Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Kinderprison

Yeah, that's a new word I may have just invented (or more likely, applied in a new way).

To me, a kinderprison is any school- government or "private"- based on the Prussian system of behavior modification destruction for the purpose of enforcing conformity and obedience- with a possible accidental amount of actual, useful education occurring despite the best efforts of the control freaks in charge.

Abolish the kinderprisons!

.

Trying to talk to statists

I've noticed a very consistent pattern when trying to discuss things with rabid statists. This imaginary discussion illustrates what I'm talking about.

Statist: "What's the 2nd letter of the alphabet?
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "Well, then, what letter comes after 'A'?"
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "OK, but what letter comes before 'C'?"
Libertarian: "B"
Statist: "Why do you keep going in circles?"
Libertarian: "Sigh..."

Yep. That's how it goes when discussing liberty or rights with a statist. They rephrase their objections, and then complain when they get the same answers over and over.

Liberty is the answer, regardless of how badly they don't want it to be.

.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Government stops real solutions

Government stops real solutions

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 19, 2014.)

It is said "No man is an island". This seems undeniable, yet libertarians are frequently accused of believing individuals are islands. As if we see humans as isolated and alone, unable to join with others to fix problems which are beyond one person's ability, unless they form that most persistent of Utopian ideas: a government.

People coming together in a completely voluntary and consensual manner, to accomplish something they are in unanimous agreement on, is a wonderful thing to be a part of.

What we do oppose is anyone being forced to join projects they would rather not, and being forced to pay for things they either don't want, or believe they are getting a bad deal on.

Government is currently the main barrier preventing individuals from working together and finding voluntary solutions which don't violate any individuals. Its employees say they must approve, license, regulate, or coordinate every big project, and most small ones as well. Which means, in essence, "no private solutions allowed". Everything must be shoved through the meat grinder of bureaucracy and coercion before being implemented- which destroys any chance of a rational solution being put into action.

Let's say a group of individuals- perhaps ranchers, dairy owners, farmers, and any other concerned people- came together to take on some hypothetical area's ongoing water problems.

The only limitations are that no one may violate the private property of another- which means, in part, no one can be forced to pay for it against their will through taxation- and no force can be used against those who opt out of the plan. It doesn't mean those who opt out can still get the full benefits of any solution without chipping in, though.

Would I trust those individuals to find the best chance at a real, lasting solution for this crisis? If government were not allowed to interfere in any way whatsoever- yes, I would.

Could a solution actually be found? I don't know for certain.

What I do know with certainty is that government solutions to this problem have never worked. They can't. Most are analogous to having the water shut off to your house, so you decide to use the water in your water heater and toilet tanks while pretending it's a permanent solution. And buying, with your neighbor's bank account, a solid gold dipper to serve it with.

Some problems have no real solution, no matter how you treat others. But, if you commit to respecting the rights and property of all concerned, at least you haven't added to the pain. or done the wrong thing for supposedly noble reasons.

It's the mature and ethical way to approach problems.

.

The foundation of civilization

Guess what, every bad guy you have ever met or heard of has some "libertarian" leanings or qualities. Every single one. And that doesn't negate libertarianism in any way.

Everyone has some libertarian positions.

Society would collapse if that weren't true. No one would be able to work together to accomplish anything, because the first disagreement would bring out the baseball bats, brass knuckles, and guns to force everyone else to do it "my way". Any price that was "too high" would result in theft- every time- unless the seller held the buyer at gun point as long as he was shopping.

Every civilized action is libertarian by nature.

Statism is only supportable as a minority, limited condition practiced in very limited ways, and not by too many people too much of the time in too many situations. It turns on itself otherwise.

It's utterly bizarre that some people get this truth exactly backwards.

.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Hooked on being abused

It seems like so many people support the State because they enjoy doing things they believe they can only do through The State.

I'm not just talking about cops and military who want that "job" so they can use aggression without consequence- I'm talking about people with otherwise harmless hobbies and interests, who fall into a government-funded niche they don't want to give up.

The researcher who believes her job can only be supported by "tax" money.

The librarian who believes only government can fund libraries.

The "ham radio" enthusiast who loves getting the permits that validate and authorize his hobby.

The machine gun owner who chills at the thought that anyone else might have a gun like his without having to jump through the hoops he is proud to have gotten entangled in.

I am odd in that if government thugs have violated me in some way, I am not in favor of everyone else being violated in the same way, and if I love a job or hobby, I invariably want to see it freed of State control, so that it can thrive.

Why is that so hard?

.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Rigged games

I recently had some more self-awareness sneak up on me.

