Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Subscriber requests

If you've been thinking of subscribing through Paypal, consider doing so in the last half of the month. The majority of my subscriptions come in during the first half of the month, and it would be nice to have more come in during the second half to sort of even things out.

Also, my daughter is looking for funds of her own (through her mom), in case you'd rather help that way. She'd be thrilled.

Or, you can subscribe to my blogs through Patreon. It also comes in during the first half of the month, but if it got to be a large enough amount, it wouldn't matter when it came in.

In any case, thank you!

.

Shooting yourself in the foot to prove you won't change

Continuing the silliness of "government" ensures that at some time you will be Ruled by people you hate.

Those who kept propping up The State in the 60s ensured that eventually, the hippies they hated would be running the show. And imposing their beliefs and agenda with tactics borrowed and adapted from those who hated them most.

Continuing to prop up the State today means that at some point whoever you hate (or fear) the most will be in charge. It's simply inevitable.

Is this really what you want?

There is a better way. Why not rule yourself instead? Stop supporting States. Withdraw consent. Stop believing in "authority". Stop the silliness.

.

Monday, August 31, 2015

Cantwell on Cops and Blowback

I have the same problem with cops I have with the presence of any other thieves or molesters; the same I have with any other bullies.

I also feel just as much sadness at their deaths as I felt when that disgusting murderer, Virginia Vester, killed himself. I just think "One less parasite taking up space."

It doesn't mean I would hunt them down. They don't deserve that much effort or attention. But I wouldn't lift a finger to prevent consequences from coming home to roost on their deserving heads.

A supporter (thank you!) sent this link to Christopher Cantwell's recent article, The Fall of Law Enforcement. I recommend you read it.

I realize it wasn't the actual connotation meant, but I would love to see "law enforcement" in its Fall/Autumn. It is time for it to fade, wither, and drop. And blow away and be gone. Maybe burned in big piles. Or composted. Any "law" that must be enforced- particularly by bullies paid through theft- is a counterfeit rule. Real Laws- don't initiate force, and don't violate property- don't need to be written to be recognized, and the only enforcement they need is defense of person and property.

I agree with Cantwell that cops are cowards, and cops calling a cop killer a coward is hilarious. As kids used to say, it takes one to know one. (Maybe that means I am a coward. It is possible. If so, I disgust myself.)

My favorite paragraph from the entire article is this one:

The hubris of Sheriff Troy Nehls to say “Despite the cowardice [sic] attack last night, we will continue to provide professional (law enforcement) services to our communities” in the wake of the attack further shows the aforementioned disconnect. Worded differently he could say “We don’t care if our actions so enrage the community that they see fit to shoot us in the back while we fuel our vehicles, we so enjoy our rampant crime and oppression that we will lay down our lives to continue it” and it would convey an identical message.
Again, I agree.

Cops are scum, acting out their aggressive nature and demanding to be left to do so at their whim. Things will change, one way or another. For better or worse. You can't continue to be a bully and pretend there will not be blowback. Well, I guess you can pretend, but you will be surprised that this isn't how reality works. Actions have consequences. Actions repeated to the point they are habitual behaviors have guaranteed consequences.

I find it amusing that cops have such a problem with non-cops acting like cops. Because, that's basically what the guy the sheriff is complaining about did.

And, as always, I remind you that a cop can go from being a verminous parasite to a decent person in less than a moment- that's all the time it takes to quit the "job" and stop being a bully and stop living on theft. And that is the ONLY way a cop can become good.
-

Related, and possibly even BETTER: Who Declared War on Who?

.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Wrong words are lies

Watching a minor celebrity fall from grace recently brings something to mind.

Perverting the meaning of words, people orchestrate the reaction they desire.

Consider the word "child".

Anyone who has developed their secondary sexual characteristics is not, by definition, a child. They may not necessarily be an adult. They may be a "sub-adult". Still not a child by any means.

This isn't about what is, or is not, OK to do to them or with them.

But by using a word incorrectly, your feelings have been manipulated. Based on those feelings, your thinking has been directed. You are guided where someone else wishes you to go.

Watch how many other ways this tactic is used to fool you. I see it in discussions of liberty, anarchy, guns, candidates, drugs, and more. By being aware of how you are being manipulated, maybe you can avoid some of it.

Or, maybe you can use the trick to your advantage.

.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Supporting evil

If you support the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, you are supporting addiction, death, and destruction.

If you support "gun control", you are supporting murder, rape, robbery, and chaos.

If you support "government"/The State you are supporting genocide, lawlessness, theft, and bullying.

If you support cops, you support gang violence and molestation.

If you support "public" schooling, you support ignorance and indoctrination.

If you support "welfare", you support poverty and hopelessness.

If you support government control of healthcare or medications, you support sickness, suffering, and death.

If you support "secure borders", you support selecting for criminals and imprisoning your loved ones.

If you support prison, you support more aggression.

If you support "national security", you support individual insecurity and abuse.

If you support the war on terror, you support the world's most dangerous terrorist organization.

Stop it.

.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Alison Parker's legacy- Mass murder enabling?

