Monday, September 15, 2014

"Pink slime"- no, not that kind...

When you hear of "pink slime", do you think of this?:

Next time, think of this, instead:

Found here
Notice the "Pink market". Those things which are immoral/unethical, but "legal" anyway.

Now, consider the "Red market"- immoral/unethical and "illegal"- for a minute.

A murderer might kill a kid who would grow up to be the next Chairman Mao, and therefore save millions of innocent future lives.

A thief might steal a family's TV thereby freeing up a kid's mind to discover reading or experiencing life first-hand.

A rapist might discover a lump in his victim's breast, and might make her aware of it with a crude comment, saving her life in the process.

A slave owner might have prevented a person from starving to death by enslaving him.

You still don't argue that the above people are good or necessary. Any "benefit" to their "red market" activities would be better done without violating people or property. The bad guys are still bad, even if they accidentally do something good.

In the same way, looking at the "pink market" examples...

War might save a culture and particular individuals by killing other individuals.

Taxation might fund a family's food and housing- either through welfare or a government job (but I repeat myself).

State torture might get information that saves some lives- either innocent lives or government employees' lives.

Imprisonment might remove some violent and thieving people from society.

Compulsory education might force some kids to learn, and might give some a damaged sort of socialization.

I would also add that a cop might stop a bad guy from victimizing an innocent person, and an FBI profiler might stop a serial murderer.

But to argue that the above activities (and the people who commit them) are good or necessary ignores the fact that they are all funded through theft (which is enforced with the threat of death), and the harm they do to society (by harming individuals) is greater than any benefit. And, any "system" that doesn't allow you to opt out is aggressive by nature, rather than peaceful and voluntary.

Sometimes I think I can be a miserable b**tard. Such as when I express my hatred of government schools in the presence of someone who worships that pink market monstrosity. I don't bring it up on my own, because I don't like to dwell on the negative. But when I am exposed to praise and support of such a vile institution, over and over, without end, I am going to speak up, and the Believers aren't going to like it.

It's hard since most of my relatives work in government schools in one capacity or another, leading the rest to praise those child abuse institutions. But, they know if they keep pushing, I'm going to speak up.


Sunday, September 14, 2014

Lowering property values

What if you buy a house in a "nice neighborhood", and then a few months later someone buys the house next door and paints it purple with yellow polka dots and has "Ugly People Mud Wrestling" in their front yard every night?

You might complain that they have lowered your property values.

If that can make the local "tax" thieves demand a lower yearly ransom you should be grateful, as long as you aren't trying to sell your house. Put up a tall fence, or enjoy making fun of the show.

But, even if you are trying to sell, why assume that this development would automatically be seen the same way by every potential buyer? Because it won't. Maybe someone would like to buy your house to put a concession stand in the front yard, and bleachers, and charge admission so people can point and laugh.

But, again, even if it does reduce the resale value, have you been "taken from"? Has someone taken value away from you in a way that makes them owe restitution?

I don't believe so.

Lots of things can reduce the value of your property.

If a visitor to your home damages your TV so that it no longer gets one particular channel, they have reduced the value of your TV. They owe restitution.

If the owner of your favorite TV network decides to close up shop (or cancel Firefly!), he has also reduced the value of your TV to you. But, as upsetting as his actions may be, he doesn't owe you restitution. Your TV would still be as valuable to someone whose tastes and preferences differed from yours.

Just like your house next to the Ugly Naked Muddy Clown House.


Saturday, September 13, 2014

Arrogance or confidence?

I really don't want to be a nominee for "The B.H. Obama Award for Outstanding Arrogance". But, a couple of times in my life I have been scolded for arrogance by statists.

Plus, I do think I suffer from "Resting Smug Face" (is that better than "RBF"?).

I think what they mistake for arrogance is actually confidence based upon years of looking at the evidence and reality.

I didn't come to these conclusions lightly- or independently. Sometimes it was even painful, and I had to be dragged kicking and screaming. But, even the tough questions don't disprove the idea that liberty is better than slavery.

I'll always look for counter evidence. I'm suspecting it will never be found.


Friday, September 12, 2014

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

Keep good rules; chuck the rest
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 12, 2014.)

Contrary to what many seem to believe, libertarians are not against rules. In fact, they are defined by adherence to one rule in particular: the zero aggression the rest...

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Cutting to the heart

“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one. ” ~ Robert LeFevre

I honestly believe that realization cuts to the very heart of the matter. It demolishes every single justification for The State in one fell swoop.

The reality is that people are good, evil, and ambivalent. Each of us has probably been all three at different times. But, give a person political power and the evil will be strengthened and encouraged. Positively selected for.

If you could guarantee a method of making sure only good people were given political power, and would remain good while having it, so they could "govern" the evil and ambivalent people in society... I still wouldn't need government. But, I'd be content to let you engage in your silly little game- since being good would mean you'd leave me completely alone unless I initiated force or theft.

But since evil people are drawn to the power politics gives them, and the few good people who accidentally gain political power are quickly corrupted by it, your system fails every single time. And evil people with political power are much, much worse than evil people who are forced to do evil without the veil of legitimacy government seems to convey.

I don't dare support government of any kind, for any reason. It's just too dangerous to risk.


Wednesday, September 10, 2014

"Government of the gaps"

You have probably heard of "The God of the gaps", where the unexplained is attributed to God/gods, but new discoveries shrink the unexplained, leaving less and less room for the supernatural to be the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Well, "The Government of the gaps" is very similar.

It's where people say "how would the mail get delivered without government running a postal service?"... until FedEx and UPS and email show exactly how.

Or any other thing "only government can do", until someone else does it.

