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

Gangs

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.

Added:
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.

Cowardice!

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!

.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

The failure that is "pragmatism"

How many times have you been scolded and told to be "pragmatic"?

If you advocate for liberty and gun rights, I'll bet you've heard that a lot. After all, you can't expect "them" to actually respect your rights. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And, you shouldn't be so stubborn and inflexible.

Well...

There is a time and place for pragmatism. Choosing to initiate force or theft- or excusing those who do- because you can't get the bad guys to admit they are evil isn't it.

Don't tell me to offer up one of my kids "pragmatically" as a human sacrifice so the others may have a better chance to live. Wrong is wrong. I may never live in a perfect world- in fact I'm quite certain I won't- but you don't hit the target by refusing to pick up your weapon for fear of hurting someone's feelings or spooking the herd. Aim small; miss small. I know what I want.

Yes, your compromise with evil may be better than "what is", and I won't stop you from advocating for it. I'll even enjoy any fruits of liberty you manage to bring to harvest. But I'll never be distracted from the prize. I also hope once you get "enough liberty" you'll decide to join my drive for the rest of the pie.

.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Self control highest responsibility

Self control highest responsibility
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 15, 2014.)

Liberty, responsibility, and happiness are intimately entwined.
Liberty is the freedom to do absolutely anything that doesn’t violate anyone else’s identical and equal liberty. It really is that simple; it’s how responsible people behave.  ... read the rest...
.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

I'm grateful for cops

No, seriously.

There was a time when bandits didn't advertise their evil intent. They blended in and you had no clue who they were until it was too late and they attacked.

The bad guys of the Western genre wear black hats and bandannas over their faces so you can know to keep an eye on them- while you watch the show. In real life I doubt they advertised so conspicuously.

But today the majority of the individuals you are likely to be violated by advertise their evil intent with badges and uniforms. Imagine that! You can tell at a glance who's the most likely, in a group of people, to be a real and credible danger to your life, liberty, property, and happiness.

We should all thank them for being so up-front about their intentions and loyalties.

.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Shaneen Allen is denied justice again

There's more news about State victim, Shaneen Allen.

Now the corrupt "judge" denies her request to drop the bogus charges.

Not that I'm surprised, since this is what you get when you allow the conflict of interest with State employees being involved in cases where The State is one of the interested parties (the imaginary one, at that!).

Wish I could save you from the cannibal clowns, Shaneen.

.

Another question- Time's Up items

Now that I have Time's Up patches offered for sale, are there any other items you might be interested in? Other than flags.

Some of the items I have considered include bumper stickers, key rings, lighters, pens, calendars, yard signs, "do rags", rubber stamps, and Christmas ornaments.

I'm open to suggestions if you think of anything else people might like.

.


Self evaluation time

I write for you, my readers. This makes you my employer. And you get a very good deal because you can choose whether to pay me or not- and whether to even notice me or not.

And I'll probably continue to write, either way.

I get a good deal because no one person can really fire me or coerce me in what I write. Well, the newspaper gig could, but I get more money from donations and subscriptions, anyway.

I always wonder: Am I doing the right thing by writing about liberty? Would I be more effective doing something else- or nothing at all; just living it, instead?

As long as I keep getting your support and comments, I'll keep thinking I am doing some good. Feel free to chime in to tell me otherwise.

.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Governments pay lip-service to reasoning

Governments pay lip-service to reasoning

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 11, 2014)

There are two- and only two- ways to interact with other people: you can use reason or you can resort to force. Reason is the civilized choice.

The really great thing about most people is they almost never- on their own- resort to force. Rarely does anyone try to force their will on others in daily life. Rarely do they steal rather than making a trade. People say "excuse me" and hold doors open for one another without anyone ordering them to. People are mostly decent, and it is no trick to get them to see people who shun reason and prefer force as the damaged ones.

In fact, with one absurd exception, almost everyone understands choosing force over reason to be wrong. Sure, there are a few freelance bad guys out there, and there always will be, but the number is much smaller than you have been tricked into believing. The rest of us outnumber them so overwhelmingly that if we were to once again take responsibility for our own safety and self defense they'd be wiped out very quickly unless they changed their ways.