I realized I have a very low tolerance for rigged games. No only the political game, but in every area of life.

Once I figure out it's rigged I stop playing. I won't do what's expected. I may ignore the game altogether, or if prevented from doing that, I may refuse to abide by the rules invented by the players, and imposed on me, the one who doesn't want to play at all.

And, those who rigged the game, or insist everyone keep playing anyway, don't like it when their plot fails to trap someone. Good. Upsetting them seems a low price to pay for more liberty.

.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

The predictability of statism

Statists of all sorts get very upset by the truth and reality. Those who support cops are probably the worst.

They don't wanna hear it. They'll deny. They'll dream up objections, look for exceptions. They'll look for the hard cases that nothing can fix.

As if any of that props up their superstition.

Then, when all this doesn't convince you to embrace their ways, they'll call you names, say you have to be pragmatic, tell you to "move to Somalia", or threaten aggression.

Because, since they can't handle the truth, that's all they've got on their side.

It's predictable, and sad, really.

.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Liberty doesn’t require you to vote

Liberty doesn’t require you to vote


(My Clovis News Journal column for October 17, 2014)

The great national distraction is approaching. Yes, election day is just around the corner.
Campaign signs are popping up in yards and in unclaimed “public” spaces, touting this or that politician or government financing scheme.
People mistake this fervor for “doing something.”...read the rest...
.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

The Religion of Aggression

Statism is the real "religion of violence"- and not just violence, but aggression. It's what the believers always fall back on when their tactics don't make you yield to their wishes.

ISIS is aggressive mostly because it is following the path of being a State. Without trying to be a State the aggression would be much less dangerous, and easier to counter.

Israel is aggressive because it is a State.

The US is aggressive because it is a State.

All States are aggressive by the very nature of being States.

Yes, there are non-State aggressors out there. But the worst ones often try to gain the appearance of legitimacy by joining (or becoming) a State of some kind.

But States are only dangerous because of their Believers.

.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Cops- the price of legitimacy

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

IF police are to have any legitimacy whatsoever, and that's a mighty big "if", they must be reminded that they have no "authority" that you or I don't have.

They were supposed to be nothing more than the butler who does what you or I didn't feel like doing right now. Just like you have the authority to haul your own trash to the dump, but you hire someone else to do it because you don't want to be bothered. And if trash collectors start acting like they can order you around, use aggression against you if you decide you can no longer afford or risk their "services", they'll become uppity, dangerous goons just like cops have become, and I'll fire them, too. If I am forced to keep paying them, I am being robbed.

That's right- cops are lowly servants, not masters.

They say "jump"; we ask "Why?" If they can't give a reasonable answer, we walk away after firing them.

We say "jump"; they ask nothing until after they jump. Their immediate, grovelling obedience comes as a price of the "job". If they don't like it, they can go get an honest job.

That's the price of legitimacy. If they refuse to pay it they can continue to be nothing more than the thieving, aggressive bad guys more and more people are recognizing them to be.

I have no "need" for servants who have become uppity and abusive and murderous. I take back responsibility for my own life (as if I ever handed it over to such pathetic people).

.


Tuesday, October 14, 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 Principle. It simply states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." This basically means "Don't start violence by throwing the first punch, or by sending someone else to throw the first punch."

Live by that rule and you are a libertarian whether you know it or not; don't live by it and you aren't libertarian no matter what you say.

Natural Law aligns flawlessly with the Zero Aggression Principle, including the necessity of respecting the property rights of others.

Other rules are helpful for self preservation.

Following the dosage rules for medication is smart. Rules for proper food preparation or keeping your water safe to drink are necessary. Following rules for safe gun handling helps you survive. Some people don't obey good rules and suffer the consequences.

Still other rules have evolved concerning customary behavior. Pausing at intersections and driving on the right side of the road (where this is the custom) are examples of this. These would be smart things to do regardless of laws dictating them, simply because everyone has come to expect this, and refusing to cooperate will needlessly endanger your life and the lives of innocent people. Of course, these rules vary from place to place, so don't fall into the trap of believing they are universal like Natural Law. Even when these rules find their way into laws, some people will refuse to follow these rules and will cause harm.

The legitimate rules, which are sometimes reflected in invented, statutory law, are the ones which would survive and be followed by most people without being enforced, or even written down. If you don't follow them, you'll probably suffer.

Most libertarians are fine with these rules, and are simply against arbitrary, unnecessary, or harmful rules.

