Saturday, January 30, 2010

Preparing for the census

Preparing for the census

Soon swarms of otherwise unemployed busybodies will begin wandering the streets of Albuquerque, invading your privacy and asking nosy and intrusive questions that no one needs to know the answers to. If you are only interested in whether things are "Constitutional" or not, then go ahead and answer the ONLY question the census is Constitutionally allowed to ask: how many people live in your house. Everything else that is asked is unconstitutional, which is a fancy way of saying illegal. No matter what "laws" have been passed in the intervening centuries "authorizing" the questions.

If you have any dignity and self-respect, then you will probably not answer any questions at all. After all, when the Constitution "authorizes" something wrong, the Constitution is wrong and is a force for evil.

The excuses used to justify the census are all statist excuses. Like saying they need to know how many children they will be locking up in the indoctrination centers in the coming decade. Like wanting to know how much effort the wealth redistribution schemes will be in the next ten years; where the money will be stolen from and where the vote-buying bribes will be concentrated. Or, so they will know how to gerrymander districts to manipulate the vote for those who still participate in that rigged game.

There is no legitimate reason for a census, and no good reason to voluntarily cooperate. Especially for anyone who values liberty.

At the very least, maybe a good case of "situational delirium" would serve you well. For example:

"Yes, we are a family of 17 Antarctican immigrants who belong to the Jedi Order,
and live with our pets whom we have married in three-and-a-half-way
marriages. We have no clue whose children these are living among us.
We have 3 bathrooms, but no indoor plumbing. Our electricity is provided
by our tank of electric eels. Our house has 197 3/4 rooms if you count the
8 other spatial dimensions which are wrapped around us. ...You've got a
little string of 7th dimension on your elbow even now. Please don't
take it with you when you leave, since that is where my archaeopteryx
sleeps. But, it's time to bow to the carpet slugs now, so I must go.
May you serve the picklewarts with gusto!"

You can probably think up better responses, but none is better than the one which trumps them all: ignore the census.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Senate Bill 40- a shabby patch for a bad 'law'

Senate Bill 40- a shabby patch for a bad 'law'

I have written before about the fact that the political "solution" for bad "laws" is not new "laws" but the repeal of the bad "laws". No one is listening to me.

Senate Bill 40 is a "new" proposed "law" that seeks to undo some damage caused by older bad "laws". What it would do is "allow" people with concealed weapon permits to carry their weapon into a restaurant that serves alcohol. How "nice" of the Law Givers to let people beg for "legal" permission to do something that is already a basic human right, not subject to limitation, licensing, or other forms of infringement. Whether this is "a good idea" or not and whether such a right might be abused, isn't even part of the equation. If you think it is, you are demonstrating that you don't understand the nature of rights at all.

So, listen up, Albuquerque. I'll let you in on a little secret: people are already carrying concealed weapons in those restaurants regardless of the "law". All around you, everywhere you go. And the vast majority of them pose zero threat to your life whatsoever, but are instead an insurance policy that you don't even have to pay for.

Bad guys won't obey "laws" that would forbid them from doing what they are going to do no matter what, so they will always carry weapons. After all, if they have no moral difficulty violating prohibitions against theft and aggression, up to and including rape and murder, a silly "law" telling them to leave their tools behind will never, ever, make any difference to them.

But the bad guys are not the only ones ignoring such "laws". A lot of good guys know it is better to face "legal" penalties than to be caught unprepared, no matter what the "law" demands. In some cases you just have to do what you think is right and be prepared to accept the consequences of your choices. Fortunately, the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a huge margin. Any LEO who can't understand that and then muster the ethical courage necessary to refuse to enforce bad "laws" is a part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Yet, with all these "illegal" weapons around, shootouts are extremely rare in local restaurants, alcohol or not. Why is that? Aggressors are usually cowards. They prefer, and need, unarmed targets; those willing to become victims. As long as the bad guys understand, and fear, that not all the good people around them are obeying the counterfeit "law", shootouts and armed robberies are less likely. And to anyone who values peace and liberty, that is a good thing.

Liberty? In Albuquerque?

Liberty? In Albuquerque?

Can you really have liberty in Albuquerque? Being a big city there are more violations of your rights and limits on your freedoms in Albuquerque than in most smaller towns, and vastly more than in rural areas. Yet, if you are smart, and maybe a little sneaky, you can still experience liberty.

Think of it as a game, because in a very real way it is. The fact that the bad guys, those authoritarians who hate you for daring to live free, will kill you for making a wrong move doesn't take away the game aspects. It just makes it more important to win. The only way to truly "lose" the liberty game is to not even try. The fact of the matter is that we are all playing the game whether we wanted to or not, and no one finishes the game while they are alive. You might as well find a way to have fun while you play.

There is no need to flee the city for liberty. Big cities offer things that are very enriching and important to a lot of people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. There is a vibrancy in having so many people to interact with and so many choices of things to see and do that many people would get bored stiff without. Not me, but "many people".

