Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

The Supreme Courtjesters have handed down their ruling on The Second Amendment. Their ruling did not surprise me. Let's see if you are smarter than a "Supreme". I'm betting you are.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or, as I have re-written it, by going to the dictionary for each and every word, to make it more clear:

"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America
to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any
type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot
be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

This does not "grant" a right to own guns; it prohibits government from having any say whatsoever on the matter. The right to own and to carry personal weapons has existed as long as humans have been humans, and even before that if you count claws, fangs, and various chemical weaponry possessed by many animals. Which I do.

Just as the First Amendment protects five different rights, the Second Amendment protects two rights; the right to form a militia, and also the right to own and to carry weapons. That isn't difficult to understand. A lot of people who don't want to understand the "shall not be infringed" part tend to try to focus on the "well regulated Militia" part.

That opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", only explained one reason the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal", but states one very compelling reason why people might need them and why no individual or government has the authority to stand in the way of owning and carrying them for any reason.

Another problem with the Supreme Court equivocation is that it seems they try very hard to misunderstand what "infringed" means. Let's use a different gold coin analogy. Suppose the recognition of your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.

Now, the reason the ruling did not surprise me is that they did what they, as tools of the growing 21st Century global police state, had to do. Had they said there was no right to "keep and bear arms" they faced the possibility of an armed revolution. The "frog pot" is not quite warm enough here in America for them to get away with that move yet. However, had they been honest about the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, including the fact that it was intended to protect your right to own weapons of current military function and pattern, without asking permission of anyone, anywhere, and even admitting those weapons were supposed to be available, outside the authority and beyond the oversight of any part of government, to be used as a defense against an unresponsive or tyrannical government, they would have had to admit that every single gun control law in the world (yes, not just America) is completely wrong and evil and outside the authority of any government. That would not suit their agenda at all. So, they lied.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

'Fine', like 'taxation', is another word for theft

'Fine', like 'taxation', is another word for theft

Something absolutely has to be done about the "justice system". Seriously. From the Supreme Court "affirming a right" while pretending it is merely a privilege which can be tailored to suit the wishes of the corrupt and frightened Rulers (Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There is no wiggle-room, you black-robed taterheads!), to the most "piddlin'" municipal court, the system is completely broken. Courts must not be owned and run by one side (an extremely biased side) in the conflict. It wouldn't work in a private system and it doesn't work in a coercive system either.

I know someone who was on a municipal jury very recently. Through negligence (or possibly a third party's mischief) a city ordinance was violated and harm was caused to the property of another. This juror I speak of was under the impression that she was required to agree with the other jurors just because "we had to all agree on something; one person couldn't disagree or we wouldn't reach a verdict".

The defendant was obviously responsible for the damages. Not even he really claimed otherwise. He should have paid restitution and that should have been the end of it. However, that was not among the options the jury was presented with. "Guilty" or "not guilty" were the choices, and, if guilty, how big a "fine" must he pay?- and "zero" was not allowed. The "city" suffered no harm and was due no restitution, and certainly wasn't owed any loot because of someone else's misfortune. Restitution to the actual injured party wasn't on the table and was "a separate issue", sayeth the judge. The injured party will have to sue this man for restitution, according to the judge, if they wish to be compensated.

In this case, and under the rules as they were set forth, obviously I would have had to judge the man "not guilty" even if it would have made it more difficult for the actual injured party to collect restitution later. The city would have lost out had I been on the jury. Which is probably why, as I have been told, no one would ever allow me on a jury.


Please, become intimately familiar with the Fully Informed Jury Association and tell everyone you know, especially if they are up for jury duty, about their right to judge the "law" regardless of the judge's biased instructions.


Albuquerque authoriturds have once again stuck their noses where they could get bit. This time, rather than "too many cats" it is "too many" snakes. Yes, the mother probably should take better care of her kids. It is probably dumb to send you kids into a government indoctrination center smelling like urine (or like roses, for that matter) unless you want to attract "official attention". But "too many snakes" is not a decision for anyone but the people living under the roof to make.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Should religion be illegal- like 'drugs'?

Should religion be illegal- like 'drugs'?

Should religion be illegal? From a purely rational point of view, based upon actual harm done, criminalizing religion makes more sense than does criminalizing "drugs". Religion is more likely to be forced upon an unwilling person than "drugs" are, despite the "drug warrior" propaganda to the contrary. However, I do not advocate criminalizing either one. That would just be wrong. It is not within the authority of any person (or group of people) to decide what any other person does with his own body or mind as long as no innocents are being harmed by the actions. No matter how strongly you disagree or how reasonable your disagreements are.

