don't simply "feel imprisoned", you are imprisoned more effectively than any cage could ever accomplish. Think of the most cruel imprisonment- putting a person in a body-sized iron cage- and you'll approach what some people are going through as they slowly die. Again, this is completely separate from the physical pain- although it could accompany it.

"It is true that some individuals experience pain that can only be satisfactorily treated by inducing unconsciousness..."
Pain is subjective, so your opinions about the pain others experience is irrelevant.

"However, 'if even one person' arguments famously lead to bad policies that do more harm than good."
Which is an excellent refutation of the belief in the legitimacy of "one-size-fits-all laws". Something I find absurd, anyway.

"Suffering does not deprive one of dignity."
Of course it does. I recently had a very painful kidney stone. The pain most assuredly deprived me of any dignity. It's hard to feel any sense of dignity- or to be viewed with dignity- while writhing on the floor. End of life pain (and debility) is sometimes orders of magnitude worse for the sufferer.

"Killing oneself is always a tragedy..."
Yes, but not always the worst tragedy.


Finance without taxation possible

Finance without taxation possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 1, 2015)

I am amazed when otherwise intelligent people believe they couldn’t find a way to provide necessary infrastructure and services without committing taxation against their neighbors.

It makes me wonder how many abolitionists were accused of hating farms and cotton by those who couldn’t imagine how fields could be worked in the absence of slaves....read the rest...


Thursday, April 30, 2015


I've been thinking a lot about water problems and droughts. And not just as it pertains to California.

In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.

People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.

I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".

If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.

"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

I'd rather be wild

Jungle fowl are in danger from predators and forced to find their own food, Poor things!

So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.

When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".

How do you like your box?

Jungle fowl hen- in danger from predators
Jungle fowl rooster- worried where his next meal will come from

Safe hens under government protection


Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Government actions not surprising

Government actions not surprising

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 27, 2015)

Are you shocked when the “most transparent administration in history” turns out to be the most blatantly secretive, passing new laws to hide behind while going after whistleblowers with religious zeal?

How about when a president who talks a good freedom game enthusiastically signs the anti-American “Patriot Act?

Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?

Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?

How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?

Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?

Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?

You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.

You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.

How do you really expect governing to turn out?

Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.

The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)

Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.

As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?


Anarchy- almost too mainstream

One sad thing about being an anarchist is that the opportunities to do something really radical and different are so few.

Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.

So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.

In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"

I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".


Monday, April 27, 2015

Renovations complete at KentForLiberty.com

 For the past several days I have been re-writing all the pages at KentForLiberty.com. I was a bigger task that I expected, and I am glad it is done.

A lot of the pages were badly outdated. My views have changed. I used to be much more a "constitutionalist" than I am now- although that was years ago. I have come closer to the roots of many things, rather than worrying with the leaves and branches so much. It was time to reflect that growth. (One page that I don't edit is "My Views", since that is an archive. Well, I don't edit anything but the introduction to the page, anyway.)

As always, I found and corrected more typos and misspellings.

I also decided to mirror KentForLiberty in pages on this blog. You can find these new pages under the blog header. I did that for a couple of reasons: I wanted a backup, just in case something happened to the website- such as me not continuing to pay for it, or it getting shut down for some other reason. I also have had technical glitches, while I was in the midst of editing, which have erased pages before. I wanted a faster way of fixing that problem.

I also thought it would be good to have it all in one place, here, so that if anyone is looking around, it would be easy to find.

It was a lot of work- I hope you like the results.


Belief in "government" makes you weak

Belief in "government" is a crutch for some people. Leaning on it atrophies their muscles and is a self-destructive cycle of decay.

They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can- if they'll just try. It might be difficult at first, and they may falter and stumble, but the alternative is a steady decline.

When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to "government" for assistance.

Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that.

Don't let the belief in "government" blind you to your own abilities and your real value.

You are not crippled; the State-worshipers are.

You can stand on your own if only you will drop the crutch that belief in "government" has hypnotized you into believing you need.

Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the State. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.


Sunday, April 26, 2015

Reluctant bleg

Other than a recent request for some money for something my daughter wanted (which was met- thank you!), I haven't annoyed my readers with a request for money in a while. I have been managing okay.

Well, now things have changed a little and I have to ask.

A while back- in January, actually- I helped someone else out financially. At the time it wasn't going to be a problem. It still wouldn't be, except ... now I need the money I used to help them out and they aren't yet in a position to pay me back. (And if they never can, I'll not make an issue of it.)