In most cases (but not all), unless you attract the attention of a LEO in some way, you will be ignored. Don't dress like a doughnut and don't walk around swatting at the invisible faeries that swarm around your head. Do what you know to be the right thing. Obey "laws" that are not unduly restrictive when there are busybodies about, otherwise ignore them. Think of the state as you would any other mafia, and make the payoffs you can't avoid, and don't feel guilty about the rest. Remember that it isn't wrong to lie to aggressors or liars- and that is all the government consists of. Carry your chosen weapon concealed and make a habit of avoiding metal detectors or coming up with expedient weapons where a metal detector or pedophile-o-vision can't be avoided. If you open carry, as is still your "legal" right, pay attention to your surroundings and don't let the predatory LEOs catch you off guard and sneak up from behind, or surround you. Suffer from mental lapses or numerical dyslexia when asked for your slave numbers. Assume liberty, but stay alert to those who assume they own you and believe they have the authority to require you to die for their convenience.

Choose your battles and pick your playing level. If you stand out like a pumpkin in a strawberry patch you will obviously attract more attention than the freedom outlaw strawberry who blends in with his surroundings. For you, individuality may be important enough to accept the greater risk. No one can blame you for your choices as long as you deal with your consequences.

Realize that there will be times you make a bad move, or the organs of the city or state will get lucky. You may get punished, and it will not be right or "fair". Don't mistake that for a loss; it is just a temporary set-back as long as you are still breathing. Either way, your life will be richer because you didn't just bend over and take it. One person at a time is how liberty is spread. One person at a time the job of the enforcers and other aggressors can be made more frustrating and pointless, and their lies will be laid bare. Life is a rush for the liberated human. When your life is finished, don't just wish you had given it a try.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Abusive Albuquerque teacher is just a symptom

Abusive Albuquerque teacher is just a symptom

A local mother is understandably upset that an Albuquerque special education teacher taped her son's mouth shut. As horrible as this act was, the fact that public government schools bind the students' minds all day long in every school should make people fighting mad.

Many children behave terribly. Of that there is no doubt. However, if you can't handle that fact of life without becoming abusive you are in the wrong line of work. In a free society no "teacher" of this sort would likely keep a job after the first offense.

The unfortunate truth is that the "system" the government has embraced and labeled "education" is not suited for most healthy, active young people. It magnifies and reinforces bad behavior all in the name of "discipline" and "conformity".

Public schools are the reproductive organs of the state. They are more honestly referred to as "government indoctrination centers" and are prisons used to punish kids for the "crime" of being between certain ages. Public schools train pliable minds to not think of alternatives to coercion and authoritarianism. Without this brainwashing few people would grow up to accept the status quo of government control over all aspects of their lives and the run-away socialism that calls itself by so many euphemisms. This is why, even when home schooling is "allowed", the state tries to make sure just enough of the toxic statism meme is introduced into the young minds to make the state's job easier later on. It comes from both the "left" and the "right". Call it "patriotism" or "social awareness"; the results are the same.

Then there is the physical slave training that public schools engage in. From begging permission (which is sometimes denied) to take care of bodily needs, to the Pavlovian training regarding obedience to the schedule of the bells, schools are actively training children to accept their place as someone else's property. Once you understand this, how can you allow your children to be abused that way even one more day?

For an eye-opening education on the education racket, read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education and support the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Education is MUCH too important to let government control it in any way.

Albuquerque, Albuquerque, Albuquerque

In case you have noticed more emphasis on "Albuquerque" in my Examiner columns, it is because has changed how we writers are paid. In fact, they have changed how they decide if they will keep the writers altogether.

Now, "local content" is critical. Of course, as I have pointed out to Examiner many, many times I DO NOT LIVE IN OR NEAR ALBUQUERQUE. If I don't write about "local" Albuquerque stuff, I will be financially penalized and may lose my spot on Examiner completely. My communications with Examiner have met with some completely off-topic and pointless replies.

So, I now look online for ABQ news, and use what I find as a jumping-off point for writing the same sorts of things I would write anyway. In some ways it's easier; in others it irritates the heck out of me. Reading the news is like drinking lye to me. The really disgusting thing is when I do this and still get an email from Examiner saying a particular column doesn't qualify. Like I got today.

But, I need the money. So, buy my books, please, so I won't depend as much on Examiner!

Kent's Liberty Primer
Sandy's Legacy


Monday, January 25, 2010

Nannies worry about 'new' drugs

Nannies worry about 'new' drugs

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences, Albuquerque authoritarians. Because of the disastrous "War on (some) Drugs", which only you support, some people are turning to things such as Salvia and Gonjah for thrills.

Don't act surprised by the entirely logical and predictable outcome of your control-freak behavior, and don't repeat your standard knee-jerk mistake of passing new "laws" to cover the "new" intoxicants. It has never, not in all of human history, worked, and it isn't going to work "next time" either.

If you (or others like you) make one thing "illegal" then those who, for one reason or another, still care about your ridiculous edicts will find something else, something you haven't yet criminalized, in order to get the same or similar effect. The next thing may not be as safe as Cannabis. In fact it may be as destructive when abused as alcohol.

The desire to "get high" is ingrained so deeply that it is just a part of being human. Even very young children spin endlessly until too dizzy to stand for the same exact sensation. This isn't "learned behavior". "Laws" and draconian punishments will never suppress that desire. A risk of damaged health or even death can't stop it, why do you think the threat of violence by the state's thugs will?