It's why I am amused every time someone asks "But who would build the roads?" They are appealing to "The Government of the gaps"- and it makes them look rather dumb.


Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Happiness possible in police state

Happiness possible in police state

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 8, 2014.)

Perfect happiness. It may not be possible as a permanent condition in life, but you can still experience moments of perfect happiness if you know where, and how, to look.

Even while people calling themselves "government" work to steal happiness right out of your pocket and regulate or criminalize the bits they can't take.

If you can't find some happiness in a police state, you probably wouldn't be happy in a free society, either. There will always be something to complain about, and there will always be thieves and bullies trying to bring you down to their level. Don't let them.

Happiness and freedom mean doing exactly what you want to be doing right now- even if it doesn't appear wonderful to people looking in from the outside. As long as you are respecting the rights of everyone else to do the same, it's no one's business what you do.

So, what little moments of perfect happiness do I find?

A few nights ago I sat out under the stars. The temperature was perfect and no mosquitoes were bothering me. As I sat there looking up I saw a meteor flash across the sky. I listened to cattle in the distance, and heard the hooting of an owl a time or two. There was nothing I would have preferred to be doing right then.

Earlier in the day I had felt joy while listening to a woman talking about one of her life's passions- and even more joy because what she loved to do was entirely voluntary and violated no one in any way.

My daughter often brings me these moments, as well.

Almost every day I'll suddenly think "Right this moment, I am really happy!"

I want others to feel this same contentment and freedom, doing things which make them happy while not violating others or their property. I am content to leave you alone to pursue your own happiness, and I want others to not meddle in your life, as well.

Sometimes, I even feel happiness when exposed to the liberty-killing coercion of government. I recently felt amusement, exhilaration, and joy watching a man rip up a citation from some wildlife officers, put it in a trash can, turn his back, and walk away as they gaped after him. Little acts of self-ownership such as this are very inspiring. It gives me hope there is still a little of the American spirit left in the people of the USA; the spirit which doesn't automatically bow down to "authorities" and reflexively comply with their demands. Yes, life is good.


"Everybody got a gris-gris."

Penn Jillette said it: "Everybody got a gris-gris."

Everyone else's "gris-gris" are easy to see: gods, governments, "good cops", whatever. No basis in rationality whatsoever, but they are "believed in" regardless. Some may even be helpful for some individuals to hang onto- others are neutral and some are decidedly harmful.

Some of my own are easy for me to see. I even have a medicine bag, for crying out loud- a physical "gris-gris". Although I don't believe it has any "power"- I see it as a scrap book in buckskin more than anything else. But it is what it is.

I also don't automatically discount sightings of Sasquatch as hoaxes or hallucinations or mis-identifications, and the same goes for UFOs. I could be wrong.

However, I also accept that everything I believe may be nothing but a gris-gris. So I try to dig into them to see whether they are or not. Maybe liberty really isn't good for humans. Maybe The State is necessary, and isn't always evil*. Maybe guns aren't useful tools, and unless you are a cop or in the military they just endanger innocent lives.

And maybe "borders" are necessary, even if Massively Big, Omnipresent Government, "taxation", and socialism are essential to maintaining and "defending" them.

If I'm wrong, I want to know.

But, I also don't constantly dwell on whether each thing I believe is a gris-gris. If new information crops up, I try to honestly evaluate it. I have changed my mind about many things over the years, when presented with a good enough argument. So far, each time I do, though,I move a little more toward liberty and eliminate more exceptions where government can hide. It has been a one-way process, going on my whole life. I used to hold some beliefs I ditched when exposed to new, more, or better information- or experience. It's why I used to be a minarchist, but am now an anarchist. I recognized some gris-gris I was holding to, and I tossed them aside. I can do without that extra weight. I'll bet you can, too.

*Maybe a troll site- it's so absurd I am just not sure.


Monday, September 08, 2014

Martial Law

The recent events in Ferguson, Missouri- government created and government escalated events- almost resulted in martial law being declared, according to some reports.

I see martial law as a declaration of war being made by those who imagine themselves to be "government" against the people of the area. It doesn't matter what excuse is used to justify the imposition of martial law since it affects the innocent a lot more than it affects the guilty. When government employees declare they can kill people for doing things they have every right to do, it sure looks like war.

But there's another side to that.

Once someone declares war on you, you should assume that anyone associated with "that side" intends you harm, and- as a credible threat- they can be dealt with accordingly.

So, a declaration of martial law means it's "open season" on enforcers, politicians, and other government employees in the affected area (or who claim jurisdiction over that area, no matter where they may cower)- ALL government employees in the area who don't immediately quit their "job" and publicly condemn The State unconditionally are choosing their side and making themselves fair game.

I'd hate to be them.


Sunday, September 07, 2014

Coming up with any excuse for The State

A while back I saw a really silly, desperate grasp at justification for government:

"what do you think life will be like when anarchy rules and your fat, ugly next door neighbor decides to mate with his pet sheep in the front yard whilst playing hip hop through gigantic, window rattling speakers?"

And, what do you do if this happens now, under the US police state?

I certainly wouldn't call the cops on my strange neighbor. The cops might shoot him, and I don't think his behavior should be a capital offense. And, seeing how often it happens, I don't think it's worth the risk of being shot, myself, when the testosterone crazed cowards show up. And I value my daughter too much to invite cops into her presence.

As they say, "good fences make good neighbors", and if you live near enough to see other people on their own property from your house, you probably ought to invest in a fence if you worry about what you'll see.

"What you'll hear" is a more difficult matter, but again, distance is the cure for that. Or, just sit outside and enjoy it. Or, blast your own antidote on your own property and drown out what you don't want to hear. Plus, aren't there now computers which can neutralize sound? In a free market, those would probably get better, cheaper, and more common- just for things like the neighbor and his giant speakers.