Drugs and religions have a lot in common (and in some cases are literally one and the same). Both have the effect of making their users feel good- and both can make their users feel really bad, especially when abused or when an addiction occurs. Both are often belittled and demonized by people who do not use them, and who therefore do not understand the pleasures that their users feel. Perhaps there is something in the wiring of the human brain that makes a person more susceptible or more resistant to such effects. It wouldn't surprise me.

Any honest accounting would show that religions have hurt and/or killed more people than drugs have. Yet, neither one must inevitably cause harm. Only through misuse or obsession does the harm follow.

As long as you don't hold me down and force me to ingest a drug, or work to get your religious ideals enshrined in "law" in an attempt to force me to behave as though I agree with you, what you do to your own body and mind are none of my business. No matter how wonderful or self-destructive your behavior may be. You are the rightful owner of your own body and life, and ownership means you have the right to use, and even destroy, that which you own.

The Albuquerque Water cops are overworked. Poor little Jackboots. Yet, the real tragedy in the story is that they find their victims because of tips from "neighbors". No good person would ever report someone for using "too much water". As I have said before, if water is being wasted, it is a sign it is under priced. Market forces, including scarcity, should determine the "proper price" and eliminate waste. End the government monopoly on the Albuquerque water supply and watch the problem evaporate.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Girl kills attackers, but statists miss the point

I got an email that I would like to share. Along with my commentary. First, the email:


Shotgun preteen vs. Home Invaders : Illegal alien Butte,
Montana, November 5 , 2009

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things:
they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since
she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men
broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's
room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor
only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from
the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his
abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the
stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the
street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It
was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber
handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That
victim, 50-year-old David O'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from
stab wounds to the chest.

Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC ,
CBS , PBS , MSNBC , CNN, or ABC 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and
herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants......and she
wins, She is still alive.

Now that is Gun Control !

Thought for the day: Calling an illegal alien an
'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an
'unlicensed pharmacist'
This is a good e-mail message.
American citizens defending themselves and their homes.


Now the commentary.

Good for her! I love it when the good guys win by killing the bad guys. I wish all such attacks ended so nicely. But... How in the bloody blazes could it possibly matter in the slightest where the attackers came from?

Would it be better to be murdered or raped by a person from your home town or your own "state"? It is ignorant and stupid to pretend that the origins of a bad guy are even part of the equation. This is just an attempt to distract people from the real issue: aggression. It is a lie. It is evil.

A cop killed during a drug raid is just as much a parasitical vermin as an "illegal immigrant" killed during an attempted rape/murder is. His death is just as much a cause for celebration. The actions and the intentions make the only difference that exists.

An "illegal immigrant" IS an independent migrant, and a "drug dealer" IS an unlicensed pharmacist. Only statists, who falsely believe "The State" is more important than the individual, would see it any other way. Disgusting!

Substitutes for substance

Substitutes for substance

"Patriotism" and "citizenship" are often used as substitutes for principles, like religion and "morality" are used as substitutes for living an ethical life. In either case, ritual is relied upon rather than doing what is right.

Waving a flag or worshiping the Constitution is no substitute for standing up for the principle of respecting the rights of all people in all situations. The Constitution is OK in some ways, but it still authorizes evil in others. The US flag (notice that it is most assuredly NOT "the American flag") has been co-opted by the federal government, and flying it is normally seen as an endorsement of that government. This "federal flag" stands against everything America should be, and has done so since before the "Civil War". Let the statists have their symbol.

Most advocates of "good citizenship" are advocating that you and I obey the Constitution and support the "Constitutional actions" of the US government- at least as long as it does what they think it should be doing- whether those actions are right or wrong. A "good citizen" is expected to waste effort by working "within the system" when bad things are done by those in that "system". It doesn't work, and if it did it would be made "illegal".

Giving up your own conscience and letting the State dictate your principles may be easy, but it will not lead you where you need to be. The destination will shift with each new crisis the State invents. That crisis may be "illegal immigrants" or "drugs" or "crime". It may be your religion or your guns. It will always be about someone's liberty. As long as you stand up for liberty for all in every situation, you will never be led astray.

I always try to put thought into where I place my support. I don't do what I am told, unless what I am told is in line with my principles. It means I may have to think more, and consider things more deeply. That's OK. Thinking is good exercise. Accepting as truth what you are told, by those who are holding you at gunpoint and have a vested interest in deceiving you, is not smart. But, as in all things, don't take my word for it. Think for yourself.

The bad "immigration law" from Arizona is already causing an influx of immigrants into the Albuquerque area. I'd be willing to bet it is not only "illegal immigrants"- or even necessarily immigrants at all. If I were Hispanic-appearing, and I lived in Arizona, I'd probably want out before the "law" went into effect, too. Let Arizona's loss be Albuquerque's gain. And, as always, if aggressive individuals follow the crowd to New Mexico, as the fear-mongers claim is happening, let people use justified self-defense and eliminate them from the population. It's the civilized thing to do. Remember, New Mexico is a "Gold Star" open-carry state. So do it.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Who kills your freedom?