The "costs of drug use", if looked at with discernment, can be clearly seen to actually be costs of penalizing "drug use" in almost every instance. From aggression to "crime" to imprisonment, and even "impaired behavior" accidents; almost all can be traced back to the way "drug use" is dealt with by society and the state rather than as an inevitable consequence of using the substance. The people who use the substances without being caught suffer almost none of the societal ill-effects which are used to justify prohibition.

Even if a substance had a 50% or higher mortality rate, it is still out of reach of the legitimate authority of anyone to prohibit others from using it on themselves. Your favorite drug, "Government", has a very, very high mortality rate, and yet it is about the only thing still "legal".

Neither is the answer to "legalize" and tax "drugs", in spite of what some suggest. The state "needs" and deserves no money at all. I would rather see "drugs" kept "illegal" to keep the money out of the wrong hands than to allow government to profit from the sale and use of more substances.

It is long past time to once again get government out of our medicine cabinets. End the unethical "War on Drugs" and return to the sanity of treating the addicts who need help and leaving everyone else alone.


A hearty "Welcome back to the world of blogging" to Claire Wolfe! You have been missed!


Here is another review of Indy-Pindy, this time from The Price of Liberty.


Sunday, January 24, 2010

Want a better world? Don't impose your values on others

Want a better world? Don't impose your values on others

Browsing through the "news" I find a lot of evidence that people don't wish to deal with things themselves. They would rather send the hired guns of government in their place. This is the lazy coward's way out, and it is wrong.

The whole "texting and driving" issue is but one example. Another is the recent focus on "blight" in Clovis.

If something really is a problem that needs to be solved- and that isn't always as clear as some would want you to think it is- then the proper way to deal with it is to take care of it yourself. The wrong way is to pass another "law" that will then use the guns of government (paid for with money stolen from the very people at whom those guns end up being aimed) to enforce your values on people who obviously do not share them.

It is your responsibility to watch out for yourself.

It is your responsibility to not initiate force, not personally and not by proxy.

It is your responsibility to be aware of your surroundings and remember that others may not be aware of theirs.

It is your responsibility to mind your own business.

It is your responsibility to respect the rights of others and to keep in mind that you have no right to not be offended and that a real right never imposes an obligation on another person, no matter how much you wish it would, and no matter what your justifications might be.

And, if something annoys or upsets you, it is your responsibility to take steps, at your own expense and on your own property, to shield yourself from that annoyance. It is not up to the one who is annoying you as long as he is not trespassing or threatening you.

This makes me think of the "Serenity Prayer", which states: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." Yet, one thing (not the only thing) about this "prayer" has always bothered me. Not everything that can be changed, should be changed. Real wisdom needs to be able to tell the difference there as well, if serenity is ever to be found. Getting over the addiction of feeling that you have the right to control the non-aggressive behavior of others can be extremely liberating. Give it a try.

Don't forget to check out and contribute to Project LTE. A letter-to-the-editor needs you!

Notice the mighty fine "Time's Up" flag near the end of this post on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Texting and driving is a battleground for liberty

Texting and driving is a battleground for liberty

Come on, New Mexico. Grow up and resist the peer pressure. If all the other states jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? Well, if the bridge is marked "Texting and driving laws", it seems the answer might be an enthusiastic "yes".

"There oughta be a law...". With that phrase, time after time, freedom has been lost and rights have been violated. It happens every time some "well-meaning" person recognizes a problem without being able to think of a rational solution. Will a new "law" prevent texting drivers from being the cause of accidents? Don't bet on it. All it will do is give the enforcers an excuse for shaking down drivers and provide a new source of income, stolen income, for the state.

New "laws" are never the answer. An anti-texting (and anti-phoning) "law" will do nothing for anyone who is hurt in an accident; it will only be misused like all other "laws" inevitably are. People who cause accidents are already punished, so there is no need to provide for another punishment on top of the existing excuses for punishment. This "law" will only be used on those people who have not harmed anyone on the assumption that they might, in the future, cause an accident.

Then there is the added insult of criminalizing the peaceful act of talking on the phone while driving- without a "hands-free device" anyway. If this becomes the "law", then it must be applied equally to any LEO who talks on his police radio while driving. There is no difference in the two actions.

What's the next "big danger" to be forbidden? Talking to people in the car with you? Listening to the radio? Thinking?

When will this insanity end? This law pollution, making sure there is a "law" covering every possible action a person might take, dilutes all the "laws"; making them all less likely to be followed. When everything is either prohibited or mandatory people tend to ignore the "law" entirely. To me this is a good thing. The drawback is when some people only get their "ethics" from what the state says is right or wrong. These people, instead of just ignoring ridiculous "laws", reject right and wrong altogether, unable to tell the difference due to too many "laws" that remove their need to think for themselves.

Is it smart to text while you drive? Probably not. Will the new "law" have unintended consequences? They all do.

"Laws" can never replace personal responsibility. If someone causes harm, they need to pay restitution. Until then, mind your own business. And, as always, pay attention to the other drivers- because you can NEVER count on them paying attention to you, texting or not. "Laws" are just an excuse to abdicate your own responsibility and hand it over to someone else.

Friday, January 22, 2010

A 'threat'? Hardly

A 'threat'? Hardly

Since when is it a "threat" to tell a known aggressor "if you attack me, I will fight back"?