It really bewilders me that people actually worry about things like this happening, and can't think of any way to "protect" themselves from it that don't involve aggression, theft, or that huge, gluttonous Combo Meal of the two: The State.


Saturday, September 06, 2014

Borderists expose their confusion

If you've seen an online argument over "immigration" I'm sure you've seen this. Some smug "conservative" collectivist will think he is whipping out his "Gotcha!" and waving it around:

"If you don't mind illegal immigrants then you won't mind if I move into your house. What's your address?"

Sigh. It's as embarrassing as when Creationists try to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support their position.

In their socialistic little minds, they (or The State) "own" all the land called "America" (or "The USA" as the case may be) just like I own my house. Only, apparently, since they are socialistic collectivists, they think the State's claim on my house comes first, too. So, since they don't recognize private property rights, I guess it would seem reasonable to them to move into my house.

Since I do recognize private property rights, I know I have no right to move into their house, nor to assert a collective claim on the whole land, including their property.

I sympathize with some of the anti-migrant feelings. But to use that argument just shows you're an idiot- and a collectivist one at that.


Friday, September 05, 2014

Five things to know about liberty

Five things to know about liberty
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 5, 2014.)

I see newspaper articles regularly offering five things to know about a person, an object, or a job that might interest readers.
Apparently nothing is as poorly understood as liberty — which is strange in a country supposedly founded to give regular people the best shot at achieving liberty.
Perhaps it is time for five things to know about liberty: the rest...

Thursday, September 04, 2014

So long, JPFO, and thanks for the memories.

The Second Amendment Foundation has taken over JPFO. Which means, no matter what else happens, JPFO is dead. Its zombified corpse may serve as a pretty little meat puppet (and fund raiser) for the SAF for a while, but make no mistake, it is dead and gone.

Massad Ayoob approves, which should be enough to make any liberty lover pause until the chills subside. Ayoob is a well-known "gun rights advocate" who always puts enforcers and their "safety" and "authority" above actual gun rights, which he places beneath State whims, anyway (according to the stuff of his I have read in the past). If he weren't an actual cop he would still be an enthusiastic copsucker. One simply can't overlook that huge failing.

I will be removing all references to JPFO from over the next few days, but I won't edit out the references from the past on this blog. Aaron Zelman left an important legacy- which has now been crapped all over by anti-liberty bigots and the traitors of the JPFO board of directors.

Too bad those "directors" didn't take one of the reasonable alternatives which were offered, but chose to destroy JPFO, instead. What does that tell you about them, personally?

It is a sad day in the ongoing- and now smaller- fight for real gun rights and human liberty.

R.I.P, JPFO. You will be missed.

(When the news first broke...)


A poor substitute for justice

The justice system is such a poor substitute for justice- a farce, really- that most people can't even fathom justice anymore. It has been erased from the range of possibilities their minds can even consider.

So, instead of justice, they expect imprisonment and punishment.

Instead of restitution, people expect fines.

Instead of self defense, they expect cops to come save their sorry, cowardly hides.

And, it's all because a worthless "justice system" was allowed to replace justice.

Well, there is no substitute for justice. Don't expect me to support your useless system.

Sure, I would accept "jury duty" if allowed- if only because that is a concrete way to thwart the schemes of the state. But I only see that as a way to help people avoid getting caught up in something that never serves justice anyway. Justice for the guilty comes separately.


Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Selling historical artifacts of The State -UPDATED-

If you like old statist control and tracking devices- or know someone who does- I am selling some Texas license plates from the 1960s on eBay. Most are "Farm Truck" plates. The ones I just now listed are all shown below, but there will be more in the coming days (or weeks).

Update: I just added some "Texas farm trailer" plates. Still more to come.

Look for me on eBay: dullhawk1840

Time's Up patches!

Don't forget: I now have "Time's Up" patches available!

They measure 3" X 2", and are "sew on" patches.

They are $5 each, with $1 shipping and handling. I will give substantial breaks on shipping and handling for multiples.

Paypal accepted (use my regular "dullhawk" address shown elsewhere on this blog), or contact me (at that same email) to work out other arrangements.



8 years ago...

It all started with this: Hello


Zombie entertainment

Voting is like playing a video game.

Lots of flash and noise, and immediate results that accomplish nothing beyond entertainment.

People feel they are doing something while voting and talking about voting.

They complain about those who refuse to play- or those who play but don't take it seriously.

But politics and voting will never accomplish anything worthwhile.


Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Property standards another control

Property standards another control

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 1, 2014.)

One topic being raised in almost all the communities in this area is that of keeping your property to particular standards which other people prefer, under threat of government action.

Maybe it concerns weeds, "junk", prairie dogs, or "public property" you have been assigned responsibility for. People are being told they need to make their property pleasing to others "voluntarily", or it will be forced on them by "law".

The big problem, besides the atrocity of wielding "laws" to violate property rights, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I have to admit- I don't care for lawns. Never have. Sure, they have their place, and I wouldn't forbid anyone from maintaining one, but I think they are ugly and plain. Around these parts, they are also terribly wasteful and precarious.

If I had my choice I would cultivate a native area around my house, which around here would mean wild grasses, yucca, prickly pear, mesquite, and other interesting, useful (and edible) plants the uninformed might call "weeds". Yes, I know some of those may not be exactly native, but they are historical, and adapted to survive the local conditions without wasting water to keep them clinging to life.

I would also welcome prairie dogs, jackrabbits, cottontails, and whatever else chose to live there. Except mosquitoes.