Bad rules would soon die out without armed enforcement keeping them propped up. Rules like coming to a complete stop at stop signs, when no one really believes it is essential to driving safely; or having a license plate or a drivers license. Or arbitrary speed limits. Speed limits are silly, since even the law tosses them aside on a whim; thus "driving too fast for conditions", even when well below the "speed limit".

Other arbitrary, unnecessary or harmful rules would include those regulating the owning and carrying of weapons, rather than the aggressive use of those weapons. Or rules imposing taxation. Or compulsory school attendance.

Keep the good rules; scrap the rest.

.

Comments on The Crimes of Officer Brent Aguilar- UPDATED

I rarely do this, but you really should go back and read the comments posted on The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers.

It shows just how hard statists will try to justify their superstitious beliefs. I'll admit, the guy is good at it.

Funny, though, how many things I bring up that he conveniently ignores- skipping right over that to try another direction.

And, am I mistaken, or did the sorry little butt nugget just threaten me?

I think you'll enjoy reading through the comments, and keep checking back. He may not be done.
-

UPDATED- He's still at it and digging himself even deeper, and getting more desperate.

.

Can't fight reason? Just nuke 'em.

I just finished reading an excellent book, The Market for Liberty, which came highly recommended by one of the commenters here- I'll probably have more to say about it soon.

But, in reading how the authors say a free society would spread, because the States around the world couldn't compete with it, makes me wonder something inconvenient which the authors seem to have ignored.

Would governments join together in an attempt to attack and destroy a free society which was embarrassing them and attracting "their people" and businesses? Rather than trying to compete, and locking down their "borders" and outlawing emigration, would they simply nuke the free area to "solve" the problem?

I'm afraid I believe they just might do it, since there is no other way they could compete.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily be successful, since a free society would probably be filled to the brim with people who were obsessive about defense and weaponry- which no one would be able to criminalize.

And, in such a scenario, "winning" doesn't mean the aggressors were right and that statism is moral or ethical. It just means they were stronger or lucky. Just like any murderer who manages to kill his victim.

But, it's something I have seen in my own life: when statists can't win with reason, they resort quickly to force, which they always believe they have a right to initiate against anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's why they, while ridiculous, are dangerous and need to be watched.

.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Statists telling me what I want...

From where comes the assumption that if someone harms me, I want the guilty person kidnapped and placed in a cage- that I must finance whether I can afford it or not?

Not only am I expected to want to pay for the cage, the guards, my violator's food and electricity, the upkeep of the cage, his medical bills, and all the bureaucracy to keep him caged "legally", but I am also supposed to want to pay for the cops who "caught" him.

Screw that!

I want justice, not punishment. And justice doesn't come from The State.

Punishing others benefits me in no way, even when you punish the real guilty person, but actually harms me when the punishment is financed by me and others against our will. Heaping violation on top of violation to punish some violators is not a healthy "system".

Yet, I am told all the time that "no victim wants their violator to 'go free'".

Once again, I am "no one".

.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Statism- the self-contradictory superstition

Statism is nothing but a web of contradictory beliefs. It's not internally consistent in any way. You can see an illustration of that anytime you witness a debate between a statist and a non-statist.

People are flawed, so they must be controlled by people. 
"Laws" are good and necessary, even though I disagree with some of them. 
Crime exists, so The State is necessary to stop crime- even though The State has been around for thousands of years and crime still exists.
It's not wrong (theft/"taxation", kidnapping/"arrest") if government does it. 

And on and on it goes.

Sometimes the stupid hurts.

But, I try very hard to have patience with statists. Because I care and I believe their lives will be better if they stop being so stupidly inconsistent and self-contradictory. Some days, though, I think "Are you even listening to yourself?!?"

Without those inherent contradictions, statism simply ceases to be. It evaporates to be replaced by something else. It is replaced by anarchism, voluntaryism, or whatever you wish to call it. It's like a breath of fresh air to those who finally allow themselves to breathe.

.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Health crises work themselves out

Health crises work themselves out


(My Clovis News Journal column for October 10, 2014.)

Sometimes it takes me a while to realize when people are seriously concerned over something like the current Ebola scare.
I’ve seen enough of these well-publicized health crises fizzle to know they generally work themselves out before much happens. As an American you are nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by terrorists, and you are much more likely to die of something boring, like heart disease, than Ebola. It’s just not as dramatic and newsworthy. ...read the rest...

.

Thursday, October 09, 2014

Understanding; not accepting

I sometimes understand those who initiate force- or want to- while recognizing they have no right to do so.

I am only human and have had the same perverse desires crop up myself.

I admit I was wrong when I wanted to initiate force- why is it so hard for some people to accept the same?

.

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Voluntary segregation

I wonder....