The crisis is due to the other person in the household not getting paid for a week of vacation time from last month. Not yet. The money is supposedly still coming through the bureaucratic pipeline at their job, but I'm having my doubts. It won't get here in time to prevent some bad problems, either way. And I don't have enough to meet the shortfall.

If you are a subscriber, please don't respond with a donation- you already do enough. If you don't want to help, or if you can't help, then please don't. If you don't think I provide any value in return for the money, then obviously I am not asking you to donate. I only want voluntary trades of value for value.

If you can, and want to, the "donate" button is over there to the right.


Ejikashun iz M-por-tint

Government school is the worst thing to ever happen to education.

It cheapened it, and not in a good way.

It also made it feel like punishment to the inmates referred to as "students". It encourages a lot of them to stay as far as possible away from anything which could be considered educational. And, not just during their "school years", but throughout life. That is tragic! It's why v*ting and "government" is still as popular as it is among those unable to truly think.

It teaches "authority" instead of independence. It dumbs down rather than lifts up.

It teaches kids it's OK to steal as long as you use what you stole for something "important"- and some kids get the message loud and clear.

And, rather than educating, it indoctrinates.

Nothing could be worse as far as education goes. In fact, doing nothing would be an improvement.


Saturday, April 25, 2015

Stupid questions

Yes, they do exist:

"Without astrology how can we know what will happen today?
"Without government how will we be safe from dangers?"

The two questions, and the sentiments they echo, are equally stupid. Both are based on superstition.


Friday, April 24, 2015

Taxation, even of the rich, is theft

Taxation, even of the rich, is theft

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

Many people want “the rich” punished through taxation. They are seeking to use government to steal from the rich on their behalf — knowing it would be wrong to take it in person....read the rest...


Thursday, April 23, 2015

It's NOT "OK" to support cops

A while back, in a Facebook thread, a cop supporter (I'll refrain from using the more descriptive term) said she had discovered, due to that thread, that people have differences of opinions about cops, and that's OK.

But not all opinions are equally valid.

Supporting cops (or being a cop), and saying that's a valid choice, is identical to saying that rape is a perfectly valid way to have sex, and supporting rapists is just peachy.

No, it isn't.

Aggression is the disqualifying feature of both acts.


Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Facebook experiments

Recently, I have been using Facebook to test out ideas and sound bites. I mean, more so than in the past.

Some of those (like today's earlier blog post) end up being blogged here. Others don't.

If you'd like to get in on the fun, feel free to "friend" me- or "follow" me, if the available spots in my friend list get taken up before you get there.

I find it very educational to discover what gets the townfolk riled.


"Trigger warning"?

If you require "trigger warnings"- about ANYTHING- you have failed as a human.

Sorry if you believe that statement should have come with a "trigger warning". Wait... no, I'm not.

I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to you in the past. I'm not saying that being reminded of those bad things won't hurt.

What I am saying is that no one is obligated to tip-toe around your delicate feelings and censor themselves to keep you from getting upset. Doing so doesn't help you; it shelters you and allows you to remain broken- and to only get worse over time.

Anyone posting a trigger warning for your "benefit" is slapping you in the face and saying you can't handle being a human. It's an insult to you.

You should be grateful that people treat you as a fully-functional human rather than as a delicate cracked egg shell.


Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Being prepared is common sense

Being prepared is common sense

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)

The water shut off in Portales last week should have awakened a few people. From previous experience, I doubt it did.

For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.

No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?

Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.

Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.

Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.

"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."

Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."

Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?

Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.

It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.

You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.


"Compromising Good with Evil"- and failing, utterly

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)

In which I look at this nonsense: link
Subscribe. You know you wanna. ;)


Monday, April 20, 2015

Would you stop a bank robbery?

Would I intervene to stop a bank robbery?

I'm not so sure.

I suppose if innocent people were in danger, I might. But if it was just to stop a theft... probably not.

Banks have become a tool of the State. From their compliance with all the vile "Patriot act" nonsense to "fractional reserve" banking (which I consider fraud), they are totally controlled by the State and its "laws". They have become nothing more than a branch of "government"- complicit in violating their customers for the benefit of that gang of thugs calling themselves "government".

At least they can't (yet) force you to do business with them against your will.

That doesn't mean I would steal from a bank, but I certainly wouldn't risk my life to stop someone else from doing so.

If it were a free market bank the story would be different. In that case I would look upon a bank robbery as I would any other violation of property, and would do all I could to stop it.


Sunday, April 19, 2015

4-19: "Patriots Day"

I used to get all worked up over 4-19. "Patriots Day".

It has sorta lost its appeal to me. I now see it as people fighting over which masters they want. A silly and self-defeating thing if there ever was one. And considering what most people think of as "patriotic" makes me ill.