If I had this yard, and I lived in town, I would be willing to put up a privacy fence to protect my neighbors' delicate sensibilities from having to gaze upon what I consider the most beautiful yard possible for this area.

In this way I also wouldn't have to look at the neighbors' lawns.

On the other hand, I hate junk and litter. Yet, I know what I see as "junk", others might see as treasures, or useful materials for projects. Their stuff is beautiful in their eyes, and it's none of my business. I would never dream of using the blunt instrument of government to force them to make their property look the way I would prefer it to look. My business ends at my property lines.

I can't relate to the withered souls who somehow believe controlling other people's property is their right. It's a sickness in desperate need of a cure.

Once you enshrine the belief that the majority can enforce "community standards" against how others must maintain their property, you give others permission to do the same to you in the future, when the community changes and the standards have become something you dislike.

You are selling your future liberty for immediate gratification, using whatever justification you can invent. It will come back to bite you.


Voting to impose religion

Many people want their religion imposed on the rest of us so badly that it's their only consideration.

It's why they vote and how they vote. Everything else is secondary, and liberty gets swept aside because it would mean people making choices- voluntarily, consensually, and without coercion- which would be against the religion's rules for its followers.

Of course, it doesn't matter at all whether the people whose liberty is being violated belong to that same religion or not. Everyone must obey "The One Way" regardless of anything else, and no matter whether "The One Way" respects liberty and rejects the initiation of force or embraces evil with the excuse that "it's what God demands".

It's Sharia Law, no matter which religion is pushing it. I find it rather vile and distasteful and think those pushing it should be ashamed and resisted in their attempts.


Monday, September 01, 2014

MIB sighting scrambles my brain

Recently I saw something that made me consider actually heading straight for the nearest police station.

What on earth would make that course seem reasonable?

As I was driving along a back road I saw a solid black car with very dark-tinted windows and a driver's side spot light (also solid black) but no markings whatsoever. Of course, I instantly thought "government". It looked like something the Men in Black (the "real" myth, not the Will Smith movie version) would drive.

It was pulled off the side of the road in a rather random way- almost looking like an accident.

I drove on past. After a mile or two, I saw it coming up behind me. I wasn't "speeding" or anything- not that it matters to the enforcer vermin. But he passed me and got behind a car which had been several car lengths ahead of me the whole time- and which also was never "speeding" or doing anything any enforcer could frown upon. The MIB car's turn signals were very different from any I had ever seen- very high-tech and a line of little orange lights in the rear window. And it was sporting a New Mexico government license plate.

He followed for a mile or so, and after the road we were all on came to an intersection, and the followed car turned right (as I also did after him), the MIB car turned on some flashing lights unlike any I had ever seen on an enforcer vehicle- they were the same little orange lights that had served as the turn signals. As I passed I saw the odd red flashing lights in my rear view mirror which were in his front window. There may have been blue flashers on the passenger side, but the car he had pulled over was blocking my view somewhat.

Something didn't feel right on many levels.

I was thinking I wouldn't have stopped for that car without witnesses around. The nearest place I could have counted on to have witnesses was the police station a mile or so on down the road. Unsettling thought. They would have probably rolled over for anything the MIB car's occupants wanted. But, sometimes, you can get various enforcers to fight for "jurisdiction"- which might help the situation.

Quickly I realized that is probably a losing proposition no matter what, once the MIB alert to your car. Absent a button to push to instantly neutralize the threat and erase any record of them noticing you, you're going to take damage.

It's really disturbing when something can make me think- for even a minute- that it might be "smart" to go to police for "help".


Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Horrors of "legalization"!

We must keep "those things" illegal!

It's all that stands between us and a total disintegration of society!

I mean, really!

You can't legalize Crocs or everyone will wear them!

The same goes for broccoli! If it were legal what would stop people from eating it? Think of the children!

No one would be able to resist something if it's not illegal. No one has any preferences of their own. Everyone will be wearing Crocs and distractedly munching broccoli instead of productively earning tax money for the state unless we make sure to not endorse such things- by keeping them illegal!

Where would it end?


Saturday, August 30, 2014

The questions borderists won't answer

How do borderists believe "we" can "protect our borders" without a huge police state (and the attendant expense met through "taxation")?

This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked.

And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?

That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to.

I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate.

What do you think?


Friday, August 29, 2014

Shun the creeps to death

There is a family in the general area who are perfect candidates for shunning. I had never heard of them until a couple of weeks ago. They are known aggressors, and have been for a long time, according to people I know and trust. There have been plenty of other incidents, but this one finally seems to have brought them to a lot of people's attention (including mine).

I have other sources for my information- I would never accept the word of the sheriff or other enforcer without credible confirmation.

I do know that one of them has been a government school teacher, and has been fired for aggression more than once. I also know there were two more family members who were involved in this attack, but apparently are either "too young" to be mentioned in the report, or weren't charged for some reason.

I will not do business with these aggressors, nor will I do business with anyone I find out is employing them. I have heard rumors that at least one was fired due to this incident- I hope it's true. And I hope no one is foolish enough to ever hire these people again.

I already shun the enforcers in town- but of course, most people support those aggressors and my shunning makes no measurable difference. But these freelance thugs are a perfect example of people who should be shunned, and who probably could be. Effectively.

Added: On September 4, 2014, the paper finally announced the name of the other family member.


State-provided security ridiculous

State-provided security ridiculous
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 29, 2014.)

People claim government must provide security — by which they usually mean police and military — because security is much too important to leave to the market to provide (which they confuse with leaving it to chance), or to do without.

Yet, nothing is more important than air. Being so vital, shouldn’t we let government inspect, bottle, and ration air to make certain we all get our safe and clean fair share? the rest...