I understand why Alison Parker's dad and fiancee are grieving. I would be too. And, I understand that grief makes people say and do incredibly stupid things. Politicians do it automatically, due to their lust for power and control (and their overwhelming cowardice), but real people fall into the same trap easily. Especially when under the power of unbearable grief. I expect to see stupid things come from the mouths of the grief-stricken.

Such as insisting that the government make sure more people can be murdered on the altar of anti-gun "laws".

This is the foolish path enthusiastically being taken by her grieving loved ones, and it is a horrible legacy to leave her memory. A stain upon her. It is using her grave as a toilet and a spittoon. Anyone not telling her dad and fiancee this painful truth is being "nice", but doing them a disservice.

You will never be able to prevent angry, violent people from carrying out their angry violence. You can make murder illegal, they will still murder. Same goes for rape, kidnapping, theft, and what have you.

There is no way to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" that doesn't affect vastly more "right hands"- making them lambs for the slaughter at the hand of any predator who gets the urge.

You can outlaw guns and make possession of guns or ammunition a capital offense (adding to the violence in the process), and people intent on murdering will do it anyway. With or without a gun.

Do you really want to ban and confiscate all the (non-government) guns out there? Are you willing to have that many people die for your cause? You do realize a gun ban would be enforced at the point of many guns, right?

Guns are easy to build. In order to get rid of them, you'd need to round up and kill everyone with knowledge of metallurgy, shop tools, chemistry, physics, etc. And that's just for guns as they exist. To prevent future designs you'd also have to round up and kill everyone with knowledge of electronics and whatever else might be adapted to use in a yet to be invented force-at-a-distance weapon.

You'd have to make sure no cop or soldier ever loaned out, or stole and sold, any gun he had access to. You'd have to make it impossible for one of those government guns to be stolen by anyone, ever. I don't believe that's possible, but maybe you do.

If you support "gun control", you are supporting death and aggression at a scale currently unimaginable.

I can understand why grieving people might do so, but it doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it smart, reasonable, or sensible. It doesn't make their cause "compassionate" or "caring". Their cause is still incredibly evil. And foolish. And stupid.

If you care about the tragic death of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, don't make large scale death and tyranny their legacy. Instead make sure to speak out about any and all rules which demand people be unarmed targets, ripe for the slaughter. Any such rule is asking you to die for a feeling.

And remind people of the critical importance of always being aware of your surroundings, no matter what you are doing, how safe you feel, or how paranoid you believe paying attention to be. It is a matter of life or death.

.

Liberty only lost when given up

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 28, 2015)

How well do you think it would work if a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. controlled your thermostat?

If they cared to, they could check the current temperature and humidity to decide whether they would turn on your air conditioning or heating. More likely, they’d just guess by region, if they both...read the rest...

.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Liberty Lines, August 27, 2015

(Published in the Farwell, TX/ Texico, NM State Line Tribune. Remember that my Liberty Lines columns are written for a conservative Christian statist audience. I try to temper my words without compromising principles. It's a tightrope, and I hope I do it well enough.)

The only thing more stupid than drug abuse is a war on drugs. Is drug abuse a problem? Of course it is. But the never-ending War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is even worse. In fact, the majority of the supposed ill-effects of drug use have nothing to do with the drugs themselves and everything to do with enforcement of the prohibition. In a "Drug War" the drugs will always win; in large part, directly due to the effects of prohibition.

It was foolish to ever believe that turning a vice into a crime would make it go away. It is even more foolish to continue to keep it a crime after more than a century of failure. Drugs used to be legal; they should be made legal once again.

Portugal ended prohibition back in 2001. Did it suddenly make drug abuse in Portugal skyrocket? Of course not. In fact, drug use is down, especially among 15- to 24-year olds- the age group most likely to begin using drugs. And it keeps dropping.

Would you start using heroin if it were legal? I wouldn't- unless my doctor and I decided between ourselves that it was the most effective pain relief for a horrible condition. And truthfully, no "law" could stop me in that case anyway.

The myth of Cannabis ("marijuana") as a gateway drug is just that: a pathetic, dishonest myth. People who are willing to take the risk of being kidnapped or robbed ("arrested" or "fined") for using Cannabis are naturally going to be less risk-averse than those who are scared to get caught. This kind of person is more likely to try even more risky things. This is an example of correlation, not causation- confusing the two is one of the main logical errors which result in people believing wrong things and pursuing bad paths.

The myth that everyone who tries the scary drug of the week suddenly becomes a helpless addict is just as pitiful. Statistics show that 10.3 million people have tried methamphetamine at least once, yet only 1.3 million used meth in the last year. If the helpless addict myth were true, the number of people who would be either currently using meth, or dead from using it, would reflect this number. It's not even close.

A certain percentage of people will be addicted to something no matter how harshly you punish them. (Many are addicted to trying to control others through "laws" and ordinances.) Since studies show that people without meaningful social connections are much more likely to become addicts, the better solution to addiction is not to isolate them further by committing enforcement against them, but to give them the connections they really need.

And if they violate person or property while under the influence, or in order to buy the prohibition-inflated substances they seek, shoot them in self defense. Either way the problem is solved.

.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

False Flag!

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)

The Virginia live TV murders. Subscribe and read it.

.