For the rest of us, when we want someone else to agree to something we try to convince them how great our idea is, or how it would be in their interest to join our cause. We may even offer incentives. If we can't convince them, the civilized thing is to let them walk away.

When was the last time someone physically twisted your arm to get you to compromise on pizza toppings? How long has it been since you had a gun stuck in your face for saying you'd rather opt out of a family gathering?

When someone chooses to use force to make you do things their way, you are completely justified in responding with force in self defense. Those who choose force don't want you to know this- they want protection or immunity from the consequences of their choices.

Why do people imagine the rule of civilized behavior magically changes once someone invokes government?

This dichotomy of reason or force is also why all governments, no matter what they say, are uncomfortable with people like you or me owning and carrying adequate weapons to resist those who default to force. It's why they always impose exceptions or "reasonable" limits in spite of "shall not be infringed". Governments all rely on force, and will only give reason lip-service for show.

Force leads to tyranny; the use of reason leads to liberty. People, left to their own, choose reason and liberty most of the time. Left to ourselves we can handle those who don't.
.

Freedom (or liberty?) and Property

A while back, after I had said that a person has no right to trespass even if surrounded by private property and prevented from getting vital resources by the owner/s, this link came up in comments: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.

I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.

Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.

.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Your tainted symbol

If "The US Flag", "Old Glory", were just a symbol of Americana- apple pies, mom, hotdogs, and happy times- I wouldn't be offended by it. If it were a symbol of home and hearth and community it would be fine.

But it's not. Not anymore- if ever.

If that were the case government buildings wouldn't be so dedicated to flying it.

It is now an omnipresent symbol of the US Empire and the militarism that goes with it. It has become primarily a military banner- symbolizing the ongoing wars of State vs Liberty.

I feel really bad for people who desperately want to love and defend that banner. Those who make all sorts of excuses for it, and say it is being used in a way contrary with its real meaning.

Tell that to the swastika.

.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Crack down on the crime of "governing"

It is a criminal act to commit "government".

But, it's worse than that.

"Government" is a copycat crime.

Not only that, it is an escalating copycat crime, where each thug gets new, innovative ideas of how to violate more people "better" from all the others committing the same evil act.

I say it's time to break the cycle.

.

Saturday, August 09, 2014

Hey buddy, wanna buy something?

Don't forget to buy Time's Up patches for yourself and your co-conspirators. And maybe other things from my "shop".

Don't make me beg!


Prison is a racket



Prison is about punishment, not justice. If punishment is what you want, then don't call it "justice"; just be honest about what you are advocating. And don't force others to pay for your desire.

Justice is about returning the victim of theft or aggression to as near their pre-victimized condition as possible. Prison is about victimizing the victim again by "taxing" them to pay for keeping their violator in a cage.

Sure, as long as a violator is caged, he isn't victimizing anyone else- at least, no one else who isn't caged with him. (And remember that most people who are trapped in those state cages are there for violating counterfeit rules, not for actually doing wrong, so them being violated by an aggressive captive is doubly wrong.)

But a universally armed population would probably assure that most violators would soon be out of work- or dead- anyway, without theft or government employee aggression. And without caging people for "crimes" where only the mental glitch called "the State"- claims to have been victimized.

The above video is pretty good, but the guy is still not able to escape his statist delusions, saying silly things such as prison being necessary for society, and making other ridiculous statements like that. Discount the chaff and latch onto the meat of the matter.

.


Friday, August 08, 2014

Happiness possible in police state

Happiness possible in police state
(My Clovis News Journal column for August 8, 2014.)

Perfect happiness 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.
It can happen even while government works to steal happiness right out of your pocket and regulate or criminalize the bits it can’t take. ... read the rest...
.

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Liberty Lines, August 7, 2014

(Published in the Farwell TX / Texico NM "State Line Tribune". Wow... the version printed by the newspaper is filled with typos and errors that were not in my original. Because I came back and looked to make sure I hadn't made those mistakes. Sigh...)