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Those wacky socialists and their "borders"

The whole "border" and "immigration" problem are socialist-created crises. Or perhaps I should say collectivist-created.

If there were no superstitious belief in the existence of "public property" there would be no problem. People could defend their own property as they saw fit. But socialist/collectivists believe the State can "own" property. They also believe the State can control how you use- and how or whether you can defend- your own property. (Which you also must pay a yearly ransom to keep.)

It's like dogs' territoriality gone berserk- where a hypothetical barking dog thinks it can claim everything around him, including half a continent, as his own- no matter the other dogs living there. Claiming other people's property is socialistic.

Offering "free stuff"- which is never free- is also socialistic. No matter who the intended recipient may be.

Many of the migrants are also socialistic- believing they are "owed" passage across other people's private property, and "free stuff" once they settle somewhere. So you have the clash of the socialists.

I have no dog in the fight other than the fact the socialists pretend to have the authority to prevent me from defending my life, liberty, and property from any of their kind.


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The American "Anne Frank"

Is the American "Anne Frank" already among us? If so, how old might she be? And, who?

Might she be your daughter? Or the new baby you saw at the grocery store? Will she be your future granddaughter?

Who will she be hiding from? Cops already on the job, or some new enforcers hired "for the duration"?

Which "laws" will she and her family be hiding from? "Laws" which have already been passed? Or "laws" which have only been hinted at? "Laws" you oppose, or "laws" you might have even supported?

Who will be hiding her?

Who will be the one who exposes her to the cops?

Where will she meet her fate? And how?

You may roll your eyes at these questions. I hope in a few years you aren't suddenly remembering this and wishing you had taken it more seriously.


Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Liberty frees from control situations

Liberty frees from control situations
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 25, 2014)

Why would anyone want liberty? It requires responsibility, after all. It removes most of your opportunities to whine and blame everyone else when things go wrong. It leads to minding your own business. Where's the fun in that?

Well, there are benefits.

What is liberty? According to Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

"Unobstructed action"- absolutely anything which doesn't violate the identical liberty of some other person, regardless of what the law says, is within your rights to do. No one has a right to rule your life or prevent you from offending them.

Another way to put it might be "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.", which I have been told is a better translation of The Golden Rule.

Liberty frees you from feeling like you need to control other people's lives. Live your own life, and if someone encroaches on your life, liberty, or property, deal with them then and there.

Liberty lets you focus on your responsibility; not enforcing responsibility in others.

Instead of fretting over trivial matters, you can focus on what's really important. Is someone attacking the innocent or violating private property? No? Then forget it and move on. If they are, take steps to stop them.

The less time you spend worrying about what other people do, the more you will have to spend on being a better friend, relative, and neighbor.

You'll probably be less stressed out, too. It's a huge burden to feel what your neighbors do is somehow your business.

Liberty frees you from wringing your hands over situations you have no control over. Don't like what's going on in other countries? Can you actually do anything about it? If you can, should, and want to, go and do something. If not, concentrate on your own life. Don't force others to do what you think should be done, and don't force them to pay for it either. Meddling by those who think "something must be done" has caused the lion's share of political trouble.

You can also save a lot of time when you stop worrying whether something is "legal" and go straight to doing what is right.

It's easier to keep track of two or three universal laws than millions of federal, state, and local rules. How easy? Don't use force- or send others to use it on your behalf- against people who aren't attacking the innocent or violating private property, respect private property, and if you enter an agreement, do your best to keep it. Anyone can do that. Can't you?

The crescendo approaches

In every issue of the local papers I see government growth. More "authority" being stolen and asserted; new "laws" being invented; more heavy-handed enforcement being proposed.

Sure, it might look like healthy growth to those who don't look too closely, but it's actually the malignant run-away growth of something about to die. When I extrapolate this to every area around America- and the world- I see the end of the Age of Authority coming.

Statists may believe they can keep this up, but they can't. It will cause a collapse. I don't have a lot of pity for those who keep cheering this growth on. I just hope it isn't too hard on the liberty lovers (who are probably at least kind of expecting it).


Monday, August 25, 2014

You'd need to alter reality

I hate to be disagreeable, but...

You'll never convince me "government is necessary" because I don't need it.

You'll never convince me "government is good" because I see its inherent evil with my own two eyes.

Until you can change reality your words are as ridiculous to me as a person who tries to tell me I need to get cornea piercings, just because it would be cool. I know what is unnecessary and harmful to me, despite any arguments and pleas.


Sunday, August 24, 2014

Defending property rights of the "nonconformist"

Just as freedom of speech is meaningless until someone says something "offensive", so are property rights meaningless until someone decides to use their property in a way you disagree with.

Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".

The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.

Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.

And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.

So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?


Saturday, August 23, 2014

The use of a militia

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment 

So, what happens when the militia failed in its duty to stop a standing army from being established? Because that's where we are, and a lot of people don't remember that quote and its implications. And they forget that the military is the mortal enemy of both America and the liberty of Americans (and anyone else they encounter). People need to remember. Or recognize the reality.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Is this The End for JPFO?

Claire Wolfe has unsettling news about a very important gun rights group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and its imminent destruction.

I posted the following on JPFO's Facebook page (it is awaiting "approval"- can you say "snowball's chance in Hell"? I hope I'm wrong- we shall see...)

 ADDED: just found out the person who runs the JPFO Facebook page has an actual LIFE and doesn't just sit around waiting for people like me to post stuff. Amazing! ;) And, Thanks!