Virginia's on-camera murders

I am sorry for the WDBJ reporter and cameraman murdered in Virginia this morning.

I don't know anything about the victims- whether they were actually good people or not. Their co-workers seem to have liked them. Other than the former co-worker suspected of being the murderer, I suppose.

What I do know is that they were not killed in self defense. The video of the attack makes that clear. Even if they had done something in the past that I would have killed them for, in defense of life or property, they were- at that moment- innocent.

Yes, most in the media are virulently anti-liberty. But not all. Murdering some on camera won't change that for the better.

I have already seen some saying it didn't happen. That it was a false flag. Get over it already.

According to people like that, nothing ever happens- it's false flags all the way down. Down to what? Who knows.

Yes, evil people do exist. They do evil things. Usually without being directed to do so by government agents. Without some Illuminati agenda behind the evil act. Most things are really just as they seem.

No, it isn't the fault of the gun or the "lack of gun laws". No personal grudge justifies the act. Revenge, though popular, is always wrong.

My sympathy goes out to those affected by the evil act of an evil man. And, yes, murdering people who aren't currently violating anyone is evil.

.

Heed their warning

"Rule of law" is the cowardly excuse of vile people.

Every time you hear those words, go to condition orange.

.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Taking flag doesn’t stop beliefs

Taking flag doesn’t stop beliefs

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

Silly fights over the Confederate flag — actually the Confederate Navy Jack- are still being waged weeks after an evil mass murderer was seen holding it in photographs. The real issue, aggression, gets pushed aside by a non-issue: a flag.

Some people who fly the Confederate flag are undoubtedly racists, as are some who fly any flag. Many aren't racists, but fly it because of love for "The South" today. For them, the Confederacy may have nothing to do with it. Some who fly the flag are showing support for separation from a tyrannical government- I agree with them.

I never owned a Confederate flag. I never felt the desire to have one-- until they started being banned and stigmatized.

I was never much interested in the War of Northern Aggression, other than recognizing it as the second American Revolution; the one the wrong side won.

No, it wasn't "about slavery", although many tried mightily to make it so after it began. It appears they succeeded. Government schools promoting the winning side's propaganda have done a good job rewriting history and making people believe ending slavery was what the war was about. I'm vehemently opposed to slavery of every kind, which is why I'm libertarian.

It also wasn't a civil war, by definition, since the Confederates weren't fighting the Federals for control of the US government, but had divorced the abusive union and set up their own household. The North forced them back into an unhealthy relationship against their will. Again, "public schooling" slants the narrative to benefit the winning side.

But so what if racists fly Confederate flags? If you equate Confederate flags with racists, you should encourage racists to fly them openly. Don't you want racists advertising themselves as such so you'll know who they are?  How will you know who needs to be ostracized if you ban or socially suppress the flags? (Oh, wait, that might be illegal and the state might force you to bake a same sex, Confederate wedding cake against your will if you refuse to do business with someone who hates you!)

Personally I like when those who want to violate me display symbols to let me know what they think of me. If the flag gains popularity among non-racists, then you still win by taking away its sting.

The only real wrong is using violence against someone who isn't physically harming anyone else, nor violating anyone's private property. Ideas and beliefs can't be banned- even if they are ridiculous. Making them illegal or dangerous to hold only reinforces them. You get more of what you try to forcibly stomp out.

.

Statist words

You can tell a statist by his words.

Such as, using "The sandbox" to refer to wherever in the Middle East the US military is invading and violating this week. I'm sure the statists had a name for Vietnam, too.

"Our" when followed by "president", "congress"/"congressman", "representatives", "mayor", "police", "government". "Our" is often worse than "we" or "us".

"Rule of Law" is a big red flag. The word "illegal" is related.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a statist hymn. It is recited and revered by statists.

There are other words which set off alarms, but they may just be false alarms. Words like "patriot", "duty", "service", and "brothers". And "fair", concern, and justice. With these words, context is everything.

Words not only mean things, they have meaning behind their meaning. They can tell you a lot about the person using them. Pay attention.

.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Democracy vs Republic

Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Republic: Two wolves* and a lamb write a constitution saying everyone's rights must be respected within certain parameters. The wolves, pretending the conditions have been met, eat the sheep in accordance with the "law".

*Added: Of course, it could just as easily be one wolf and two sheep.

.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Want to turn me into a statist?

You don't appreciate something until you have to do without.

My experience making fire with primitive methods has made me appreciate lighters (even if I feel guilty when I use them- like I'm cheating).

Having to find and prepare my own water has made me appreciate tap water and bottled water.

Eating weeds in the wilds has made me appreciate fast food.

The lesson I get from that is that it is hard to truly appreciate something until you have to do without it.

So, if you truly want me to appreciate The State, keep it far, far away from me until I come seeking it. I won't ever believe it is necessary while it is being shoved down my throat and rubbed in my face. Do you believe I will starve for The State if deprived of its attentions and "services"? Let's give it a try!

.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Please remember!

People's expectations have really withered.

I guess if you are accustomed to daily torture, slightly less torture is an improvement.

But it still isn't ideal.