What is authority? I think most people are very confused about that.

Let's say you have a vault which contains gold coins. The contents of that safe are yours, free and clear, and if you choose to do so, you can give me some of it. It is within your authority to do so.

If you have a butler whom you have authorized to hand out coins on your behalf, he also has the authority to give me some.

Thank you!

However, if the coins aren't yours to give away, but belong to someone else, or if you haven't given your butler permission to hand out your coins, giving them to me wouldn't be right. It is not within your authority, nor your butler's, to give them away. Doing so would be theft.

You also can't give the butler the authority to break into your neighbor's house and give away the neighbor's coins, because that authority is not yours to give. You would be wrong to pretend you could delegate that authority to anyone.

Similarly, you can't give any government employee authority you, personally, don't possess.

You can delegate the authority to catch a murderer, attacker, or a thief because you, personally, have that authority. No one had to give it to you; you were born with it. Those things are within your authority to deal with.

On the other hand, you don't have authority to forbid people from doing anything they want which doesn't directly cause physical harm- not just the potential for possible harm- against the innocent or violate private property rights, and therefore you can't delegate that nonexistent "authority" to anyone on your behalf. You would be attempting to give away something imaginary which therefore can't be yours to give. No matter how badly you want to, how you try to justify it, or how many of your neighbors agree with you. Acting as though you can do it anyway just makes you and your employee the bad guys.

Because you, as an individual, regardless of any delusions of grandeur, do not have the authority to tell others what to do with their own property, including their own lives, you can't delegate that authority. Not even by inventing governments or making up "laws". If you forge ahead, or send others to carry out your wishes on your behalf, you are a thief or an attacker.

.

.

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Open letter to the individuals of the world

Individuals of the world:

The people who call themselves the US government consider YOU to be their enemy. That is why they spy on you. They spy on me, too. That means they consider me to be their their enemy.

Apparently they are so paranoid they see everyone not calling themselves "US government" to be their enemy. And probably not even all those in the same club ("the US government") are excluded. This will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You may not be my friend. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. But I don't believe the lies told against you by those who work for the US government. I have seen them lie far too often to ever again believe them about anything- at least not without plenty of independent confirmation. They are the boy who cried wolf, while he was the one savaging the sheep.

You and I probably have more in common than either of us have in common with the thugs and goons of the governments which want us to submit to their violations.

The thing is, I don't consider you my enemy. The US government in no way represents me. Not in the slightest. They don't spy on you on my behalf, but against my wishes. They don't put soldiers and military bases near you on my behalf. They don't violate your property for me. They don't torture for my benefit, but only for their own. They don't kill your brothers or fathers, sisters or mothers, cousins, sons, and daughters on my behalf.

Anything you do against those murderers in defense of your friends, family, or property is your right and doesn't upset me at all. As long as you aren't attacking or stealing from me or any innocent person, what you do is none of my business.
-

Don't forget to order some Time's Up patches!

.


Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Privacy violations won’t keep us safe

Privacy violations won’t keep us safe
(My Clovis News Journal column for July 4, 2014)

You are being spied on. As you read this, hackers are getting into your computer, your other electronic information, your telephone, and possibly even watching you with cameras (including the webcam on your computer- even if it's turned off). And the worst culprits, capable of doing the most harm, work for governments you may support. It's not just the federal employees, either.

"If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"

The above is pretty much the standard response when those who love liberty try to warn anyone else of their information being stolen.

As if secrecy were somehow wrong, which it isn't, unless you are using secrecy to escape scrutiny of your violations of others- like the crime of spying on just about everyone in order to gain information to use against them. In such a case the secrecy still isn't wrong, in and of itself; only the violations you are hiding. But this is not even a fraction of the whole picture.

The issue has never really been about secrecy; it's about privacy. If you don't value your privacy why don't you publish your bank account information and all your passwords somewhere, right now, for everyone to see?

Why would you bother putting curtains on your windows at home, and why not do everything you normally do in private right out in the open for all the world to watch?