Would it be "better" (however you might define that term) if humans segregated themselves by "intelligence"?

Maybe they already do, to some extent, but I'm thinking of people migrating, voluntarily, to asteroids or space colonies that are set up to make people of a particular IQ range "happy".

I do think there are distractions and hobbies and pastimes and careers that people of certain levels of intelligence are more likely to participate in and enjoy, and others they tend to avoid.

At first the idea sounds attractive, especially when I'm aggravated at certain people.

Then I wonder if it would be boring to never be around people substantially dumber or smarter than yourself. Would people seem more irritating without more variety?

Just another reason I am skeptical of Utopia.

.

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Five things to know about liberty

Five things to know about liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 5, 2014.)

I see regular articles on the topic of "Five things to know about..." a person, object, or job which some readers might be curious about. Apparently nothing is as poorly understood as liberty- with is strange to admit in a country which was supposedly founded to give regular people the best shot at achieving liberty. Perhaps it is time for a "Five things to know about liberty".

Defending rights:
Just because you admit someone has a right to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you approve of what they do or wish to join them. It simply means you realize when they aren't violating any other person or private property you have no right to prevent them from doing what they are doing, and therefore can't pass this authority you don't possess to anyone on your behalf. You have a right to drink protein shakes, and I'll defend your right to do so, but I'll not be joining you.

Defending scoundrels:
Defending the rights of everyone doesn't mean you agree with or like them. Unless you can stand up for the rights of your worst enemy, you are hypocritical expecting others to defend your rights. H. L. Mencken put it well: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Consistency counts:
Being consistent means you will upset some people who believe you should make exceptions for their favorite rights violations and violators. This is the biggest stumbling block for most people. They easily see why the other guy is wrong, but when they do the exact same thing for "their side" they see nothing wrong with it. Of course, being consistent doesn't mean you are right- a person can be consistently wrong- but being inconsistent is an obvious clue something is wrong with your thinking or behavior.

Anything can be better:
Supporting liberty and opposing those who violate it doesn't mean you "hate America" or should "move to Somalia". It means you know things can always be better than they are, while appreciating the good you already have. Or still have, as the case may be.

No forcing it:
If someone doesn't hunger for liberty and doesn't want to understand it, nothing you or I can say will change that. In such a case you simply need to live liberty and leave them on their own- and hope they never force you to defend yourself from them. Maybe your example will create curiosity. If not, you'll still have a better life.

.

An imaginary distinction

I just don't get the distinction.

If a guy is trying to rob you, using potentially deadly force, is it wrong to kill him in self defense if you know he's a pastor?

What if he's a cop?

What does his job matter?

Here's a hint: it doesn't.

Violators deserve to die at the hands of their intended victims at the scene of the attack. That doesn't mean the victim is "required" to kill the attacker, but only an evil person would fault him for doing so.

.

Monday, October 06, 2014

Double standards are not worth the cost

If you "hog tie" government employees (particularly cops) by demanding they obey the rules everyone else is expected to obey, the statist complaint is that they can't get anything done.

Too bad.

If you "must" steal or initiate force to do your job, I don't want your "help". I want you to go away- and die if you won't go away voluntarily. Nothing you could ever do in your "official capacity" is worth tolerating your violations. I'm not afraid of those things you want me to ask for your "protection" from. I need nothing from you but to be left to live in Rightful Liberty.

You can't seem to do that- so you declare me your enemy for not going along with your raping and pillaging.

Fine.

I'd hate to have bad guys love me.

If you can't accomplish anything by respecting the Rightful Liberty of everyone else, then I relish your failure.

.

Sunday, October 05, 2014

If a cop saves a life...

What if there's a medical emergency? Maybe you don't call 911, but someone else does. Anymore, it's not only the needed medical professionals who arrive- the "Law" shows up, too, for some incomprehensible reason.

Maybe the cop even gets there first. Maybe the cop saves your life.

If a cop happens to show up and saves your life, good. But what does it matter what job your rescuer holds? Wouldn't you be just as grateful if you were rescued by a pimp or an artist? Would you forever worship all artists if one showed up and saved you?

So, why do some people act as though cops are special (no, not in "that" way) because they have the radios that make them aware of crisis situations as they happen?

If I happen upon an emergency scene I may or may not be of help, but I'm also highly unlikely to shoot the person in need due to them being unable to comply with arbitrary orders I bark at them.

Don't fall into the trap of worshiping cops just because some of them happen to show up at the scene of a crisis, and sometimes do the right thing at that moment. Even the cop training can't totally extinguish the ability to do the right thing sometimes.