People who live in America, under the bullies of the United States, have such low expectations of freedom or liberty that they feel grateful to be "allowed" to buy a gun, get a prescription without jumping through too many hoops, get through a "check point" without too much trouble, or board a plane without a strip search.

That's not liberty.

People have forgotten what Rightful Liberty even looks like.

I spend my time trying to remind them- or show them if they have nothing of it to remember.

.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Good, bad depend on cooperation

Good, bad depend on cooperation

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 21, 2015)

Through years of observing people interacting, I have noticed something: People are better and more cooperative than they are given credit.

By “better” I mean less likely to intentionally harm others, and more likely to help; even strangers.
Yet you and I are fed a constant stream of bad characters who are the exception....read the rest...

.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

The Odd Beliefs of statists

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)

It concerns "your president". Subscribe and read it!

.

"Race" or culture?

I know I say sexist things. I honestly believe there are obvious differences between the sexes. Neither is "better", but they are different. And both have their own problems.

I may sometimes say "racist" things.

I don't know if there are real differences between the "races"- or if "race" is even an actual thing. I suspect what most people call "racial" differences are actually differences in culture.

There are definitely cultural differences, and some cultures are simply better than others. You can tell by how they look upon aggression and theft. Statism is a degenerate culture which cuts across all other cultural lines.

I don't concern myself with anything about you other than how you treat others. Do you live by the Zero Aggression Principle? Do you respect the property of others? That's enough- the minimum- to be a decent person. You can stop there and I'll have no problems with you- nor you with me. You might go above and beyond, and if so, I sing your praises.

Your sex, gender, "race", skin color, preferences, sexuality, hobbies, kinks, loyalties, job, or anything else are secondary to that one important thing: do you violate others? None of those things are any of my business unless you make them my business. None of those things can justify violating others. There is simply no excuse.

If your culture "makes" you violate others, I have a problem with your "culture", and I would like to see it changed or eliminated. If you use your "culture" as justification for violating others I would like to see you change or be eliminated. Through acts of self defense- at the scene of the attack. I really have no pity.

.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Safety for the aggressors?

If I should be concerned about "officer safety"- that silly belief which causes so much innocent death- shouldn't I be just as concerned about rapist safety?

If I can't ("legally") carry a gun near cops, due to their cowardice and fear of being shot (in self-defense, no doubt), does this mean rapists also deserve to do their "job" without fear?

Many statists apparently believe so. That's the basis of all those anti-gun "laws". Safety for the bad guys, at the expense of the decent people.

.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Government real chickens here

Government real chickens here

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

Once upon a time, responsible people raised their own food — gardens and livestock — at home.

Then bad guys who found it too dangerous to be roving bullies formed governments so they could control and loot the production of others, usually in return for claimed protection from others exactly like them, in relative safety. Short-sighted people allowed those bullies to live.

Over time people forgot the origins of government. Governing became so common that people stopped seeing the evil and accepted the bullies and their violations as normal— "how it has always been done"— and otherwise good people began to join the ranks. As soon as they did, however, they were no longer really good, since you can't govern without violating life, liberty, and property, and all government is financed through theft; euphemistically called "taxation".

Most of the bullies started seeing themselves as benefactors— or even the source— of civilization, rather than its enemy. People became addicted to the bribes in the form of jobs and entitlements handed out by government, and became emotionally invested in its existence. Stockholm Syndrome thrived as the violations multiplied.

Among those various violations of life, liberty, and property were "laws" which in some localities outlawed gardens and livestock. In other words, irresponsibility was mandated and enforced.

No real law can forbid such a fundamental human activity, just as no legitimate law can regulate weaponry or self defense in any way. In fact, on a basic level, raising your own food is self defense.

Some of these "laws" forbid front yard gardens. Some dictate what kinds of plants you can grow, often spending billions of dollars faking data to convince people that certain plants are too dangerous to be allowed.

Many places impose rules forbidding even the most basic of livestock: the common chicken. Throughout recent history where there were people, there have been chickens. If you believe anyone has a right to forbid their neighbors raising chickens you'll find a way to justify anything.

When the same bullies who believe they can criminalize chicken raising by their slaves— pardon me, "residents"— keep fowl on their own questionably claimed property, you have a severe case of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.

It's amazing to me what people will tolerate— or even support— once they have been fooled into thinking they need someone else to run their life.

Responsible people still raise their own food-- gardens or livestock or both-- regardless of the "law". Bullies still pretend they have this magical, imaginary quality they call "authority" to somehow trump human rights. Responsible people see the bullies for what they are. Be responsible. Demand they leave the chicken keepers alone. Forever.

.

The biggest danger for travelers

My son recently came for a visit. An incident along the way caused me to post a somewhat cryptic blog entry, which, since he is back home, I now feel safe to explain.

On his way here, just past Oklahoma City, heading west, he saw flashing lights behind his car. He pulled over. The cop informed him that he hadn't been the "required distance" behind a truck in front of him (so I guess that means the cop claimed my son was driving like a cop, since most tailgaters I see are driving those clown cars with the flashing lights on top).

The cop gave him a warning, then as he was "letting him go", noticed he seemed "nervous". Not sure who wouldn't be nervous while in the presence of a member of the Blue Line Gang- a gang which encourages its members to rob, rape, and murder, and then helps them get away with it. I'm sure just about anyone in the presence of those vermin is nervous.