Oh, now you care?

It's not you who needs to show a reason for your life to remain private; it's that no one else has any right- and certainly no "authority"- to violate your privacy in this way in order to use your information as justification for using coercion against you.

By insisting on your privacy you are simply expressing your right as an individual- and anyone violating your privacy is the one who should be defending his actions- and the bar should be set impossibly high.

If you are paying attention you know Edward Snowden has exposed what the enemies of your privacy and your liberty are doing. Yes, privacy and liberty are inseparably linked. And, it seems, each time the responsible officials deny the new revelations just enough more information is released to expose their latest denial as, shall we say, less than honest. The process keeps repeating. It would be funny if the implications weren't so serious.

Yet, it seems the majority of Americans see no problem with this- as long as they believe it keeps their fearful hides safe.

It doesn't, and never could, but those who are spying on you will never admit this inconvenient fact to you. Their power depends on keeping you in the dark.

Laws fail the stated purpose, but stay around

Time after time, new "laws" against texting while driving have done absolutely nothing to cut down on the number of accidents. Yet, no government employee or statist seems willing to give up and abolish those "laws".

Seems odd... if you assume "safety" is the intent.

But it's not, is it?

Nope.

The only thing that would change if those "laws" were abandoned is the ruling gang would lose one excuse to rob you. That's it; that's all.

Is texting while driving dangerous? Quite probably. But "laws" are not the solution. They never are.

.

Monday, August 04, 2014

If there's no hope, why bother?

A while back I tried to point out to the anti-immigrant folks (who usually claim to be only anti-illegal immigration, as if that has any meaning) that their current chosen response is only going to ensure that the new immigrants v*te for the Democrat branch of the national socialist party rather than for the Republican variety.

I got a couple of variations of the same objection:
No one else (libertarians, Republicans, LPers) will ever be willing (or able) to give the immigrants as much as the Democrats give them, so no one else can ever hope to win over the new immigrants.

If "we" can't out-give Democrats, and if that's all that matters, then "we" have already lost and had better come up with a different plan. All the borderism in the world won't solve that problem, since over half of the "citizens" living here feel the same way. "Lazy, greedy immigrants" would only hasten the inevitable, but not cause it.

But, if that's all that matters, why do I not v*te for Democrats? Why don't those making this claim v*te for Democrats? After all, the "free stuff" is there for anyone to take, as long as they say or do the "right" things. If "free stuff" is all that matters to humans, why aren't you v*ting Democratic, too?

Why do anti-migration folks think new immigrants are all clones of one another with no independent thoughts and who have no other consideration but "Free stuff!"? And why do they think liberty and self responsibility are so unattractive? Didn't they themselves (at least the ones who've rejected The State completely) embrace it? It must not be too disgusting. Do they really believe that they are so different from any other humans anywhere else on the planet?

And, again- if the Democrats' promises to give away stuff is what really matters, then liberty, or any chance for it, is already lost.

And maybe they are right.

If that's the case you'd better stop wasting your time and energy on politics and v*ting, or screaming about "illegals", and you'd better just prepare for TEOTWAWKI.

.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

Idolizing the bad guys

You may have seen the story about the Albuquerque "Make A Wish" SWAT kid.

So very sad on several different levels.

Yeah, I understand the kid is sick, and all they are doing is making him happy. But, what does it say when innocent kids want to be the most scummy, violent parasites among us? How does one come to idolize such vermin?

Don't bother answering- I know the tragic answer.

Would Make A Wish let a kid become an honorary rapist or armed robber for his wish, too? If not, why would they play favorites?

I realize this kid wouldn't actually go on any SWATtings- so a kid who wants to be a robber or a rapist could just pretend, and hang out with real robbers and rapists, without carrying through the evil acts committed by those he idolizes, either. So why pretend there's a difference when there really isn't?

.

Saturday, August 02, 2014

Fear and loathing traps the bad guys

The people who call themselves "government" are terrified of you.

I see it everywhere.

More and more government buildings are surrounded by concrete barriers.