 I have been a LIFE member of JPFO for several years. I have never been wealthy, and it was very hard to scrape up the dues, but I did so because of the "no-compromise" position Aaron [Zelman] and JPFO held.
So it pains me, but if the deal with Alan Gottlieb's SAF goes through I will publicly and loudly renounce my membership on my blog to all my readers. And I will tell everyone I know why I felt forced to do so.
There is an alternate plan, one which respects Aaron's legacy and my wishes for the group. JPFO doesn't have to be destroyed. It can be saved. Do it, because it's the right thing to do.

Now I will forward this to JPFO's board of directors. Why not put in your "2 cents", too?

Contact the JPFO board (Copied from Claire's blog, "just in case")

Executive Board Director
Robert (Bob) Meier —

Senior Board Member
Bruce Bell —

Board Member and Managing Director
Doug Schuett —

UPDATE: Yep. It was The End.


There’s always time to be civil

There’s always time to be civil
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 22, 2014.)

It is really easy to misunderstand other people; to misinterpret their words, tone of voice, and actions.
That’s why you should be careful about how you react toward anyone.

Don’t say or do things that can’t be taken back if you discover you took something wrong. It makes for fictional comedy, but real life misery.... read the rest...


Thursday, August 21, 2014

Ferguson, Missouri, Micheal Brown, and Darren Wilson

Other than a few comments on other sites I really haven't been saying much about Ferguson, Micheal Brown, and Darren Wilson.

Well, I guess I'll speak now.

First off, I don't need cops, so I don't want them doing anything on "my behalf". Period. Disband them all and send them home, and give their equipment and guns to the people who have been forced to pay for them.

Secondly- I don't want cops approaching and confronting people for any reason; not for walking down the middle of the traffic lanes or anything else. If someone, insanely, calls the cops for a specific reason, then I suppose it's different as long as the cop goes straight to the person who called and leaves everyone else alone on his way. But, otherwise, cops should stay in the donut shop and out of the community at large.

Thirdly- if anyone is approached by an armed goon (with or without a badge), whom you have reason to suspect will initiate force against you, fighting him is a reasonable reaction. I have zero sympathy for cops getting beat up while they are out committing enforcement. Sure, they have every right to defend themselves- but I believe that is true of any thug. Even if one is attacking me and I try to shoot him. Being a thug can't magically make self defense wrong- I just always hope the thug (he who started the confrontation) loses his fight.

Fourthly- the killer cop didn't know about the robbery Brown is posthumously being suspected of committing, so approaching Brown was not justified by that possibility. If Brown robbed a store, the people present had the right to kill him in the act- the cop doesn't figure into that at all.

Fifthly- If you are going to riot and loot, using police brutality as an excuse, TARGET THE COPS AND THE POLITICIANS WHO HOLD THEIR LEASHES! Striking out at people who didn't do it is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. There are all sorts of courthouses, police stations, police cars, DMV offices, and other government facilities which would be perfectly justifiable targets for destruction and looting. So, go after them, not the innocent (who admittedly have more appealing stuff to take, I suppose).

Sixthly (spell check is losing patience with me here)- This goes along with Fifthly, above: Targeting people who aren't burning and looting stuff with your heavy-handed enforcement is stupid and makes you into nothing but common thugs who also deserve to be killed. That includes targeting reporters, photographers, people going about their daily lives, people driving through the area, and everyone not currently initiating force or violating private property.

Seventhly- Adding militarized enforcers to the situation NEVER makes things better. Want protests to get violent? Send in the clowns... uh, cops. That will guarantee violence. And the more militarized the cops, the more violent the situation will become. Pretending otherwise is stupidity of a monumental nature.

Eighthly- Any time a cop fires his gun, is involved in a car wreck, or anything else on the job- and probably off-duty, too- his name should not be kept secret. It makes him look guilty, and reasonable people will assume his bosses know he's guilty and are trying to cover it up. If you are a tax parasite you have no right to expect privacy from your employers' (the "taxpayers") scrutiny. If you don't like that you can quit and get an honest job.

And that's all I can think of at the moment.


Welfare of the worst kind

Almost all "laws" amount to nothing more than a welfare program for cops.

Without enforcers to support, those "laws" would be recognized* as pointless. Or worse.

They don't help or protect or serve anyone, except the political parasites and their enforcers. I wouldn't suffer one bit if those "laws" evaporated.

But, because there are enforcers, and those enforcers want to "do something" (eat, keep a roof over their heads, clothe their crotch-fruit), the welfare program of inventing "laws" keeps feeding them- with money stolen from actual productive people.

It's sad and disturbing that too many people support those destructive rules and the parasites who enforce them.

*Recognized as such by others who aren't you and me, I mean. We see them as they really are already... right?


Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Future enforcer in training

Recently, at a family reunion, I watched some kids playing. They had some little wheeled scooters they were riding around on; "driving" them in circles. But all was not so peaceable.

This one kid was practically sitting on his smaller playmate and preventing him from driving anywhere- just holding him in place and holding his arms down at his sides; just generally being a hands-on thug. The smaller kid complained some- I was watching to make sure nothing got too out of control (and wishing the smaller kid would haul off and bloody the other kid's nose or lip). Someone asked the bigger kid why he was doing that. The kid's answer: they were playing "cops and robbers". I know which side he was emulating.

I don't think the smaller kid was consenting to this "game", but the big bully didn't really care.

Yep, unless he changes his ways he'll make a fine police officer one day. He's already got the routine down.


Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Tolerating government not a virtue

Tolerating government not a virtue

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 18, 2014)

Tolerance. It is sold to us as some sort of virtue when it's nothing of the sort. It's simply putting up with something, or someone, you hate.

I don't want or need any government, but how much could I tolerate?

I could tolerate a government which coordinates the construction and maintenance of roads, but not one which hires enforcers to patrol those roads, collecting money for government in the process.