Based upon this "inexplicable" nervousness (haha), the badged tax junkie asked to search the vehicle. Consent was not given. So, the cop called in the drug dog. At the secret signal, the dog "alerted" and the cops took this as "legal justification" to search the vehicle.

No "drugs" were found, but the self-described "pro-gun, conservative" cops were disturbed by the guns my son was bringing along.

So, the cop forced my son to dial me, and took the phone where my son couldn't overhear (he was in their vehicle, in the front seat).

This is where I became involved.

The cop identified himself as Oklahoma Highway Patrol (or "State police", I forget exactly which). Turns out they were actually the narcotics goons, but cops are allowed to lie. He asked if I was expecting a visit from my son. At this point I was terrified there had been a fatal accident, and my mind was racing. I said I was. He said he had pulled my son over for a traffic violation. The cop then asked if I knew my son was bringing firearms. I said I did. (I didn't explicitly know, but my son always brings guns). He said when questioned, my son initially stated he had no firearms with him- I never asked my son if this was true or not, because it's no one's business, and questions like that don't deserve answers. (Yes, I know: Don't talk to cops!)

Now I knew my son was OK- if he could get out of the hands of the Blue Line Gang. My anger started growing. I kept my cool, though. It is a very good thing that my thoughts (usually) get filtered through my brain before coming out my mouth.

So the cop said he just wanted to make sure because "you can't be too careful these days". Then he paused. And waited. And waited some more. I suspect he was waiting for me to slavishly agree with his silly assertion. I didn't. So after a long, awkward pause, he said he supposed I would see my son in a few hours. I said "OK".

Then, after hanging up, I got madder still. I realized that had my son been "Black" or "Brown", his risk of being murdered on the side of the road would have grown exponentially. And copsuckers would have said he deserved it.

It is completely unacceptable that these pirates are permitted to infest the roadways and molest travelers. It's getting to be that the risk of a cop encounter is replacing the flat tire as the road trouble you simply have to plan to put up with.

I (still) hate cops.

.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Back to Screwel?



My appreciation for education explains my opposition to "public" schooling.

Invariably, someone will point out that they went to "public" school, and got a good education. Just as invariably, the person making this claim is a statist- which is exactly the flaw in their claim.

You wouldn't expect to let the Taliban school your child without indoctrinating him, so why is it such a radical observation that when any government controls schooling, the result is a person indoctrinated into statism?

.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Keep your own house in order

Yes, trying to establish a "government" is evil. There's just no excuse for it- at least not an ethical one which holds up under examination.

But, what if you "really, really WANT a government"?

Does anyone have the right to form a government? Only as applies to their own life- not to others. "Govern yourself" is another way of saying self control. If your governing is imposed on others, you have become an aggressor and a thief. You have become the bad guy. And since you can't establish a "State" of one, without violating someone else, there is no possible ethical way of establishing a State.

No one has a right to establish a government or a State over others. The "right to rule" can't exist.

Keep your own life in order, and defend it as necessary. If you are able and willing, offer to help others with their defense. But, don't be part of the problem. Don't govern or ask anyone to do so on your behalf.

.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Trying to establish a government is evil

There is no more hideously evil act than trying to establish a government against a free society. Or anywhere. Some other actions are equally evil, but none more so.

And make no mistake- every "government" is against a (possibly hypothetical) free society. You have freedom- and civilization- in reverse proportion to the amount of "governing" imposed on your society. Some of the effects of "government" can be mistaken for civilization, but if that's all that gives the illusion of civilization, then you have no civilization.

Sure, if everyone in a society is evil, then less freedom might be good. But where do you get these people who will govern? And how do you keep them from becoming evil? (You can't) At best you are switching out one evil for another.

In this case, "best" isn't good enough. It isn't good at all. In some cases self defense or escape are the only reasonable options. Establishing a "government" never is.

.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Government less honest thieves

Government less honest thieves

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 14, 2015)

What do you want badly enough you are willing to steal to acquire, and kill those who resist your theft?

For some people it is a smart phone, a pair of expensive athletic shoes, money, or a car.
For others, it’s a fighter jet, a social net, public schools, safety, or something else they really want, but can’t personally afford. Or at least can’t afford in the only way they can imagine buying them.
Some apparently believe there’s a difference....read the rest...

.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

"Authority", evil, and Philip Zimbardo

In a recent Skeptic.com email I read an interview with Philip Zimbardo, famous for the Stanford Prison Experiment, and what it taught some people about the dangers of believing in "authority" and such.

Using the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is also the subject of a movie coming out soon, he discusses whether we all have the potential to be evil. I tend to believe we do- I can feel the stirrings of it inside me under certain circumstances.

But, how exactly does Zimbardo define "evil"?

Zimbardo defines it in The Lucifer Effect thusly: “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.

So he goes even further than I have when I say evil is: "any act which intentionally harms any person who isn't currently initiating force or violating private property; someone who does not deserve to be harmed at this moment". I approve of his inclusion of those using "authority" to influence others to be evil under the umbrella of evil.