So, sure, use 4-19 as an excuse if you need one and exercise your liberty today. And the next. And next week and beyond.

You don't need an example; you don't need a leader. Just do it. You know what you need to do right now- opinions of the local goon syndicate notwithstanding. Ignore them as much as possible, sneak behind their backs if you must, and do what you need to do.


Saturday, April 18, 2015

A wrinkle in "A Wrinkle in Time"

I read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was in ... either late elementary school or early junior high. Strange that I can't pin it down, since it is usually easy for me to remember where I lived when I first read something- and I moved constantly. Maybe my timeline has wrinkles I am not aware of.

But, anyway, I remember feeling a bit disturbed by the book. Just a sense of unease. Some of the images stuck with me, and still do, but at the time I didn't enjoy the book. I need to read it again.

Well, a new passage has recently been discovered.

In it, the heroine is asking how Camazotz was taken over by evil. Her father explains that evil can take over through totalitarianism, but also from a desire for too much security. He says “Security is a most seductive thing...I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”

Dead on!

Now, if only he had pointed out that all "governing" will inevitably lead to the same place.

Read the WSJ's take on the new passage here.


Do professional rapists protect you from freelance rapists?

The excuse that "some people do bad things" as justification for your belief in "government" is the same as saying that it would be best to allow professional rapists to prey on people rather than to risk freelance rapists.

And, of course, in the mind which operates like this, it would be wrong to resist or shoot the professional rapists because they protect you from the other rapists.

That's insane. Don't be insane.

Don't advocate professional rape because amateur rapists are out there. Just shoot the rapists.


Friday, April 17, 2015

Pardon my mess while I evolve

I just read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose: A very good book which I highly recommend. (And FINALLY available in a Kindle edition, too!)

This "most dangerous superstition" is the belief in the imaginary trait known as "authority"; something that doesn't exist because it can't exist. Without the belief in it, bullies are just bullies, and theft is just theft- something I have tried to get across, but without understanding the root problem.

I was always said to "have a problem with authority", but now I am seeing that you can't have a problem with something imaginary, except by believing in it.

My only complaint with the book is that I think a Reader's Digest version might have more impact, because some things are repeated more times than I think necessary- on the other hand, repetition gets things to stick in your mind.

Anyway, I feel myself evolving again. As is always the case, it is toward more Liberty, with fewer inconsistencies. Once again I feel like more heavy baggage has been tossed aside, and I always like it when that happens. Not sure if anyone will notice a difference, but I can sure feel a difference.


Roundabout still better than lights

Roundabout still better than lights

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 17, 2015)

I’ve noticed new pavement markings at the Clovis roundabout, the premier driving entertainment venue in our area and star of a Youtube video.

These pavement markings have the same hieroglyphics as the signs you might notice on the roadside as you approach. I’m not sure the added expense of painting the pavement accomplished anything — other than spending some of the annoying tax loot that clutters up government offices everywhere....read the rest...


There's another video, too: roundabout "fun"?


Thursday, April 16, 2015

Compromises between bad guys

"National borders" represent compromises between thieving thugs. Really, that's all they are.

Buying into them is propping up those thieving thugs on both sides of the "border".

"Borders" have no more legitimacy than the line separating the turf of the Blips and the Cruds- actually, even less. They only indicate the probable loyalty of the particular thug whose boot is on your neck right now.

Why would you want to keep propping up such a harmful superstition?


Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Honorable people don't

Is it honorable to hire yourself out to a gang?
To employ yourself, and spend your time, imposing the gangleader's wishes on others?
Molesting, aggressing, killing and violating property in the course of your employment?
Can you be a good person while doing so?

No. It isn't honorable. Not ever for any reason.

Military and cops are not "honorable".


Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas

Lawmakers much like rabid hyenas

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 13, 2015- However, I'm NOT just talking about "lawmakers" as the headline states- I'm talking about government employees of every sort.)

Why does so much news revolve around the individuals who call themselves "government"?

It's because they impose themselves in our lives. They make it necessary to know, in self defense, what they are up to. Through their actions they are a real and present danger to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.

If a rabid hyena made its home under your porch you would think about it a lot; probably to the point of obsession. You couldn't afford to ignore it.

It's the same with those who believe they have the authority to interfere with your life. They are newsworthy only because of the damage and inconveniences they cause- although they fool some into believing they are helpful.

If they were no danger to your person or property who would want to waste any time thinking about them, much less reading or hearing about them? Without the media coverage those who fawn over them might suffer withdrawal, but the rest of us would be spared the constant parade of petty tyrants, their endless nannying, and their despicable deeds.