Who kills your freedom?

Do you know why I am not obsessed over government and its war on liberty? Because government can't force you to do, or not do, anything unless one of its agents is holding a gun on you right now. And government does not have enough thugs or guns to control us all. It relies on "governing" you in most cases. Only you can consent to be governed- or not.

Government is not stopping you from being free. Only you can do that to yourself. Government may raise the costs, and may put every stumbling block possible in your way. It will threaten you if you dare take responsibility for your own life, against its wishes and "laws". You can choose to express your liberty anyway. Do it in secret today in order to become more skilled for tomorrow. Remember: you and I are already federal "felons", whether we intended to be or not; we might as well make the most of our outlawry.

If you are not willing to live free, within your rights, with a meddling government looking over your shoulder today, how do you expect to live free when the crow-picked corpses of those petty officials are decorating lampposts everywhere, but freelance thugs have replaced them?
Someone will always want to prevent you from enjoying your liberty. Bad people like these will always exist. Get used to dealing with them.

If you can't get away with "open carry", carry concealed and do your best to not get caught- or grovel for a permit and allow some thug to act as though your right is a privilege. If you feel you "must" have licenses and permits for driving, building, conducting business, or whatever right the State decides to violate tomorrow, get a little dyslexia or dyscalculia when filling out forms begging government to allow you to live within your rights. If you wish to enjoy prohibited pleasures, learn how to not "look guilty", because you are doing nothing wrong and have no cause to feel guilty. And learn to avoid or ignore those tools of the State, wherever you find them, who would gleefully throw you to the wolves.
Start today. There will never be a better time.

Federal anti-gun agents in Albuquerque are looking for a nineteen year-old suspect who eluded them after they completed their scam. "Firearms" and "drugs" are not under the authority of any government control, according to the Constitution and, more importantly, the principles of liberty. Yet, these are about the only "crimes" mentioned as justification for the planned kidnapping. Actually, some of the guns the Feds "purchased" are said to have been stolen, and those guns should be returned to their proper owners immediately. However, the Feds, by putting out the word they were in the market for the guns, are accomplices in the thefts and they should be held individually accountable. I'm not holding my breath. But, I will remember.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Stand up for your enemy's rights to protect your own

Stand up for your enemy's rights to protect your own

A person can not "lose" his rights as long as he is alive. Not by becoming an attacker nor through any other action. A privilege can be lost; a right is part of the fundamental makeup of a human being. You can no more lose a right than you can become a ostrich.

This is something that didn't occur to me for a very long time, but once I realized it (just in the past couple of years), I wondered why it was so difficult to see. Perhaps because it is inconvenient. It is so much easier to excuse certain abuses if you can pretend that by his wrong actions a person has lost certain rights. But this is dishonest and leads to destructive "laws" and faulty justifications.

In the case of an aggressor- he has no right to attack the innocent, but both he and his victim have a right to defend themselves from the other. In more personal terms: a person attacking me has an absolute human right to defend his own life from my self-defense. In fact, although I hope he fails, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that outcome, I have no respect for thugs who simply submit rather than fight back.

Obviously, I would prefer that all aggressors lose the battle every time. However, it is not possible to claim that I have the right to judge whether another person has "lost" his rights without handing that same authority over my own rights to someone else. Just handle the attack.

If the person who attacked is the survivor he is subject to restitution, shunning, and whatever else sovereign individuals in a free society might do, but his choice to defend himself shouldn't be part of the equation. This is why I think "criminals" have an obligation to resist arrest and to attempt to escape from custody, and why I despise the dishonest practice of adding that natural response to their list of offenses.

This is also one reason why I oppose "laws" that prohibit "criminals" from possessing guns. The other part of that reason is that I see who is allowed to define "criminal", and I don't agree with their agenda nor do I recognize their authority, even in the case of "my enemy". There is no way to violate some other person's rights without damaging your own. I need no nanny.

In Albuquerque news- A young cyclist who was riding cross-country to raise money for breast cancer (research, I'm hoping, although the story doesn't actually say that) died after being hit by a car. This is a tragic end to a proper response to a problem. Charity, not government subsidies. Voluntarily is always better than coerced.

Another very disturbing thing to me is how many commenters on that story are calling for the car's driver to be punished. Not every tragedy or accident "needs" to be criminalized. Yet, the facts are not even public and people are out for blood. That is wrong and sad.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Entitled to your money: Day care protests

Entitled to your money: Day care protests

Did you know that you are responsible for paying to take care of other people's children? A group of families in Albuquerque want you to know that they believe you are, and they are protesting to make their point.