He talks about one of the Abu Ghraib monsters:
In this model, Zimbardo told me that before he went to Iraq, Chip Frederick was an all-American patriot, “a regular church-going kind of guy who raises the American flag in front of his home each day, gets goose bumps and tears up when he listens to our National Anthem, believes in American values of democracy and freedom, and joined the army to defend those values.”

I don't see anything good there. Instead I see the seeds of evil in almost every morsel of the above description. I see nothing in Frederick that recognizes Rightful Liberty and human rights. Instead I see a person deeply brainwashed by a religion (statism) and willing to do horribly evil acts on its behalf. That he became a monster doesn't surprise me in the least.

Yes, we all probably have the capacity for evil behavior, but some superstitions make it more likely to happen. Some make it almost inevitable.

.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

The years-long do-si-do of maturing into zero aggression

Babies start off not understanding the Zero Aggression Principle. But it's one of the first "social" things they learn.

Then it takes years to teach them it doesn't apply. Or at least, that bullies and bully groupies want them to believe it doesn't apply when the bully calls himself "government".

For those who continue to mature, they eventually re-learn the ZAP and see that the exceptions really aren't. Consistency matters. Bullies are bullies no matter their "job" or justification. And nothing justifies initiating force.

.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

What you do is no one's business

Yes, please do.


What you do is no one's business

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 10, 2015. This one never got put online at the CNJ website, as it had the misfortune to be published the day they are cyberattacked. But here it is now.)

Everyone is looking for more of the things they love; things to bring some joy into their life. Everyone's joy, and the things which trigger it, is different, and that's not only OK, it's great.

I love a lot of things, including, but not limited to, certain people, wildlife, karaoke, wilderness trails, mountains, deserts, forests, liberty, functional antiques, guns, knives, and swords. And, if you know me, I'm sure you already suspected I love hats.

Whatever it is you love, it is wonderful to find people who love some of the same things-- to have someone with whom to share your enjoyment. Shared joy is one of the greatest human experiences. Sometimes others can also introduce you to things you never thought about exploring, and when you're lucky you might even find something new to love.

If not, thank them for their time and move on.

No matter how different we are, you and I probably share some common interests. We may even love some of the same things, or one of us may be waiting for an introduction to something we don't yet know we would love, and which we would then have in common. You never know until you try. Discovery is one of the great things about being alive.

But even if I don't love something you love, I am perfectly happy to not interfere with things which bring you joy. I have no desire to regulate away your fun, even if it's something I really don't like. Not even if it annoys me in some way. Because as long as you don't violate someone or their property you have the absolute right to do whatever you want, regardless of my opinion or the law. No matter whether I understand it or your attraction to it, or even if I think a person would have to be crazy to like what you like.

I would never send the law after you for doing something which "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Thomas Jefferson said. All he meant by this is that if what you do doesn't aggress against anyone nor against their private property, it isn't anyone's business. I am content to let you pursue your happiness. Even, in many cases, if you don't respect the same liberty in others. Someone has to take the first step toward being civilized, after all.

If what you enjoy involves violating people or property, though, I think you need a new hobby, and I hope someone defends themselves from your aggression. There is a universe of great things out there. Don't waste your time violating others.
.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Wherein I say something racist

As of about an hour ago, if my son were "Black", he'd probably be dead- or at least caged- at the hand of cops.

He's OK.

This is why I don't care who you are, I don't want cops committing enforcement against you (molesting you). Ever. If you are OK with it when the cops molest "those people", whoever that might be to you, you are not on the side of liberty- you are siding with bullies.

F'ing Nazis.

But why did I have to be born into a police state? Some people are fine with that. I am not.

.

You are what you do

When you get to the bottom of it, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad person. There is only what you are doing right now.

Of course, there is also the weight of what you choose to do the most- your history. Your acts add up to you.

But, if you are a cop you are always living on stolen money and living under oath to enforce counterfeit laws. So at best, even when doing something good, a cop is still committing evil at the same time.

The best a cop can ever be is neutral- and that's if he is doing a LOT of good constantly.

Stop being a cop and throw off that yoke.

.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

They don't work for me.

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)

.

Economic lesson learned

A giant corporation (business + government) is messing with my household finances.

Nemesis works for one of the most popularly hated corporations. They owe her around a thousand dollars for some vacation time she took months ago. The mismanaging manager (who has since been promoted) neglected to do the final step to pay employees for vacation time which had already been approved. There are apparently 8 other employees in the same position- some owed much more.

When the mismanaging manager was promoted, and couldn't be reminded any more about the vacation pay, Nemesis went to a regional manager to beg for her money. He looked into the situation and said everything was in order, and he doesn't understand why she was never paid. Then while looking into the problem he discovered all the others who were also owed for vacation time (and numerous other employee-harming "oversights")

Seems like it would have then been a simple matter to pay the money that was owed.

But, no.

That was a couple of months ago, at least. The "process" is still ongoing, with phone calls to the head office (to speak one-on-one to the "Big Deals") scheduled next week, to get to the bottom of this problem. But still no estimate of when the money might be paid.