David Codrea got accused of making that sort of "threat" recently, and I have been the target of the same accusation several times in the past. It seems some people's definitions have gotten a bit topsy-turvy.

It serves the forces of coercion very well to threaten to "tax" me, and then when I say "no, if you try I will defend myself" to start whining that I have made a threat. Sorry, but the thief who announces his intention to rob me has made the threat. If he follows through he has set a series of events in motion, and he may not be pleased with the end results.

The same goes for those who announce their intention to violate any of my rights (for example, those who attempt to take my property against my will by the above-mentioned "taxation" and will threaten to kidnap me if I don't comply, or those who try to change rights into privileges). It matters not if the one making the threats is the one thinking up the "law" or the one whose "job" it is to enforce that "law". A threat is a threat, and an attack is an attack. The target of the attack has no obligation to allow the attack to succeed, no matter what the "law" may be. And stating that aggression will be met with resistance or defensive force is not a "threat".

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?

Home invasion victim survives one; can he survive the second?

Provisional good news! Someone tried to break into a home and consequences caught up with him. All home invasions should end this way; with the invader dead. In a free society, people like the dead man might decide to get honest work. Or be darwinized out of the gene-pool. Of course, this event may still cause problems for the home's residents if the "law" has its way. No good deed goes unpunished in Governmentland.

Why is the case being sent to the DA? Must make sure there isn't something, anything, that the defender can be charged with before they let him go about his life. Did the LEOs unethically confiscate his gun, his protection, as "evidence" until they can decide if he should have died quietly instead of adding to their workload? What if someone else decides to break into this same home in the meantime? Will the "law" accept responsibility?

Of course, we all know why the enforcers want a search warrant for the home that was being invaded: they are hoping to find "drugs" or some other "reason" the aggressor was trying so desperately to get inside. This is just another example of the stupidity of the War on (some) Drugs. Government causes the theft and violence problem by artificially limiting supply through prohibition, then uses the logical results of prohibition to net even more innocent people.

This is why the policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is still the best, and why his neighbors did him no favor by calling the LEOs. Good luck to the defender, good riddance to the parasite, and "Good grief" to the "law".

"Arrest"- the definition

"Arrest" is the euphemism for a kidnapping committed by government employees while they are "on the clock". more...

Too many cats? Says who?

Too many cats? Says who?

Ridiculous! That was my first thought when I heard about the dozens of cats taken from a local home. And I don't mean it was necessarily ridiculous to have "too many" cats.

Should a person have 50 or 100 cats in their house? It is not up to me or the government to decide. Like it or not, domestic animals are property. You can generally tell how good a person is by how they treat their animals. If I know of someone who abuses animals I will probably not trust him with people, either, and would choose to exercise my right of association.

Sometimes, as seems to be the case in this instance, a person finds themselves in a situation not of their making (his recently deceased wife was the cat collector). Even the misnamed "public safety" (gag!) spokesman/goon acknowledged that the man cared about the cats and meant no harm. No force was initiated and no theft/fraud was committed. This means he did no wrong.

The city claims it "can not allow" that many cats to live in a house. Really? It is none of the city's business. Period. "Animal control" and the LEOs are, once again, the aggressors. Why are they not being held accountable? Because too many people don't care as much about rights being violated as they do about cats and cops.

Now, the man is being charged with "crimes" (of course!). Government can't leave anything alone if it sees an opportunity to turn someone else into a "criminal" and steal more property and money. And, in this case, destroy a man's home in the process.

In a free society, this man would probably be helped, not violated by coercive thugs. He would have no reason to fear asking for help, since no one could "legally" attack him as they did in the police state which surrounds us today. He could be assisted in finding homes for the cats he did not wish to keep. His home could be cleaned by volunteers if he is unable to do it for himself and if he wants the help. If he preferred to stay in his house surrounded by dying cats and filth, that, too would be his business alone, whether anyone liked it or not. Only if his house became a credible threat to the health or property of others (who were not able to contain the threat without using defensive force) could they take defensive actions themselves; not by using thugs hired with stolen money.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Death gives birth to life, but massacres are not baby showers

Death gives birth to life, but massacres are not baby showers

From death comes life. And perhaps, sometimes, by accident, from government actions could come good things. That isn't an endorsement of government any more than love of life is a good justification to go around killing indiscriminately. None of us, individually or collectively, is wise enough to exercise that power and claim we are doing it for the good of life.

Someone posted, on one of my rather old columns, the same old tired (and incorrect) just-so tale about how the government invented the internet that we liberty-lovers now so mean-spiritedly use to speak out against the government.

Even if this were correct, so what? Guns that were invented by Hitler's military contractors can now be used for fun and for self-defense. This doesn't mean we are "lucky" that Hitler came to power, or that we owe him anything for "giving us" these guns.

Many types of powerful poison have medicinal uses. Should you run right out and drink or inject yourself with poison as soon as you discover that fact? Not unless you are an authoritarian.

The commenter then compounds his error by claiming that the same government that blessed us with the invention of the internet guarantees our freedom of speech. Seriously? Who else besides government has been a credible threat to freedom of speech- or any other rights for that matter- in recent history?