Roads are constantly closed near government buildings.

Government buildings are having their entrances closed for "access control".

These cowards are trapped in their own "safety cages"- and I can't figure out the sense of letting them ever venture out.

And, of course, any "mundane" such as you or me must be electronically stripped naked before entering to make sure we aren't exercising any rights which "shall not be infringed", but which make it dangerous for the bad guys to violate us.

Here, even the Air Force's guy in charge of the local base is so incredibly cowardly he browbeat the local government into permanently closing a road because he said it was too hard to control, and it prevented an extreme risk for his air base. And these are the clowns who statists insist must be supported to "protect" the rest of us. LOL!

Actual, real "terrorism" is almost non-existent. Pro-liberty acts which "government" spokescritters call "terrorism" aren't much more common. To spend all this stolen money to guard against something that is so rare is paranoia.

But the truth is, all these precautions are because of you and me; not "radical Islam". They only make that excuse so you don't realize who they see as the real threat to their scam.

This fear and cowardice amuses me and tells me I am on the winning side. Sure, fear can make the bad guys strike out excessively and hurt a lot of innocent people. Doing so will alienate some more of their supporters, though. They have to realize, subconsciously at least, that their time is running out. And that makes me smile.

.

Friday, August 01, 2014

Need money- so here's a deal on patches

I am in desperate need of at least half a tank of gas. But, instead of the usual bleg, I will offer a special deal on Time's Up patches.

From now until midnight Saturday, August 2, 2014 (according to Paypal or the time stamp on your email), I will dispense with shipping and handling charges, plus, if you buy 5 (or any multiple thereof) patches, I will throw in a free one (for each 5 purchased).

My Shop

.

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 for which you have been assigned responsibility. ...read the rest...
.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Questions? Run away!!

Some time ago a very "liberal" person posted a "news" item on Facebook about how terrible a particular city was to live in, due to rampant violent crime.

He commented that this showed the state's new liberalized concealed carry laws didn't work as advertized by "the NRA" (LOL).

I very politely made the point that I would need to see more information, since the "crime data" in the article was actually all from before the new "laws" went into effect.

But, even with up-to-date data, if it showed a current dangerous crime rate, how does it compare to before concealed carry was liberalized? The same, better, or worse? I mentioned I have never seen a case of violent crime increasing after anti-gun "laws" were softened- and I have looked for cases like that over the years.

Although the above was enough to make him immediately "unfriend" me, I have still more questions, such as: how does it break down by neighborhood? Are those who "carry" victimized successfully at the same rate as those who choose to abdicate their responsibility? Is most of the violent crime between gangs, which are empowered by Prohibition?

But I never got the chance to pose the questions.

Funny how badly statists want to be protected from questions that might show the folly of their ideology. Even to the point of "unfriending" someone who frequently took his side in debates.
-

(Patches, patches, don't forget the Time's Up patches! )

.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Government's breeding program for terrorists

So, how's that "War on Terror" going for ya?

I see the "War on Terror" like a war on black footed ferrets.

Or maybe even Sasquatch.

Based on the actual number of attacks around here, or within thousands of miles, the government has declared war on a rare thing indeed.

Most of the "foiled plots" I suspect are more like government work-study programs for easily manipulated dumb guys, anyway. Dreamed up and put into motion by government employees who want to look relevant.

Maybe they should declare terrorists an endangered species. Oh wait, I think the invasion of the Middle East is a conservation program designed to "breed" more terrorists to keep them from going extinct, so I guess they've already addressed that concern.

.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Limited government Utopian dream

Limited government Utopian dream

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 27, 2014)

The siren songs of the next election season are already tickling your ears. One thing I notice a lot of people advocating is a "return to the Constitution" which they believe would bring back "limited government".

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it didn't work before, so how do you plan to make it work next time?

If the majority of people in the past weren't willing to force the State to operate strictly by the Constitution, what makes you believe "enough" people now or in the future will be willing- or able? Even Thomas Jefferson failed when given the choice to uphold the Constitution or go through with the Louisiana Purchase.