In the meantime, in the real world, bills go unpaid, and no one owed is concerned about the why of it. As much as I try to not get wrapped up in the drama of it all, I find myself irritated. Partly at Nemesis' choice of employer (but it could be worse, she keeps talking about applying at a "public" school), but mostly by people not keeping their end of a deal and starting a domino effect of problems.

But, avoiding corporations doesn't ensure there won't be a problem.

I have mostly avoided corporations for employment, I have almost exclusively worked for small, family businesses. That has it's own dangers.

Years ago, the business I was working for hit hard times. I loaned the owners some money to get over some bumps and then I allowed them to fall behind paying me for my hours worked. Eventually they got 6 weeks behind on my paycheck, and I said I couldn't keep working without pay, so they started trying to catch up. They would pay me out of the register for each day at the end of the day, and would write checks every week or so to catch up on the back pay. I kept careful track of where I stood. When they claimed we were caught up, I am certain they still owed me for a full week of pay. I showed them all the records I had kept, but they disagreed. I never got the money.

(Year later that same business was intimately involved in the complete and utter trainwreck that almost destroyed me, and they tried really hard to destroy my reputation along with my financial life.)

But it isn't only me.

A few years back, Nemesis was working "home health" for a woman. She allowed the woman to owe her for a few weeks' pay. She never got that, either. If I had known what was going on at the time I would have shared my experience with allowing employers to fall behind. Not that I would have been listened to.

If you allow yourself to be owed money, you are best off to consider it a loan and never expect to be repaid. If you can't afford that, don't let anyone owe you- especially not your employer.

.

Statists by any other name would advocate governing

[Previously posted as a status on Facebook]

Some people who advocate governing others don't like to be called statists. Seems odd to complain about reality, but OK.

They advocate the existence of States, but are upset at being called on it. They say the word "statist" applies only to near totalitarians. Of course, it's only a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. But, if the word hurts their feelings, let's make up a word just for them. Maybe I'll call them "gentlists". That sounds gentle, harmless, and sweet, right?

So, a gentlist would be anyone who believes governing others is a legitimate human endeavor. It says nothing about how they advocate doing it, or the level of governing they approve.

So, maybe some gentlists only want a little bit of control over the non-aggressive acts of others. Maybe they only want a little bit of aggressive theft committed under the euphemism "taxation". Maybe they only advocate kidnapping those engaged in free market economic trades sometimes; if the trades are disliked by a vocal subset of the population. Maybe they turn their heads and pretend their gentlism isn't enforced by the implied threat of murder in every single case- especially if people comply so universally under the threat that death rarely results. We could call these "min-gentlists"- they want what they consider to be the minimum level of gentlism.

Other gentlists might want almost total control of your every action. They might demand you give all your property to them, and dole it out according to a central plan. These totaligentlists would obviously be more extreme than the min-gentlists, but again, it is not a difference in kind, only in degree.

The foundational beliefs are identical- that there exists somewhere a right to control other people and take their property when it suits those who have been put in charge. The only difference is in how blatant they are willing to be about it, and how quickly they want to escalate their violence, and perhaps, where they plan to focus their governing. But the end is the same. And what you call it is really pretty irrelevant in the end.

So, be a whiny statist if it makes you somehow feel better.

Or, suck it up. If you advocate something, own it. Otherwise you look like a fool who knows he is advocating evil and wants to avoid being ashamed for doing so. It makes you look like someone who needs to change, and deep down inside, KNOWS it.

.

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Cop talk

[Cop approaches person who is neither initiating force nor violating property]

Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"

Human: "Just who do you think you are, molesting me in this way?"

Cop: "I'm a police officer."

Human: "So? That doesn't answer my question."

Cop: "I am an officer of the law and I have the authority..."

Human: "You have what?"

Cop: "Authority..."

Human: "Where do you believe it came from, this 'authority'?"

Cop: "The people..."

Human: "Where did these 'people' get it, and how did they transfer it to you?"

Cop: "As a society, we..."

Human: "Who is 'we'? I didn't consent to any of this."

Cop: "If you don't like it, change the law or move to Somalia."

[Just kidding. You know the cop would have shot before this point.]

.

Friday, August 07, 2015

Time to make stand against tyranny

Time to make stand against tyranny

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 7, 2015)

When did chickens become big news in Clovis? When local bullies decided to use them as justification for pushing people around.

It may seem trivial to worry about whether or not the city allows chickens, but it’s a symptom of a perv...read the rest...

.

Thursday, August 06, 2015

Making a mess of things, and demanding thanks for it

Cops and other worthless government bullies can only make themselves seem useful by creating problems and getting in the way of you solving them.

Remove them and the problems they create, and you wouldn't believe you "need" them.

As they say, bullies of government break your leg, force others to pay for your crutches, and then tell you how grateful you should be that they were there to help you.

I'm not falling for it.

.

Wednesday, August 05, 2015

Definitions based on feelings

Every word seems to have at least two opposing definitions. A definition preferred by those who love it, and one preferred by those who hate it.

See: Anarchy.

See: Socialism.

I'm not saying both definitions aren't 100% accurate- they may be. Just that, depending on how you feel about a subject, you will choose to use the "official" definition you prefer.

And, as long as you inform people which definition you are using, I have no problem with that.