I have never had any neighbor try to kidnap, kill, or "fine" me for exercising any of my rights. Never has an independent migrant- excuse me- an "illegal immigrant" tried to infringe on any of my rights. I have never had any person from any of the countries the US government is so busy attacking, invading, and occupying try to stop me from exercising even one of my rights. On the other hand I have never had even one agent of the government take any action other than try to prevent me from experiencing liberty in some meaningful way.

The only threat to my individual liberty, besides perhaps myself, is, and always has been, the government that the commenter claims is "guaranteeing" my freedoms. And he calls libertarians the "dumb bells"!

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Computers die too

I had a computer scare tonight. My computer started making awful sounds and kept re-starting, but never going to my sign-in screen. Just as suddenly as it started doing that, it repaired itself and is seeming to work fine right now. Will it last?

Chances are I will not be able to afford another computer anytime soon if this one dies. Maybe if that happens I will take it as a sign that my years of embracing technology and writing about liberty have come to an abrupt end and it is time to go back to my stone tools and leather full time. There are worse things.

So, if I suddenly disappear from the online world, you will know what probably happened.

Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware.

Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware.

The latest JPFO alert reminded me of something I have thought many times, but have failed to properly express before it was too late in the past. This time I'm saying it now, hoping that you will take it to heart and not forget.

The upcoming Supreme Court case on the incorporation of the Second Amendment, McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, means that gun owners need to be especially vigilant for the next several months. Why? Because you can almost bet that the anti-gun forces are planning to stage another massacre with one of their pre-programmed "manchurian shooter" "sleepers" before the ruling.

Gun owners need to be ready, and able, to either prevent this entirely or stop it in its tracks if it does begin. The massacre will almost assuredly occur in a "gun free zone" and that means if it is to be stopped it will have to be stopped by a good person who violates that counterfeit "law". In the meantime you can not afford to go anywhere unarmed.

No matter the ruling, your rights will remain the same, since the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a government employee, and then it only forbids them to enact or enforce gun "laws" of any sort. However, your liberty will be damaged by any ruling other than full incorporation. I realize that an anti-incorporation ruling might be the trigger, pun intended, to set off the firestorm that finally brings down Leviathan, but I am in favor of peaceful solutions if at all possible. Let the state wither and die rather than commit a massive murder/suicide. And this is possibly the last opportunity for that peaceful solution.

Stay armed. Stay alert. Be aware. Give the Supreme Court no excuses and no wiggle-room. Then, whatever happens, you can know you did your part and the blood is not on your hands.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Theater shooting teaches lessons

Theater shooting teaches lessons

The Albuquerque theater negligent discharge incident has some very instructive lessons for those of us rational enough to pick them out.

This case, making the unfounded assumption that the media reports are correct, concerns a man who had his revolver slip out of his pocket during a movie, hit the floor and discharge, striking a woman in the foot. Of course, this has the hoplophobes wriggling with scarcely-concealed glee. They see it as an opportunity to further criminalize guns and gun owners. Even the police are calling the shooting "accidental" yet are charging the man in connection with the shooting. "Accidents" happen and should never be the basis for criminal charges. Bad government. No biscuit!

No "laws", new or otherwise, are necessary for dealing with events such as this.
The theater had no policy prohibiting the carrying of weapons as far as I can tell, nor should they- unless they don't care about the true safety of their customers. So, he was not "trespassing" or violating the stated wishes of the property owner as long as he paid for his ticket. No wrong was done there.

"Laws" prohibiting or regulating the carrying of weaponry, concealed or openly, are evil. They are also completely and utterly unconstitutional, if that concerns you. It is not the "possession" of anything, ever, that is wrong, but only your actions with that object. Once again, no wrong on the man's part.

You have a responsibility to carry your weapons in a secure manner. Obviously, he was not doing so. I have been guilty of this a time or two myself. This is irresponsible and has consequences. "Strike one" against him.

So, let's look at the harm he caused. If you cause harm you are responsible. Restitution is the proper remedy, not "criminal charges" like those the authoritards are filing. (Because they smell blood, the district attorney's office decided, against it's own normal policy, to get involved. This is politically motivated hogwash driven by emotionalism rather than reason. Why does that not surprise me?) The gun owner is responsible for the injured person's medical bills which result from her injury, whether he likes that fact or not. So, when he realized he had harmed someone, he lied. This is understandable in light of the authoritarian police-state in which we find ourselves, where anytime there is an accident, someone must be punished to satisfy Master, but it is still wrong. Strike two.

If this were a free society, and the same event had happened, the man would probably have not been afraid to own up to his grave mistake. He would have had no overwhelming reason to lie or try to run from his responsibility. And there would have been no "official" involvement; only arbitration if needed.

Also note- The first review of my book Indy-Pindy has been published.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Dealing with aggressors

Dealing with aggressors

Aggressors can be found anywhere and everywhere. There are not very many of them compared to the rest of us, especially if you only count the aggressors who get their own hands dirty rather than the average, cowardly, ones who send the hired goons of government to commit their aggression for them. Most of those "send government" aggressors will hide in terror when they can't send hired thugs in their place. However, the small percentage of aggressors among us wreak a lot of havoc when we believe we are powerless to actually do something to stop them. We should get over that delusion.