.

Saturday, October 04, 2014

Liberty, but...

 I "love" all the liberty-lovers who are liberty-lovers until they beg the State to save them.

Maybe from "drunk drivers", "illegal immigrants", pedophiles, or just general "chaos".

Either liberty is good and it works, or it isn't and it doesn't. Make up your mind.

I know what experience has shown me.

.

Friday, October 03, 2014

Time to stop hiding, take control

Time to stop hiding, take control

My Clovis News Journal column for October 3, 2014

Most people are more libertarian than they’ll admit.
After all, they buy things from the store rather than steal. They ask instead of demand. They try to avoid resorting to violence as long as they are given any choice. And most people are in favor of self defense when faced with someone who refuses to live by the same rules.

For that matter, most people actually live in a condition of anarchy in their daily lives. No one tells them who they are allowed to fall in love with, what they will eat, where they must shop, whether they are allowed to use the bathroom, where they can work, or what to think or believe. Regardless of what you have been told, that is anarchy: living without being ruled by someone else. ... read the rest...
.

Thursday, October 02, 2014

New Link: The Zelman Partisans

Notice the new link over there on the list of blogs and sites: The Zelman Partisans.

It has risen from the ashes of JPFO; may it succeed wildly.

.

Cops- a crutch you don't need

I see the "need" for any externally imposed "government" as a crutch, and the "need" for police is one of the most pathetic examples.

But, let's say you really, honestly "believe" you "need" cops. Fine. But, I don't, so don't impose them on me and then complain when I don't appreciate it.

When I look at people who "need" cops, I see perfectly capable people who look silly using an ill-designed crutch that wasn't even "necessary" to begin with. And, the vanishingly few people who might have a legitimate need for a protector, I see as having to make do with something unsuited to their real needs.

Now, the existence of cops doesn't really affect my behavior- unless one is looking at me. I don't go out of my way to avoid them. Yet. I don't make an effort to be rude to them. It isn't the individual that's the problem, it's the "job". Of course, some of those individuals enjoy the "job" way too much, and use it as a way to be nasty goons without consequence, but those individuals would probably be nasty people no matter what their "job" was. Some of those cop-people would be perfectly fine individuals if they'd burn the uniform, walk away, and get an honest job.

.

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Justice for Shaneen Allen!

Read about it here: Justice for Shaneen Allen!

Now, a small quibble. This wasn't justice.

She's being sent to a "rehabilitative" program? There is nothing to "rehabilitate". She wasn't the one in the wrong. It's like letting a rape victim go to "rehabilitation"- so she can see the error of her ways- because she was raped.

The "arresting" cop needs rehabilitation. The prosecutors need rehabilitation. The evil idiots who wrote and passed the rule she ran afoul of need rehabilitation. Shaneen is the only one involved in this whole mess who doesn't need to be rehabilitated.

I'm glad she isn't being caged. I'm glad she wasn't executed. But this isn't justice. Not even close.

What it is is an illustration of what a bad idea "laws" are- especially when they violate Natural Law. It is an illustration that anything short of being ground up and eaten by The State can be seen as a "win" by those who believe- completely without justification- that The State can be somehow legitimate.

I wish Shaneen had gotten justice. All those guilty of molesting her should be forced to pay her for all the wasted time, energy, inconvenience, "mental anguish", and "legal" trouble their molestation caused. Out of their own pockets, of course, even if it means they and their families have nothing to live in but a cardboard box for the rest of their miserable lives. And, obviously, those guilty vermin should never hold any "public" job ever again- and preferably should die hungry and alone, being shunned to death for their evil acts.

.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

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? We'd pay higher taxes for that, right? When someone breaks the rules the government can just cut off their air supply (no, not their easy-listening '70s music, their oxygen; not the Oxygen television network, the life-sustaining atmospheric gas). That would end crime and silence malcontents quickly!

Trees, oceanic algae, and chemists would have to be regulated to prevent unauthorized oxygen production. And something would have to be done to secure the borders to prevent immigrating air from infiltrating American lungs. Not breathing at all would be better than breathing foreign air!

Yeah, it sounds silly. Pretending security must be provided by the State is just as ridiculous.

Guess what- security, like air, is all around you. It is within you and me, and between us. If only we don't pretend it has to be provided by others.

Like it or not, you are the militia, and defending your home and family- and by extension your surroundings- is best done by you. That's real security. Plus, by accepting your militia responsibility you can protect your liberty from the most dangerous of enemies: the "domestic" ones.

When the Second Amendment- the law making the passage and enforcement of "gun control" a serious crime- was being debated, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said, "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."