.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks

Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks

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

If you enjoy watching people flailing around over different ways to control each other, the past couple of weeks has probably been entertaining for you.

I'm talking about the conflicting reactions coming from Terribly Sincere People over a spate of recent events. It would be comedy gold if people didn't take these silly things so seriously and then use them against each other.

On one hand, you have people who hate a flag which flew for a few brief years over some slave states, continuing to worship a flag which flew over slave states before, during, and after the controversial flag became, quite literally, history. This triumphant federal flag continues to fly over expanded slavery even today.

People conveniently refuse to notice Lincoln didn't free one single slave, anywhere. Instead he enslaved everyone more or less equally. Regardless of which version of the story you believe, the Confederate States ended a relationship which was never supposed to be a "'til death" pact (the union would never have formed in the first place if it were) and were viciously told "No, you can't leave". This echoes an abusive spouse beating the one who tries to get out of the marriage, violently forcing them to stay.

Then, speaking of marriage, you have people celebrating being allowed to seek government permission to marry, when government never legitimately had the power to regulate marriage in the first place. The proper course would have been to recognize that fact and ditch the whole marriage license scam, rather than expanding it to include more people. Yes, I understand it is nice to not have bullies able to use "law" as their excuse for violating you, but the root problem is the bullies and their "laws", not the fact that their "laws" didn't cover everyone.

And you still have people working diligently to divide people of different "races", based on an evil murderer's acts which were supposedly inspired by the aforementioned Confederate flag, so we'll see each other as enemies instead of seeing who the real enemy is.

Bullies who want to tell you how you are allowed to live love when you focus on trivial things they choose for you to think about instead of seeing what really matters. If they can get you to hate other people based upon their symbols, their genes, or who they love, they can get you to ignore the fact if you exercise your Rightful Liberty, then, according to their rules, you are a criminal. Like a stage magician they get your attention with sparklies, then like a pickpocket, they steal your life, liberty, and all of your property.

.

Socialism

Frequently when I mention socialism in a negative way, someone will complain. Recently, I said something about socialism, equating it with statism, whether it was the pope, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Republicans, or some other type of statist promoting it.

Specifically:
Democrats, Republicans, and anyone else who believes "society" is a thing superior to the individual is a socialist. 
If you believe in "laws", "national borders", "public schools", "taxes", "gun control", marriage licensing, drivers licenses, or any other nonsense which violates Rightful Liberty, you are a socialist of some sort. 
Statism equals socialism. And it is slavery by another name.

Someone objected. I was accused of "rewriting the dictionary". He also said:

"Socialism has a particular definition that fits specific criteria. Not all statism is socialism."


OK... let's work this out.

Socialism's "particular definition":
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
 I see nothing in that definition which would go against what I said. "Communities" can not own property just by virtue of it being in their area. To own property you either need to buy it from the rightful owner, be gifted with it, or homestead it. Sure, if a "community" joins together, voluntarily, to buy property- and no one is forced to participate against their will- you would have non-aggressive socialism. But that's not the reality of how it comes about.

Instead, socialists believe they are entitled to control your property whether you agree or not. That control might come in the form of outright theft of your property- especially if it is seen as a "means of production". It often manifests as "taxation". Or it might come in the form of sneakier theft, such as "regulations" which control how you choose to use your property (including your body and life). It might come in the form of licenses which limit what you are permitted to do with your life, liberty, or property- sometimes based upon the flimsy excuse of "public property access". Like roads.

When you choose to opt out, you are attacked. Robbed, molested, kidnapped, and maybe even murdered.

Now, let's look at the claim that "not all statism is socialism".

Every form of statism takes private property from the individual owners, exactly as I laid out above. It's simply what statists do. There couldn't be statism without socialism, even if there could hypothetically be socialism of a voluntary sort. Statism gives the stolen property (stolen by "taxation", regulation, red tape, or whatever) to The State, which is claimed to be "the community as a whole in just about all cases of "gentle statism". The more brutal forms of statism don't even try to claim government is the people.

All statism is socialism, but not all socialism is necessarily statist in nature. Just most of it, and all of it when it isn't by unanimous consent.

Socialism sucks, but as long as you do it voluntarily, without forcing anyone to participate, and have no penalties for opting out, go right ahead. I'll still choose Liberty.

.






Monday, August 03, 2015

Has the orgy pit been scraped and buttered?

Because the orgy is coming.

You might call it "the election", but what it is is an orgy of socialism. People are allowed to choose who will claim ownership of their life, liberty, and property. Liberty and freedom aren't even on the ballot.

And, yet, most people are excited about it, fighting over which "floater" is the best choice to run your life.

You life doesn't need to be run by anyone but you.

Sure, no matter what you choose to do about this orgy, some floater is going to be declared "the winner" for every contest. But do you really want to get your hands dirty picking the floater? How can you choose a favorite deadly disease? Who's your favorite slave master?

There is one socialist getting a lot of attention for admitting he is a socialist. The rest may deny it, but they are socialists, too. They all believe "society" is entitled to your property- they just may bicker over which segment of "society" deserves it more.

Well, this orgy holds nothing that appeals to me, so I'll sit it out. Enjoy the buttery slipping and sliding, though.
_

Still looking for feedback.

.