Most freelance aggressors only seem dangerous when protected by "laws" that penalize self-defense (such as those thugs operating on the ruined streets of Haiti now). Only government- through its twisted legacy of "law and order" and disarmament- gives those thugs a safe environment in which to work. Hypothetically, if a thief is caught in your home and you kill him in the act, who would ever come knocking on your door to ask you if you had seen him? Does he have any connection to you in any way? Did he leave a sticky-note telling his family he would be at your address, just in case he went missing? It's doubtful. Don't fear or hesitate to deal with this type.

The rest of the aggressors are a more difficult case. Only when gathered into a gigantic organization do aggressors pose any (possibly) insurmountable threat. The government is bigger, more aggressive, and vastly more dangerous than any "street gang" of freelance thugs who victimize the denizens. Plus, a large percentage of the population is brainwashed into not seeing them as aggressors at all.

When an aggressor who works for the government is justifiably struck down by his intended victim, the rest of his organization, his gang of government, makes certain to severely punish the individual who was only defending himself from that aggression as an example to the rest of us. And the gang works tirelessly with lies and half truths to manipulate public opinion to take sides with them. Cory Maye is a prime, ongoing, example of this injustice.

At this time in history, the number of aggressors in the gang of the state seems endless when you are on the receiving end of their attention. They depend on this "strength in numbers" illusion to keep people intimidated enough that few openly resist, and even fewer fight back, and those who do are usually either caged or murdered. Only the resultant fear keeps people submitting to the "legalized" theft and coercion that is the founding principle of every government that has ever existed. That may not always be the case. In fact, by reading between the lines of the narrative, I'm sure that dog-eared chapter of The Story of Civilization is wrapping up. Remember, we outnumber them.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Oath Keepers? I'm still waiting

Oath Keepers? I'm still waiting

I have been critical of Oath Keepers in the past, and my concerns have not changed. However, judging by some comments on The War on Guns, I think some people are focused on the wrong things.

If the Oath Keepers actually do what they are swearing an oath to do- obey the Constitution by refusing to obey unconstitutional orders- then I will applaud them. I am simply encouraging them to actually keep the oath they have sworn and reaffirmed as part of Oath Keepers. I am also convinced that Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, is an honorable man without a secret agenda and with no desire to force anyone to do anything. This movement is all about refusing to force compliance with unconstitutional "laws". That's all.

No, I am not a fan of the Constitution, although I do believe a Constitutional government would be better than the travesty that attempts to rule us now. I have to wonder, though, if the individual Oath Keepers really understand what "unconstitutional" means. Don't rely on the black-robed furniture abusers of the Supreme Court to tell you what the Constitution means. They are wrong more often than they are right, and it was never their job to tell you and me what the Constitution means. That authority rests in you and me alone. They stole that "authority" for themselves and have gotten away with it so far.

"Unconstitutional" does not mean the Constitution clearly says that the action in question is forbidden, but that the Constitution does NOT say, explicitly, that the action in question is an authorized power of the government. Of course, where the Constitution and coercion, theft, and fraud join purposes (which they often do), the Constitution is in the wrong.

My concern remains: how many Oath Keepers are still doing unconstitutional things as a part of their "job"? How many LEOs who have taken the oath are still enforcing traffic "laws", drug "laws", or gun "laws"? Where are those "laws" explicitly authorized in the Constitution? How many are helping "arrest" (kidnap) people for violating tax "laws" or are helping other agents of the state steal the houses and other property of these people? Doesn't "right and wrong" mean more than "Constitutional"? How many military Oath Keepers are still allowing the government to send them around the globe to occupy other people's territory, and then killing those who fight back?

I don't believe an honest Oath Keeper could remain employed if they actually honored the oath. In fact, I doubt an honest Oath Keeper would stay out of prison for long.

I want to see Oath Keepers make a difference. I will not be shocked if they don't. It is amazing what a person can justify to themselves when a paycheck is on the line, or when nationalistic brainwashing has worked its magic.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Political 'news': repetitious and unnecessary

Political 'news': repetitious and unnecessary

"The news" is not normally very interesting to me, except in the event of a big disaster. "Political news" is what I'm specifically talking about. I don't really care much about what such-and-such a politician is doing. It is safe to assume he is committing (or plotting and conspiring to commit) an act of incredible evil. Why worry yourself about the exact details? Especially when I refuse to take another single step back anyway.

You may claim that you need to know precisely what the vermin in "public office" are doing to us, but I have noticed that it is the same old story over and over. The thugs rotate, and the newest assaults on liberty get a new euphemistic name, but the political "news" remains virtually unchanged from year to year and decade to decade.

If you enjoy following the news, I encourage you to have fun with your hobby. I only think some people don't understand the reasons why others don't share their passion.

Assume the worst of politicians and their weapon of choice, "laws"- enforced by thugs with guns paid for by the very people they are assaulting and threatening, and you will rarely be wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention at all, I'm just thinking it is not healthy to obsess too much. You have enough to think about in living your own life and taking care of your own business. You do that and the rest will take care of itself.

Tangentially- I made the mistake yesterday of watching a few minutes of cable news coverage of the Haiti earthquake, only to be disgusted when the statist drones on screen became concerned over how the Haitian government would fare after this disaster. Among all the concerns that are real- all the death, injury, pain, loss of loved ones and homes and businesses- these "empathetic" reporters were concerned that the government might be hurt by this.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

'Losing your rights' part 2

The debate in the comments of a previous column, over whether rights can be lost or not, made me realize something which I think is vital. Whichever side if the debate you find yourself on I ask you: which premise would make for a more ethical, livable, society of maximum liberty?