One path leads to security, the other, to tyranny.

So, here we are. They were allowed to get away with it. The militia failed in its duty to prevent the government from establishing its own standing military, the people generally approve and ignore the tragedy, anti-gun "laws" result in much death and suffering, and liberty is dying at an accelerating pace. And still, people clamor for more security to be bottled and distributed. We would do well to remember Gerry's quote and its implications. Or recognize the reality that security shouldn't be handled by those who fear liberty the most. Any security they promise is smoke and mirrors.

.

"Animal rights"?

Somewhere I have written it before, but I can't find it right now, so I'll write it here.

I love animals, hate people who abuse them, and I don't "believe in" "animal rights".

How's that?

If "rights" are imaginary, then that's that. End of discussion.

If "rights" are a real thing, then I don't see them as transferable between species. A mouse has no right to not be tortured, killed, and eaten by a cat. A deer has no right to not be shot and eaten by a human. A dog has no right to not be kicked by its owner.

A human also has no right to not be mauled and eaten by a bear.

Any of the victims have the right to fight back however they can, killing their attacker if possible. It's just the way it works.

Any victim of another member of its own species always has the right to fight back, too. Are you listening, enforcers and freelance thugs?

Pretending otherwise will get you in all sorts of trouble, and may surprise you.

I have no right to use force to stop another human from doing anything to an animal which doesn't belong to me (or to some third party who doesn't consent to him using it that way).

I do have the right to shun and publicize what I see as disgusting behavior on the part of the abuser. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so.

Humans have the choice to cause pain and terror, or to not do so. I respect those who choose not to, and I'll avoid those I know who enjoy (or just don't care about) causing suffering. I don't trust animal abusers to stop there, but suspect it would only be a short hop to expanding their activities to human victims. Even if they don't, I think anyone who callously causes suffering isn't someone I want to be around. Not my kind of people.

You also have no ethical obligation to not eat other animals. All life is paid for by death. Don't let anyone try to make you feel bad for what you eat.  I do think the way you (or your proxy) treat your food as you kill it shows whether you are a decent person or not. You also have the right to be vegetarian or "vegan" (isn't that also the word for someone/something from Vega?) if that's what you want, but it doesn't make you superior or more moral in the slightest way.

.


Monday, September 29, 2014

Bitcoin question

How can I regain access to my Bitcoin?

Long story- the computer I have been using since I began this blog 8 years ago finally totally died. It had been limping along for years, so I wasn't caught by surprise. I sold something I really didn't want to sell and bought a new one. I had saved the DAT file from the Bitcoin wallet fairly often before the computer died, and have it on a stick, but now I have no idea to translate that into moving the Bitcoin to the new computer. I also don't remember which "brand" of wallet I was using.

Any ideas?

.

How to become a good ATF agent

Have you ever heard someone make the claim that the ATF/BATFE/BATFEces are really just trying to stop "crime"? Well, I have.

Let's think about that.

First of all, they are financed and paid with stolen "tax" money. Not a good start if you want to be "good guys".

Then, not only is their agency not "constitutional" since nothing in the Constitution gives government any "authority" (not even false authority) to meddle with weapons, alcohol, or tobacco (or any other consumables or products), which means it is illegal, it is completely anti-constitutional. The "F" and "E" parts of the name being specifically forbidden to them by the Second Amendment (which I realize is routinely ignored anyway, but just use this to point out the criminal nature of the gang).

So, here's the claim that a criminal gang, financed by theft, and operating outside the statutory law written to prevent them from existing, and in total violation of Natural Law, can somehow be the "good guys", and that they are needed to prevent innocent people from being harmed.

It's so ridiculous, it's painful.

Well, there is one way they can become "good" ATF agents...


Sunday, September 28, 2014

The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers

Statist copsuckers just can't consider that cops are bad. Even when the evidence is right there in front of them- admitted to in the "official" police version of events.

One, when I stated that the cop was the bad guy- the one who was the aggressor, said to me:

Your statement suggests you were there, please recount your version of the events. To do otherwise would put you in the same category as some of the "advocates" who incite foolishness for recognition and profit while having no actual knowledge about anything.


Yet, this statist insists that since I wasn't there I can't know who the bad guy was- who had committed the crime- even though the cops willingly list the crimes committed by Officer Brent Aguilar and can't show a single one (other than the imaginary"crime" of "contempt of cop") committed by Brent Aguilar's victim (whom they quickly "arrested" on "unrelated" charges).