I would love to see a week where nothing done by government was reported in the news at all; just one week when they were all completely ignored.

Of course, that's dangerous. They would use the opportunity to attack your life in secret. Laws don't stop them. The only reason they restrain themselves as much as they do is because they know they are being watched. Not by everyone, but by enough people, and particularly by those who don't like what they see; those who look beyond what the politicians and bureaucrats say, and see what they actually do and observe the consequences.

It doesn't always work, as was frustratingly illustrated by the recent (and misnamed) "Net Neutrality" fiasco.

So watching them is necessary if you allow their make-work jobs to exist at all- which is the root of the problem.

During the heyday of America a person could go about their business for a lifetime and, as long as they weren't a thief or aggressor, never encounter government. It wasn't a constant presence. How many times have you been meddled with just today- through taxes, licenses, permits, laws, or by automatically altering your behavior to comply with some nonsensical rule to which you have become habituated?

As long as the popular addiction to allowing other people to control their lives exists, I'll be glad there are people reporting on what those in government are doing- even if reporters often coddle them by pretending government jobs are helpful or even necessary. I hunger for the day when they can be safely ignored.

"Law abiding taxpayer"

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)



I don't care about your intentions; I care about what you do.

I'd rather you do good with the absolute most horrible intentions than have good intentions while doing bad.

That's why I oppose those supposed "good cops" and military tools who are claimed to do what they do with the best of intentions. The results of what they do are bad.

The results are what matters. That's all that can matter.


Monday, April 13, 2015

Department of... what?

I was recently looking at a sign in front of a prison. The sign declared that the facility was a part of the "Texas Department of Justice".

That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.

So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.

Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.

I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.


Sunday, April 12, 2015

A preference for Liberty

People act like a preference for Liberty is the same as a preference for ice tea over Dr Pepper. But it isn't.

You may have lots of reasons to prefer one drink over another, but really it comes down to opinions. You can point to differing health effects of the drinks, comparative costs, or whatever, but neither is ethically superior to the other. People make their choices and it's none of your business.

Not so with a preference for Liberty.

Because the opposite is quite definitely ethically (and usually, morally) inferior.

The desire to limit liberty is the desire to violate others. Liberty is self-limiting. It ends where another's liberty begins. So any preference to limit liberty necessarily violates liberty.

A preference for Liberty begins with respecting Liberty in others. That's the civilized way to be.


Saturday, April 11, 2015

Daughter's request

My daughter is wanting a day out at the movies. I don't have the extra money for such an expenditure.

It's my responsibility, and I'm trying to use this as a teaching opportunity, but she's tired of hearing it.

So, if anyone would like to subsidize a "date" day with a Paypal donation, she would appreciate it. And so would I.


If I were mayor

After last week's Liberty Lines came out in the paper, one person suggested I should run for mayor.

No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.

But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...

Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:

People of Farwell- from now on, there are only two rules in town: Do not violate anyone by attacking them, and Do not violate anyone's private property. That's it. I will not stand behind the police if they enforce any other "law", nor if by doing so they violate those two rules. 
"Do not violate anyone by attacking them" can best be summed up by the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." If you "initiate force"- that means "start it"- your victim can legitimately defend himself against you, no matter who you are, and no matter what your job may be. Thugs be warned!
Another way to explain the re-adoption of these forgotten rules is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
All other "laws" violate the rights of the individual. Do not violate anyone or their private property and we'll be fine.


Friday, April 10, 2015

Shaneen Allen- the wrap-up.

The good news is that Shaneen Allen got pardoned.

The bad news is that she was molested in the first place- and that her molesters are still alive.

Julie On Politics has been following the case from the beginning (see also here, here, and here).

No one has any "authority" to kidnap, cage, and rob a person for carrying a gun. Not anyone anywhere.

So, the cop who first violated her right to travel, the corrupt lawyer who charged her with a "crime", the "judge"- everyone who even facilitated her abuse in any supportive role- is guilty of violating her and owes her restitution from their own pocket. They can't afford the restitution they owe.

Of course, none will have to pay because they can hide behind the mental glitch of "government" and "law".

That is what makes me really angry over this whole incident. If people would just stop pretending these thugs have any special, magical "right" to molest people in ways no one has a right to do, things like this would never happen. She could have shot the guy trying to molest her as she traveled and, after short arbitration where it was shown he initiated force, that would have been the end of it.


We don’t need another bad law

We don’t need another bad law

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 10, 2015)

The new “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws are wrong and misguided. But not for the reason you might think.