I firmly believe that, whether you truly think rights are inherent in being a living human being or whether you think they can be forfeited by engaging in aggression, if you act as though rights can never be lost your society will be better for it.

One example that comes to mind will be a real issue after the fall of government. There may be a strong temptation to zealously pursue and punish, or even execute, everyone who has added to the death and destruction of the previous society by working with, or for, government. After all, "government" can do nothing without individual human beings initiating force and committing theft and fraud. Do these individual aggressors deserve death? In a great majority of cases, yes. You could say that by their acts of aggression they have given up their right to liberty or life. And, if rights can be lost, you would be right.

However I think it would be better to wipe the slate clean and only kill them in self-defense if they return to their old government-like ways in the new, free, society. What kind of society would we have after the fall of the state if we spent the next several decades trying to ferret out everyone who had been a part of government and give them what they deserve? I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

The problem is aggression, not government

The problem is aggression, not government

A recent comment on this column, a column that had nothing to do with government, makes me think that some people don't see that evil is evil, whether it is committed by government or by freelance thugs.

A commenter using the name "oddtime" said

I'm failing to follow you in this. Are you implying the government made this
person follow you? The person was breaking laws, trespassing, and assault. These
laws are enforces (sic) by the government. Go to the government you dislike and
get a restraining order. Done!

To which I replied

Who said anything about government? Government is not the only force for evil
out there. There are freelance ones, too. Like psycho, aggressive individuals. I
solved the problem without depending on another evil: government. There is no
situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding government to the mix. Why
would any "adult" have someone else do their job for them, especially someone
else financed by theft? I don't need government and neither do you.

I'm not sure about the local "laws" concerning restraining orders, nor do I care, but I do know that in some other places you must have some intimate connection to a person to get "protected" by those flimsy pieces of paper, and that is, thankfully, not the case in this instance. The "advice" from "oddtime" also ignores the fact that a restraining order does nothing to protect anyone. I had a very dear friend who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend while she had a restraining order against him. It was apparently the "last straw" that made him snap. Yes, "oddtime", she was "Done!" alright. I am better off taking care of the problem myself, as would anyone else be. I am not a victim, nor will I beg anyone to turn me into one.

Coercion, aggression, and theft are the issues. The only reason government actions are targeted as much as they are by those who love and understand liberty is that the state is the focus of these evil forces. Using coercion, aggression, and theft wielded on your behalf by the biggest gang of thugs to deal with a threatening individual is simply wrong and pathetic.

You and I can deal with individual aggressors (like the one mentioned in the previous column) by ourselves, unless we refuse to act as self-responsible humans. Evil acts are evil due to their nature, not because of who is doing them. Don't fall in to the trap of thinking that only government does bad things. Government is bad because of the things it does, not because it is "government".

A new blog: Our friend "Black Flag" has a new blog out there that I just became aware of. Visit Freedom Flies a Black Flag soon, and often, for some great wisdom!

And don't forget to check out my books Indy-Pindy and Kent's Liberty Primer

Monday, January 11, 2010

'Losing your rights'

Frequently, when discussing "crime", we hear it stated that once a person has committed certain acts, he has "lost his rights" for a certain amount of time. This inconsistency has always bothered me, even when I have used the same phrase.

The truth is that due to the nature of rights, rights can not ever be "lost"; not under any circumstances.

They can, however, be violated in certain circumstances without the violator necessarily becoming a bad guy. An example would be when you shoot a person who is attacking or robbing you and therefore violate his "right to life". In the case of a person initiating force, you have the right to defend yourself. His poor choice set events in motion and he may not like the outcome. He did not lose his rights, but in defending your own rights you justifiably violated his rights and no one in an ethical society would ever punish you for your act.

But rights can never be legitimately violated after the fact by government (or anyone else) under any pretext. This is the foundation of "punishment"- violating a person's rights based upon (often highly disputable) past events rather than the events of the current moment.
Putting the aggressor/thief in prison or taking away his means of self-defense does not restore his victim to their former condition; it only satisfies a lust for retribution and for causing pain. If a person is dangerous enough that he needs to be caged, then he is dangerous enough that he should be killed by his next intended victim or a rescuer. Don't protect him from the consequences of his actions.

Restitution should be the goal for those acts that self-defense failed to stop. Restitution is the paying off of a debt that was incurred by some act of coercion or theft. This does not violate the rights of the debtor since he voluntarily took on this debt by his actions. He may have thought he would never have to pay the debt, but it was still his choice to take it on.

The individual rights of the lowest, most dastardly member of society always trump the authority of any agent of government. Once people begin to truly understand this, civilization can once again begin to advance. Until then, we must find ways to deal with the stagnation that statism and other forms of authoritarianism cause. The authoritarians will not like our ways of dealing with (and working around) them.