Don't believe me? Let's go through the police version of events. The car was stopped. A passenger in the back seat (Corona) asked why they were being stopped (not a crime or any reason to suspect a crime). Aguilar demanded that passenger's ID (not within his authority and therefore a crime to do so). The passenger refused (not a crime to refuse to obey an illegal order). Aguilar placed the passenger under arrest (not a real arrest, but a kidnapping, since no crime had been committed by Corona. Adding to the crimes Aguilar and the police admit he committed). Then Aguilar added another crime to the crimes he was committing by physically attacking Corona to the point he broke a cheekbone, and to cover this crime, made up the charge of "resisting arrest".

If you copsuckers dispute these events take it up with the police department. The only difference is that you and the police don't consider these things wrong if committed by cops "in the line of duty", which is an unsupportable double standard I do not subscribe to. You can support cops all you want, but they are too dangerous to allow to exist.

The only way to excuse what Officer Brent Aguilar did is to make up an imaginary double standard where a crime can't be a crime if the aggressor wears a magical talisman called a badge. And that's what copsuckers are best at. No double standards.

It's as though we can't pass judgement on a rapist until we know what his victim might have done to "deserve it", even though the rapist admits the rape occurred (but calls it "arresting sex", instead, and says she refused to identify herself, so he had to do it, and she was then guilty of "resisting sex"). We can have video of the rape happening. We can have eyewitness testimony. We can see the physical wounds. But, if we are members of the Brutal Rapist Fan Club, we must reserve judgement until some justification can be manufactured.

If you needed any evidence that copsuckers will contort themselves inside out in support of their badged gods, there you have it.

ADDED: Surprise! This isn't the first time Brent Aguilar has been a brutal thug: "Aguilar used excessive force in taking Melanie Ryan of Clovis to the ground on her concrete porch"

.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

"Bad words"

I try really hard to keep certain words out of my posts. Part of the reason is that I honestly don't use them in real life (even if working on a car can make me think them), and part of the reason is if someone is going to be offended by this blog, I'd rather they were offended by the concepts and ideas I present rather than the pettiness of finding fault in the words I use to express myself.

But, I don't believe in "bad words".

I even tell my daughter there are no "bad words", even though I explain there are words that will upset her grandparents if uttered in their presence. And I have been amused at the casual way she asks if a certain word is a "bad word" or not. I guess she gets that from someone else.

But, there are words that are like a screwdriver being hammered into my ear.

Words like "patriotism", "vote", "service" (when applied to a government tool of any variety), "citizen", etc. No, they aren't "bad" words, and could even be used in good ways, but since the main way I hear them is in propping up the police state, they hurt my ears.

But I don't whine and insist people stop using those words around me- and even if I wince, no one probably notices.

.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Many confused about libertarians

Many confused about libertarians
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 26, 2014.)

Often, in the national media, I see items that show just how confused most people are over what is Libertarian and what isn’t. Liberals confuse Libertarians for conservatives; especially of the tea party variety. Conservatives confuse Libertarians for liberals. No one seems to understand why those are both wrong.
It even happens locally. Recently, during an admittedly heated discussion over a local event that attracted negative international attention, someone took issue with what I consider a case of “calling a spade a spade.” He thought my behavior was not Libertarian, which he mischaracterized as “do no harm.”... read the rest...
.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Cop supporters are dropping the ball

Why do I get so worked up over cops?

Because I don't "need" cops (neither do you, but that's for another time) and if you're going to impose them on me, you'd better hold them to a very high standard. Much higher than anyone who doesn't live on stolen money ("taxes") and doesn't go around meddling in people's private business. To try to let them get away with anything just shows how corrupt and stupid your "system" is.

If you really like and support cops you should come down HARD on those who violate anyone in any way (you know, the "bad apples"). Otherwise you are simply part of the problem- and working hard to make it worse to the point it will explode.

Cops: If you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, Stop living on stolen money, Stop enforcing made-up rules, Stop imposing yourself in purely consensual interactions, Stop molesting travelers for "speed", "licensing", and paperwork violations, Stop beating non-violent people, Stop demanding ID and other information which is none of your business, and Stop standing by while those "bad apples" you claim are "giving you a bad name" do any of these things. You have a choice: you can keep doing what you're doing and keep being a bad guy... or you can walk away from the "job" right now and join the ranks of the productive people you have been feeding off of all this time. It can be an instant turn around from bad guy to good guy- as long as you leave the aggression and theft behind you (doing those things freelance is no big improvement; just a minor one).

Until these things happen I will oppose the very existence of "police". They should never be allowed to roam the streets preying on people. I'd rather take my chances with the "criminals" they pretend to protect me from. There are no "good" cops.