 They are not wrong because they supposedly give people the right to choose to not do business with someone for religious reasons, but because everyone already has that right....read the rest...


Thursday, April 09, 2015

My next door neighbor is awesome.

This was in this week's State Line Tribune, in response to my most recent Liberty Lines. It was unsolicited, in fact, I haven't even spoken to her since my column came out.


Voluntaryist volunteers

I was recently told by a government extremist that they doubt I ever volunteer. They were speaking specifically about teaching (other people's) kids, but as I won't participate in classroom settings anymore, that limits my opportunities around here. They claimed that was no excuse.

Perhaps. But that's not the only way to volunteer.

I actually have done classroom volunteering in the past. I have taught kids about mountainmen and demonstrated the mountainman skills. Without setting the school on fire or shooting anyone.

Now my volunteer work is mostly of a different nature.

For one, spending vast amounts of time debating statists in order to try to give them a hand improving the quality of their lives. Or at least helping observers see the truth and rightness of Rightful Liberty.

But that's not all. I pick up litter. A lot. I find it relaxing, and it also helps "the community" while it improves my life.

I have also taught kids- informally and on the spur of the moment- many different things I know. Just because I didn't set myself up as Teacher and make them take the role of Student doesn't mean I didn't teach them. (They have also taught me every time I taught them.)

But "liberals" have claimed I am a nasty, self-centered individualist, unlike themselves. Because I don't do it their approved way, through their approved channels, teaching their approved agenda.

I consider that another plus to me.

How many of you do volunteer work?


Wednesday, April 08, 2015

Death by broccoli- Death by liberty

Broccoli is healthy for you to eat, eating only broccoli isn't healthy. Some statists believe liberty is like that. Some is good, but "too much" is unhealthy.

They are wrong.

Is "too much" bad?


First of all, there is no such thing as "too much" liberty, since liberty is self limiting- it ends where someone else's begins. Your liberty can not violate another person's- by definition.

Because liberty is doing anything which doesn't violate any other person or their property. There is no way for that to be bad.

In other words, some statists are grasping for justifications to enslave you so they'll feel more comfortable. Disgusting.


Tuesday, April 07, 2015

Only government wins in election

Only government wins in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 6, 2015)

I’m sure you’ve seen the “Peanuts” cartoons where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick, promising him she won’t pull it away this time. This time he’ll kick it. But every time she pulls the football away at the last instant and poor Charlie Brown lands flat on his back. How can he be surprised by the inevitable?

You may have also played a game with a habitual cheater. The kind who changes the rules to benefit himself as he plays. As the game progresses, they always discover a reason they win and you lose- and the new rule is as much a surprise to them as it is to you. Little kids are really bad about this.

Most adults grow out of it; the rest go into government.

Haven't you noticed no matter who you vote for, and no matter who wins, nothing really changes for the better? "This is the most important election in generations! This time your vote will make a difference! I promise!" Do you, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time? Are you still surprised when voting for the lesser of two evils results in more evil? Are you shocked when, in spite of what your candidate says, once in office he does the same things he spent the campaign criticizing his opponent for doing?

Do you keep doing the same thing every election cycle, expecting different results each time?

I can't fault you too much. There is a powerful desire to keep doing what you've been assured can bring about the changes you want- even when you realize the system is rigged against you. What other choice is there? You get caught up and find yourself whipped into a frenzy; anxious to help choose the next person who'll impose invented rules upon your neighbors.

In any election, the only winner is the government. You and liberty are the consistent losers. With everyone voting for someone who promises to hurt the other guy on their behalf, America gets further and further away from what it was established to be.

I'm not telling you to stop voting if voting makes you feel as though you are doing something. I'm not telling you to reject politics. I'm not even telling you to keep your own house in order and let others do the same- even if their idea of order is different from yours. What I am telling you is you probably shouldn't be shocked when you get the result you keep voting for. When you find yourself on your back wondering how you missed the ball again, take a moment to reflect on your actions.

Killing people

In killing another human being, it is either self defense, defense of property, or it is murder.

It is only self defense if the person is currently attacking or threatening to attack in a credible manner.

It is only defense of property if the person is violating your property through theft, destruction, or trespassing- and you'd better be sure the violation is serious enough to be worth killing over (and that any arbitration you might face would agree).


Monday, April 06, 2015

Sometimes, they really aren't a Scotsman

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)


"Constitutional" doesn't mean "legitimate"

Admitting that a government, a branch of government, or a "law" is "constitutional" in no way suggests that it has any legitimacy.

It only means the Constitution permits it.

That's a huge difference.