The attempt to "limit" government has failed every time it has been tried. It's like trying to decide how much cancer to leave in the patient, and telling the tumor to limit itself while hoping it will get no larger.

As has been observed throughout history, those who gain political power will do anything to hold on to it, and get more. They change the rules they can change; ignore the rules they can't. Since the only people given authority to stop or punish the miscreants belong to the same gang- the government- and have the same addiction, nothing substantive happens even when they get caught.

By promising to share the spoils with voters, they'll keep getting elected by people who don't want to take away their political power, or stop the over-reach, because they know it would end the goodies.

Both "liberals" and "conservatives" lure voters with treats, but of somewhat different flavors.

"Liberals", as a general rule, use things like free food, cell phones, free medical care, and disability entitlements to inspire voter loyalty, while "conservatives" use military jobs, protection from foreigners, farm subsidies, and "law and order" to bribe their constituents. Both sides encourage fears of the other side, and both promise to keep the Social Security pyramid scheme propped up at all costs. In recent years there has been other "bipartisanship" working against you, too.

None of those things are constitutional, but no politician is willing to face the wrath of those who have become dependent on the State, or those who are scared to let the free market find solutions. Once anything is socialized, people assume only the State can handle it.

"Limited government" is a Utopian dream; completely divorced from reality.

Am I claiming a strictly constitutional government wouldn't be better than the runaway monstrosity America is suffocating under now? Of course not. But keeping it would require changing human nature, and it would still be only the beginning of any real, lasting, solution.

.

How do you deal with fear?

Thinking more about those who let fear control them makes me wonder- Why am I not ruled by fear? Why do I not ask the state to protect me from things?

I have never thought of myself as "brave". I don't like heights, or big aggressive dogs. There have been individuals who made me prickle with fear when they were near, and, obviously, I am afraid of power-crazed, testosterone junkie, tax addicts in state costumes who have proved time after time they think nothing of executing those who don't "comply" fast enough to suit them.

But why don't I let my life be controlled by those fears, and why don't I try to get "laws" to protect me from those things?

I have no answer for that.

I am not afraid of "terrorism". I am not afraid of foreign invaders, or strangers, or "immigrants". I am not afraid of "lack of order", or even the grid going down. So, government can't manipulate me into begging to be protected from those things.

I guess I am just not a good "citizen".

And I'm fine with that.

-
Don't forget the NEW Time's Up patches!

-



Rattle, rattle...

.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Time's Up patches!

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.

Thanks!

.

More with Coward Prime

I was recently back in the kingdom of the petty tyrant whose cowardice last year made me suddenly realize it is at the foundation of all statism. It is the cornerstone of "government".

Since he was the first of many cowards I really noticed, I kind of think of him as Coward Prime.

He is a petty tyrant over his tiny kingdom. He enforces arbitrary and ridiculous rules. It is what government consists of.

He is the Ruler of the splash pad. I prefer to not go there, but my daughter has other ideas. Since last year's encounter, where he made it pretty clear I am not welcome, I stay outside his fence- daughter's mom goes in with her, I sit in the shade and read.

He kept hollering through the chain link to me, asking if I wouldn't be more comfortable "in" the splash pad fence. I just shake my head and think "what, does he want me to come inside so he can get scared of what I might be carrying?"

He has artificial arms ending in hooks/claws, so I realize a gun would do him no good- at least unless it were being wielded by someone like me, in his defense. So, I partially understand his wariness about guns, and those who might have and could use them. But to believe that being afraid of people who are obviously not intending harm somehow makes him and the kids "safer"... just sad.

Anyway...

Usually his Big Issue is "Don't run!" If you build a place for kids, and you are too stupid to realize that kids are going to run, so you'd better design the place with that reality in mind, then don't be surprised when they run. It's how kids move, naturally. I know he didn't design or build the place, and he is only a tiny cog- but he is the one who enforces the dumb rules. And he seems to relish his "authority".

But the other day he kept yelling for some kid to "Stand up! Stand up! Stand up!" Finally the kid's mom said "He can't stand up."