I could tolerate a government which provides courts to intervene for victims facing their violators, but not one which makes up laws which run counter to Natural Law, and pretends government can be the victim.

I could tolerate a government which trains volunteers to defend from invaders; not one which sends invaders to other places around the world.

I could tolerate a government which offers services and products in competition with the free market; not one which enforces it's own monopolies in defense, postal services, justice, or "protection".

I could tolerate a government which draws lines on a map it calls "borders", designed to prevent other liberty-destroying governments from expanding their territory farther; not one which enforces those borders against travelers and migrants going either direction.

I could tolerate a government which doesn't penalize anyone for choosing to opt out of any of it's programs or services, at any time, for any reason; not one which forces people to pay for and use things they don't want and can't afford.

I could tolerate a government which coordinates, not one which enforces.

I could tolerate a government which billed me for services I voluntarily agreed to pay for, not one which taxes anyone for things they don't consent to- including any of the things on this list I could otherwise tolerate.

I could tolerate that sort of government, but I still wouldn't support it. Mainly because I don't need it, and I know you don't either.

Sure, once government has socialized some product or service it becomes difficult for most people to admit this isn't the only way it can be done. People stop being able to imagine better ways. Often, they deny any other way is even a possibility. This is flawed thinking; not reality.

One thing I could never tolerate is a government which metastasizes into a State. A State invariably becomes, by definition, all the things above which I couldn't tolerate. Tolerance can only be stretched so thin before it breaks.

All States, without exception, will eventually collapse because they all grow beyond those things which can be tolerated or sustained;, becoming top-heavy, fragile constructs. Stop being dependent now, to avoid the pain if the inevitable collapse happens in your lifetime.


Requesting donations- shameful or just annoying?

If you are one who doesn't enjoy reading posts about my personal finances, this post isn't for you. See ya tomorrow, I hope.

For anyone else...
Most of my life I have had "real jobs", even if they weren't high-paying jobs. There were good things and bad things about every single one of them- just as there are with this job. Probably the worst thing about this job- besides the pay- is the isolation. But, when I can, I get out and interact with people. (Money helps that, too.) The best thing? I love the emails of support I get, and the occasional in-person appreciation!

But, even my "real jobs" have not always gone smoothly, as far as bringing in the money.

Once I was working for a place which got into some financial trouble, due to some dishonesty from a relative of theirs. I didn't get a paycheck for at least 6 weeks, but I wasn't in dire need at the time, so I kept working without complaint, listening to the assurances that "soon" all my back hours would be paid. Finally I said I had to start getting some money, or I would need to find a different job, therefore I would only keep working if I got paid in cash at the end of the day. I hated mentioning it. So, that's what happened- and finally I started getting paid for the back wages, too. (I still got stiffed for one whole week of work- my claim was disputed, so perhaps I was wrong... but I was keeping up with what I was owed, and what I was being paid, pretty carefully).  If I hadn't asked for the money I was owed, I doubt I would have ever gotten it.

Well, the recent commenter who is "embarrassed for [me]" and my tin cup rattling obviously feels I either don't deserve to be paid for the writing I do (except, perhaps, for the newspaper column, which is only 1/7 of my writing), or that I am paid enough already. Or maybe that only certain work, under certain traditional conditions, deserves to be paid. And that is his perfectly valid opinion, so I can't dispute it. That doesn't guarantee I wouldn't end up asking for money, either, but I guess I wouldn't be bothering you (or him) about it.

I have some very generous subscribers and donors, and I can't begin to express how grateful I am for their support, but unless I mention a need I rarely get any "out of the blue" donations. And I really do need those extras to make ends get sorta close to meeting- or at least being in sight of one another.

So, why should I be ashamed to mention the need?

I have donated money to certain blogs/projects/people, myself- not as much as I would like to, and not usually when I am feeling the need to do some begging of my own (although I helped one person out in an emergency, which made me have to ask for donations afterward- but I would have helped her regardless of what happened to me in that case).

I have never been offended by others asking, even if I feel bad that I can't help. That's my problem, not theirs. The "job" landscape is changing, and it is still a bit chaotic and unsettled. And it may get worse before things settle into the new "normal".

I love William N. Grigg's "Pro Libertate" blog, and even though he ends every single post with a request for donations, and even though I don't believe I have ever donated a cent to him, his requests don't bother me at all. He is awesome and works for- and richly deserves- every penny he gets.

Recently Chris Muir's "Day by Day" comic strip ran a multi-week fund raiser where he requested a specific amount and kept beating the drum until he got it. And, once again, I didn't donate anything, but his request didn't strike me as crass or that he was asking for "money for nothing". He obviously works hard to produce his strip and I believe he should be rewarded for the work he does.

And, I could mention other examples, too.

Do I think I am as good or important as either of those examples? Heavens no! If you'd rather donate to them- or to no one- it's none of my business. But, if they can ask, why can't I? What makes me different? That I am not famous?

It does bother me to ask- sometimes a lot. Does it bother others to ask? I have no idea. But, often, asking is what makes a difference. In the past I would say I have usually gotten donations about half the times I make a request. And for that I thank you all.

But then, maybe I am not "good enough" to ask for donations. That would be a perfectly valid reason to object to my requests- if I seem to be saying I "deserve" something I don't. Only you can judge that.

I thought long and hard after feeling I had been scolded for asking for donations- on a post where I wasn't asking for donations, but running some product ideas past my readers. After that happened I considered making a commitment to myself to never ask again.

But, you know what? I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have never resented someone telling me they won't or can't donate to me. I have never tried to make anyone feel bad for not donating when they try to explain why they don't. I put a lot of work into this blog, and when I need money I ask, but if you don't want to donate, for any reason, don't. It doesn't bother me. You don't "owe" me anything. No explanations necessary.