Abolish the police!

.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

The modern "God For All Seasons"

People used to blame the gods for illness and weather disasters. Now many of them blame "the government".

Ebola, "chemtrails", hurricanes, blizzards, AIDS, "crack cocaine"... the list could go on and on: I have seen all of those things attributed to actions by government.

The State's worshipers who believe government is good or "necessary" aren't the only ones who have elevated The State to godlike status. Many people who hate "government" are unwittingly doing the same thing by making The State stand in for Satan.

The State isn't that powerful. It is made up of nothing more than regular criminals who are working together against your interests while hiding behind an imaginary veil of legitimacy, but they have no magic you don't give them.

So, stop giving it to them.

.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

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 which can't be taken back if you discover you took something wrong. It makes for fictional comedy, but real life misery.

Recently I was going to the post office, and on the sidewalk in front of me was a person who was going slowly; having some difficulty and walking with a cane.

I wanted to be nice and open the door for her, so I stepped around her to get the door. As I did so, she made a comment about being sorry she was blocking my path and making me go around her. The comment sounded sarcastic, which shocked me, since that was the furthest thing from my mind.

I told her I was just trying to get the door, and she said that was very nice of me.

But the encounter kept bothering me.

I thought about the assumptions involved, and how everyone appeared to be assuming the worst of the other person.

It certainly seemed to me that she assumed I was impatient about being behind her, and rudely leapfrogged past to get to the door. But was that what she really thought?

I wondered if instead the assumption was mine, and she hadn't actually intended anything sarcastic by her words. Maybe I was reading something into it which wasn't there.

Either way, I'm glad that I didn't impulsively say something rude in response to my interpretation of what she said. If she had meant the sarcasm I thought I heard, it would have only escalated the situation; if she hadn't intended sarcasm, then I would have been the jerk.

Unless someone is physically attacking you, there is always time to be civil. It doesn't hurt you at all to refuse to return rudeness for rudeness, even when it's real.

Which ties in with being an ambassador for liberty.

Most people who advocate theft and aggression- or support those who employ one or the other- don't do it to be nasty. Most of them don't even realize what they do. Almost everyone becomes defensive when their errors are pointed out to them, choosing to dig in their heels and ignore contrary evidence with even more determination. That's just human nature. It's also human nature to never want to see yourself or your loved ones as the bad guys.

When possible, assume the best of people until they give you clear reasons not to, or are an immediate threat. Give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Maybe they'll surprise you.
.

I'll hate whom I decide to hate

There are bad guys out there. Probably fewer than Rulers and their mouthpieces in the media want me to believe. They work really hard to make me fear or hate those they want me to fear or hate for their own purposes.

And, invariably, that purpose is to make me want to be protected, or to have government punish those bad guys on my behalf. Through more "laws", stricter enforcement of those "laws", or War.

I hate to tell them- it's not working.

I'm not inclined to fear freelance bad guys.

Even if I decide to hate ISIS/ISIL, or child molesters or dog abusers or whoever, the "solution" isn't "laws" or The State. In fact, those bad guys can be dealt with better, more justly, and more ethically without relying on the bad guys of The State, their enforcers, or the "laws" they wield. They need to just get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else they do is just protecting the other bad guys out there.

.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Coddling aggressors

When is it OK to hit a woman?

Whenever- and under the same conditions- it is OK to hit a man. And, I'd say the same applies for using force against- spanking- a child.

You have no right to initiate force, and if you do, you can expect defensive force to be used against you. Grow up and accept it and don't act shocked when it happens.

Your sex/gender, age, IQ, "job", "intentions" or anything else have zero bearing on the matter. You don't wish to be struck? Don't strike first.

I understand those who say "never hit a woman" have good intentions, and they are not under any obligation to strike back, but I think they are doing women a disservice. Treating them as if they as not capable of ethical behavior, so we must overlook this sort of thing, is insulting.

Look at it this way: would you strike a woman to save the life of a kid she was beating to death? Would you shoot a woman who was aiming a gun at you or an innocent person?

I certainly hope so.

If it's OK under those circumstances (and it most certainly is OK), then it's also OK to strike a woman who is hitting you. If you are stronger and hit harder... well, an aggressor needs to take that into account before initiating force.

It doesn't mean "society" or "The Law" will agree with you, but those institutions (or the individuals claiming to represent them) are frequently falling all over themselves to align with the wrong side, anyway. Many libertarians will probably disagree, too. Every action will have consequences- accept that and be prepared to deal with them.

Stop giving aggressors a free pass because of their sex. It only encourages them.

.