So Coward Prime, in a much quieter voice, mumbled something about how the kid needed to get out from under the [thing that dumps a large bucket of water]. I was thinking "nice, he should understand a person with a disability..."

Actually, it may have shamed him a little, because he was pretty scarce after that.

-

Yesterday was a really stressful day, for a lot of reasons. I got the "opportunity" to feel awkward and out of place for a few hours. And had to make a decision I didn't want to make and don't really like. And, as usual, to top it all off... well, you know...


Rattle, rattle...


Sunday, July 27, 2014

Government, like a gun, is "only a tool"

Sometimes, when I point out how evil The State is, someone will come along and make the claim that "government is just a tool, like a gun. Tools like government can't be evil, or guns could be evil, too".

Well, let's think about that a little.

If The State is "just a tool, like a gun", let's design a gun that works like The State.

You'd need to make the gun so that it can't be aimed. When fired, it sprays bullets all over the place with each shot. And, pulling the trigger results in it firing multiple times, without any real pattern or warning, firing randomly in unexpected directions when you don't expect it to. Also, this gun only fires stolen ammo.

So, if you try to shoot the possum that keeps tipping over your trash can every night, you pull the trigger once and the possum may or may not be killed, but some bullets hit your neighbor's house. Your kid standing behind you also gets one between the eyes. You go to put the gun down and it quickly fires off another fragmented round, once again going in unpredictable directions. Did that one hit anyone? Who knows, you are kneeling over your kid's body. BANG! There it goes again, without anyone even touching it.

A gun like that would be too dangerous to use except in a laboratory. Anyone using one in public would be personally liable for any and all harm that came from it.

So, yeah, just like that particular gun, government is "only a tool"- too dangerous to be used out in the world.

.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Facebook discussion thread

A recent blog post has gotten some interesting (?) discussion going where I shared it on Facebook. If you are on Facebook you might enjoy following along- or joining in.

(I accept any and all requests, but am nearing the "5,000 friends limit")

-



Rattle, rattle...

Important Readings

These may not be "The Most Important" to you, but for me, these are the sort of things that can make people see Liberty in a whole new light. Read them and share them with those who might need them.

Abstain from beans

Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse

"But wouldn't warlords take over?"

The Criminality of the State

FREEDOM! by Adam Kokesh (or here)

John Taylor Gatto

The Libertarian Enterprise

The Market for Liberty

The On Line Freedom Academy (TOLFA)

Our Enemy, the State

The Penalty is always death

The Philosophy of Liberty (OK, video reading)

The Practicality of Libertarianism


Somali “Anarchy” Is More Orderly than Somali Government

.




Friday, July 25, 2014

Breaking news: Beware NM plate# G-48335


This State of New Mexico "Environment Department" vehicle, license plate G-48335, pulled right out in front of me less than an hour ago.

I hit the brakes and had to swerve to avoid hitting her. She never even seemed to notice. 

.

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. ...read the rest...

-




Rattle, rattle...

.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Geography, imaginary lines, and gangs

People are very confused.

North America is a continent.

America is a country (which also includes some territory not on that map) on that continent.

The US is a government- a gang of thieving thugs- who steal and attack people who live in the America part of North America- although those thugs have not limited themselves quite that much in reality. They seem to feel they have some "right" to do the same to people all over the globe.

Added: If you have facebook you might enjoy following the discussion on this post: here


-




Rattle, rattle...

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Just between us...

Shhhh!

They're coming soon.

A brand new Time's Up product that you'll want.

I'm not saying what yet- keep watching and as soon as they are up for sale I'll announce it on this blog and at Dull 'Hawk's Shop.

Personally, I can't wait!

Added: and here it is!

.


A light goes on in my head- "immigration"

I just had a revelation. It's so obvious that I'm ashamed at how slow I was to see it.

There is not only no such thing as "illegal immigration"... in fact, there's no such thing as "immigration" at all!

For "immigration" to be a real thing you'd be claiming that borders and the "tax" farms they surround have legitimacy. You'd be claiming there is something "above" private property to "immigrate" to.