If I ever get to the point where I am regularly getting at least $600 per month, total, I don't think you'd ever see another request for donations- unless some unusual crisis crops up. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I post the occasional reminder. If you do mind, I'm really sorry. I don't want to drive anyone away, and I hope the rest of my content is worth the occasional bleg you can just skip over without giving it a second thought. If it's not, it isn't your fault.

And, yeah, I could really use some donations right now.


Monday, August 18, 2014


A "new" justification for the brutal and ridiculous gang of government is that without them, freelance inner-city (or foreign) gangs will eventually leave the cities to rampage the countryside, killing and raping us all. Especially when the "free stuff" dries up.

Never have figured out why I'm supposed to fear freelance gangs, whom I can generally "legally" shoot and kill, more than the government gangbangers who are "legally" off-limits, no matter what they do.

But, it brings up a question in my mind. Why are there gangs?

I think it's because humans have a strong need to belong. To a tribe or a gang. Or a "government"- but I repeat myself.

Now, I'm no expert or anything, but I sometimes feel that same need myself, and I can extrapolate that to others. Perhaps I am wrong.

Belonging to a group gives you a sense of place, but it also gives you a bunch of people to watch your back. For people without principle- aggressive thugs of any sort- belonging to the group is all that matters, and they'll happily commit any atrocity to show their loyalty to the group. They watch each other's backs while doing evil, not only when others would do evil to them.

But the "criminal gangs" owe their very existence to The State. The State causes the problem it is supposedly the only solution to.

By inventing counterfeit "laws", The State empowers and finances gangs on both sides of "the law". It pits them against each other, and bystanders like you or me can get hurt in the crossfire. It also invents rules designed to protect those aggressive gang members from the rightful consequences of their actions. Because the gangs use weapons, The State's goons make up rules saying you and I are forbidden to own and to carry weapons- making the bad guys safer. If they attack or steal, self defensive violence should end their parasitical life- no matter what gang they call their own. Or whether they belong to a gang or not.

I do not benefit by having a gang rob me and violate my rights in order to fight against another gang which might like to rob me and violate my rights in their place. I benefit by committing myself to defend myself, my friends, and my family from any attack, no matter who is committing it. And I benefit by those who reciprocate on my behalf- voluntarily, without claiming a "right" to rob and molest me for my own good.

I'm sorry, but your fear of freelance gangs doesn't give you any right to impose your gang on my life, liberty, or property.

The way I see it, the "argument" boils down to this: "Because there are gangs out there- with limited territories and resources- I need to support the creation of other gangs- with almost limitless territories and resources- even though I am a member of neither gang."

Part 2

Interestingly, after I wrote the above, I participated in a discussion with someone who says a centralized monopoly of force- government- is the only thing freelance gangs respect, so he is in favor of it. He based this on his experiences in a pretty nasty place- which he ended up leaving (which I pointed out is a perfectly valid choice).

Here is my response:

Once you have a centralized, monopolized force you have the very sort of gang you fled from. It's just that- for whatever reason- you prefer the gang calling itself "government" to the other gangs. That's your choice. But it's still nothing but a gang.

There can never really be a monopoly of power. Governments/gangs wish it were possible- as long as they end up on the "winning" side. There will always be competition for that power. Government vs gang Z vs gang X vs "rich warlord" vs determined and armed individual vs who-knows-what. If you base your society of gangs, you'll always have gangs fighting gangs, seeking to increase their cut. Right now, the gang called "government" just has a temporarily larger slice, but it's still nothing but gang warfare over turf and who they are "allowed" to fleece and rape.

Any gang- government or freelance- will usually leave you mostly alone until they want something of yours, or until you refuse to comply with some other demand. Then they'll take it or "enforce" their demand if you can't stop them. Government enforces all of their theft and aggression with death. Don't believe me? Refuse to cough up for some "fine" or "tax". You'll get a threatening message. Ignore it and eventually men with guns will arrive to force you to pay up or be caged. Resist and they will kill you. Each step of the way thugs calling themselves "government" will escalate the violence until you either comply or die. That is gangland behavior; not civilized behavior.

Government isn't security- except for the members of its own gang. Same as any other gang. Everything you point out about the freelance bad guys applies identically to "government".
You are making a distinction where none exists.

There will never be a Utopia free from the presence of all bad guys. I just don't do mental gymnastics trying to justify one violent, thieving gang over another. Maybe because you believe you know what to expect from your chosen gang, and the other gangs seem unpredictable and arbitrary, you have chosen the one you support. I can see why some might see that as preferable. So, you support the gang you prefer, and I'll do the same (which, since I prefer no gangs at all...).

Every anti-gun "law" and anti-self defense "law" makes it that much safer to be a thug. Until the point is reached where some people actually believe that without "government" the (freelance) gangs would run rampant- as if that is substantively different than the current situation. It's quite a handy scam they've got going.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Liberty matters!

Sometimes, after a discussion with a statist, I feel very irritated at myself for having allowed my emotions to show.

Why do I get worked up? Why?

Because it matters.

Things are the way they are because most people keep following the same foolish path toward more state. And no one wants to hurt their little feelings, even when they are headed over the cliff.


If someone doesn't stop being so meekly polite in the face of insanity others may never realize they are behaving insanely.

That doesn't mean every discussion is the time or place to get emotional, but you have to understand that a lot of people aren't convinced by rational arguments and logic. Nope. For them it takes plucking their heartstrings; they are ruled by emotionalism and are only swayed by an emotional appeal. I don't like that, either, but it is what it is.

So, when you need to be emotional, allow yourself to show it. Because liberty freakin' MATTERS!