Update: Please read 'Losing your rights' part 2


Sunday, January 10, 2010

Shun the scanner cult

Shun the scanner cult

Guess what. If I would be forced to pass through any sort of "security" scanner, from a simple metal detector to a full-blown Pedophile-O-Vision, I will not do business with you. I do not believe in your "security" cult, and I don't trust those who do not trust their customers. I certainly don't have enough self-loathing to do business with those who have open contempt for their customers, or in the case of government, fear and contempt for those they are coercing to associate with them.

I know that the only path to real security is a universally-armed populace, and that anything less only helps those who wish to harm the innocent: in other words these "security" scanners enable government and terrorists and all other murderous rapists (sorry for the redundancy). The bad guys will always find a way around such measures, through official "only one" status, bribes, or just innovative thinking and new weaponry. Always.

If you operate one of those machines for your employer you are working to ensure success for the bad guys and you should stop now if you have any principles that are worth living up to. Yes, it means you will need to find an ethical way to earn money in a governmentally-damaged economy, but sometimes to do the right thing is hard and a little painful. It is still the right thing to do.

Any sort of "security" scanner should be seen as a gigantic warning sign saying "Keep Out!" and you should heed it for your own good. After all, those who own the scanners will not rush to save you when "the system" inevitably fails. Have respect for yourself and walk away from the scanners. Starve those who use them.

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Rights are inseparably entangled

Rights are inseparably entangled

Each right you have is inseparably entangled and connected with every other right. They form a web that is a unit rather than something that can be subject to "picking and choosing". This is why "liberals" and "conservatives" fail to respect liberty. They each wish to pick out their favorite rights while denying that others, which they don't like, exist at all or pretending they are not important. It doesn't work that way.

Instead, when you try to disparage or violate one right, the entire tapestry of liberty starts to unravel and is weakened. This means that even those rights you wish to have the freedom to exercise fall prey to the destruction that your foolish meddling introduced.

Don't be a part of the problem, but stand up for all rights- including the rights that you dislike, even against those who claim to be on your side. They may not appreciate your principled stand exposing their inconsistency, but that is their shortcoming, not yours.

Liberty is nothing but the freedom to exercise your rights. All of your rights; all of her rights; all of his rights. You don't have to take the freedom, but you have to accept that it exists in order to be consistent and ethical.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Your 'right of association'

Your 'right of association'

You have an absolute human right to choose who is allowed to be around you, do business with you, or impose themselves on you. This is another of those basic, fundamental human rights that is violated all the time by government.

Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they choose, for any reason- or for no reason at all. If you discriminate for poor reasons you may make a few enemies. If you do not wish to associate with people of certain races, religions, political persuasions, sexual orientation, or whatever else, then no one has the right to demand that you do so. Of course, if you discriminate based upon ignorant prejudices, other people can choose to refuse to deal with you, too. Even if you have good reasons for your choices, some will take issue with your decision. In this, as in every other choice you make, there will be consequences.

This right does not mean you can follow a person around, into their own territory or where they otherwise have a right to be, and then complain that you are being "forced" to be around them.

Just a few days ago I exercised this right by throwing a constant trouble-maker off my property. For about a year she has been causing trouble (including an incident about a week earlier), and I am not even her primary target; she thinks she can get to her target through me, but I do not play the "drama game". Six months ago, when she followed me and my daughter around the park, screaming at me because I wouldn't force her target to alter her behavior, I told her in very clear language to stay completely away from my daughter and me. Yet, she did not heed the "request" and showed up in the company of another person (who was invited) a few days ago. I asserted my right of association and stopped her from trespassing. I was berated and called the bad guy for exercising my right. That is fine.

Government spends a lot of money and propaganda trying to convince you that you have no right of association, and finding ways to punish people who do not buy the lie. Perhaps that is because government wishes to impose itself and its "human tools" into your private life and doesn't want you to realize you have the higher authority to say "no!".

Take note: My newest book, Kent's Liberty Primer is now available. And don't forget my childrens' book- Indy-Pindy: The Liberty Mouse.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

My books are both available now!

Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse - a new childrens' book for freedom loving children, and Kent's Liberty Primer, for their parents.

Hello everyone! Here is a book that should be on every freedom-lover's bookshelf, in all their childrens' hands, and obviously, given to every disadvantaged child of statists. Indy-Pindy, The Liberty Mouse is exactly the book you are looking for to introduce kids to liberty, self-responsibility, and independence. And I'm only saying that because I am the author and illustrator. ( )

But that's only half of the story. I have also published Kent's Liberty Primer. ( ) It is an introduction to the basics of liberty, either for those unfamiliar with the concept (send a copy to "your" congresscritter, a judge, and the president) or for anyone who needs a reminder of why liberty is right and the "alternatives" are wrong.

Here's your chance to lift me out of poverty. Order a few thousand copies of each today, and spam everyone you know with hypnotically irresistible messages to do the same! Whine until your local bookstores agree to stock the book and donate a few copies to local libraries, both "public" and private. I'll be glad you did.

Oh, and if, for some incomprehensible reason, you want an autographed copy, that can be ordered directly from me for the same price in FRNs (payable by Paypal or whatever method we agree on), or for a half an ounce of .999 fine silver for Indy-Pindy or a quarter ounce of .999 fine silver for Kent's Liberty Primer. In the spirit of the free market, you are welcome to pay me more if that would make you happy.

And please, pass this newsworthy item on to anyone else who might be interested.

Thank you very much.