All there is with regards to this is migration and trespassing. Each individual who is moving on the surface of the planet is either within their rights to be where they are, or they are trespassing on private property.

If property is privately owned, you either get permission to enter, or you are a trespasser if you enter it anyway.

Government- the State- can own no property or anything else, since it possesses nothing it did not either steal or "buy" with stolen money, and thieves don't own the stolen property they possess. Government has zero "authority" to control who you let on your property.

So, "immigration" is a non-issue. You either trespass or you don't.

I am against trespassing. I am also against government pretending it has authority over other people's property (which is theft). I might choose to allow people to enter my property. I might not. Where they were born doesn't figure into that at all, and certainly not whether they have State permission.

If private property rights prevent individuals from going where they want to be, that is just too bad. (That also applies if your private property is surrounded by private property whose owners refuse to let you cross to get things you need to survive. I see that as very unneighborly, but it's just the way it is.) If private property rights prevent government goons from stopping "immigration", that is also just too bad.

I'll need to remember that next time the topic of "immigration" comes up.
-




Rattle, rattle...

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Imposing law violates others’ rights

Imposing law violates others’ rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 20, 2014)

Not a day goes by I don't witness a complaint by someone saying their freedoms are being trampled on and legislated away. Almost everyone can point to something they enjoy which has been regulated into illegality- or severely restricted- by government edict.

Yet, if you question most of those same people you'll find they are enthusiastic about violating the liberty of others to do certain things.

That's how Americans find themselves in this current mess. People hate things others do- enough to call for government to step in- and before long everyone is violated in some way. Almost no one comes out unscathed.

I value my liberty enough to never seek to limit yours in any way. As long as you don't attack the innocent or violate private property I am content to live and let live. Completely. No matter how much I may despise the way you express your liberty.

When it comes to trampling others, religion seems to be a preferred tool to use against choices "the majority" dislikes.

People get upset when their own religious preferences are not imposed by law, and when someone else's are. That's how "Sharia Law" (Muslim or Christian) comes about, and it shows the weakness of your faith when you feel you must incorporate it into law applied to everyone across the board.

This is what I see as the basis of the opposition to a "gentleman's club" opening in the area.

If you feel it is wrong you are free to not go there. You are free to shun those who do, those who own the place, and those who work there. You are even free to shun me for my refusal to condemn it.

You are not at liberty to try to use the force of government to prevent it. You may choose to cross this line into the zone of what you have no right to do and wield government to prohibit such a business, anyway. If so, you are violating the liberty of those who want to have that choice, just as those who wish to violate your liberty might do to you.

Americans have forgotten Thomas Jefferson's wisdom: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

If you use government and its "laws" to try to prevent this business, you are not staying within the limits drawn around you by the equal rights of others. You are actively violating the rights of the individual.

.

Yay! I'm "absolutely incredible"!

Oh, wait... "an absolutely incredible idiot".

I observed:
If you claim to want liberty, and oppose a big, powerful central government, but you want the "borders" closed and the "illegals" deported, you need to decide which side you are on, because you are holding two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time. You can't have both.
It created a lot of discussion. But it also drew this (fourth comment down):

Click to be able to read it

Missed it by that much.
-




Worshiping at the Churchstate... or is it the Statechurch?

Church and State. Ugh. What a combination.

The State- by which I mean the bad guys who try to control your life while claiming they are "government"- has used religion as a tool, a wedge, against people like you and me for as long as there has been both church and state.

Rulers figured out they could do all sorts of horrible things to individuals and, as long as the violations were what religious people thought their church and/or deity wanted, they faced no serious opposition. All sorts of anti-sex "laws" and prohibitions against ingestion are clear illustrations of this fact.

Of course, then religious people also figured out that they could become "government" and impose their religious notions on those who didn't share them- thus gaining even more power for the religion and for themselves- with the willing complicity of almost everyone of the same religion. The "conservative Christians" have gotten this tactic down to an art. But they don't have a monopoly on it, either. (It just seems that way where I live.)

-




Rattle, rattle...