Budget problems have caused the state to reduce the income eligibility for state-subsidized day care by half, and some parents are upset.

This isn't about "day care"; it's about day care that is paid for by someone else. When did this become any business of the government at any level? "Never" is when. Either these parents forget, or never understood, that nothing from government is "free". If government gives it to you, government stole it from someone else.

If you hand your* children over to the government, which is what this amounts to, then don't be shocked when that government acts as though it owns them in other circumstances. This "free day care" has strings attached, as do all government "hand-outs". It costs you your self-ownership, your dignity, and your liberty. It would surprise me if it didn't cost you every last scrap of your self-respect, too.

I'm sorry that some people don't feel they are able to care for their kids (and yet have them regardless). I make "sacrifices" and stay home to raise my daughter. No one can love her or care for her better than me. Sometimes, because of my choice, I can't afford things I think I "need". I would like the luxury of having more money, but I am not under the mistaken impression that it is your responsibility to pay for day care for my daughter so that I can hold a job outside my home. Of course, if you have a job offer for me that fits with my "talents" and circumstances, please let me know. I could definitely use the money.

*"your" and other words like it, in this case, do not denote ownership, but relationship. Such as "your friend" or "my sister" or "her daughter". Some people get a little twitchy about that distinction.

Rodent fun.

Here is a video I made today of a thirteen-lined ground squirrel at a park in Clovis NM. Posted for no particular reason, other than I enjoyed watching it.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Aggression by proxy

Aggression by proxy

I was recently told of a situation that illustrates a few different points I try to make. I got this third-hand, so reality may differ significantly from how it was told to me. In any case, this is the situation as it was related to me:

Someone sold a section of land adjacent to their home. The buyer then set
up a meth lab in the middle of that property. When the previous owners
found out they called the cops. For whatever reason the cops did
nothing. Then the new owner came to the previous owner and threatened to
kill him for reporting him to the cops.

Now, once you sell a piece of property, as long as the buyer hasn't defaulted on the sale, what he is doing there is none of your business as long as he is not harming you. His meth lab, while you may not like it, is not an actual threat or harm. Unless you buy into the silly propaganda that it is some sort of "nuclear threat" that the "brave" drug warriors want to pretend it is in order to scare you into compliance with their "laws". So, in my opinion, in this case calling the LEOs was wrong, and a violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.

Plus, it didn't even "work" since the cops did not follow through with the desired act of aggression.

Actions have consequences. If you attempt to attack someone, in person or "by proxy"- by sending government against them, they have a right to use violence or the threat of violence in their own defense. Both against the agents of government, and against the person who uses government as a weapon against them. Just because in this case the weapon suffered a "misfire" doesn't alter the fact that a deadly weapon was aimed and the trigger was pulled.
Did the new owner of the property over-react? Possibly. Was the threat credible and immediate enough to warrant an act of self-defense? I'm not certain since I wasn't there. Is the accused meth manufacturer an otherwise delightful and honorable person? Probably not, since prohibition ensures that only people who are willing to take certain risks and use certain methods to protect themselves and their market will get into the business.

All I know for certain is that if this became a court case, the previous owners of the property would not want me sitting on a jury since I consider using government, in violation of the ZAP, a "wrong", and the mere production of governmentally-prohibited chemicals to be an ethically neutral act. As it stands now, I'd consider the two sides "even".

An Albuquerque woman talks about her abduction and how lucky she was that it ended when a LEO shot her kidnapper. Yes, she was lucky. A whole series of fortunate events had to occur for her to come out alive.

I hope she learned from this that she is responsible for her own safety and will never again allow herself to be helpless in the face of evil. Regardless of "laws" or "society's" expectations. When you realize you need a tool with which to defend yourself it is already too late. You can't always count on your attacker having a screwdriver within your reach or on someone else who has a proper self-defense tool showing up in time. Lucky last time; smart next time?

Monday, June 21, 2010

Who is 'Utopian'?

Who is 'Utopian'?

"Idealistic"- "Utopian"- These are words intended to insult or discredit those of us who do not believe that aggression and theft are "the only way" you can form a working society.

At some point, in any discussion with a statist, these words (or something similar) will make an appearance. Now when they do I just smile to myself. I have realized that these words are the indicators that a person has run out of other arguments against liberty. They are the last grasp at a flimsy straw when all else has been attempted. It is the intellectual equivalent of throwing the gun at your opponent when you are out of ammunition.

Of all the "ideas" out there, statism has shown itself to be the ultimate "idealistic" and "Utopian" dream. It has been tried, in every imaginable permutation, for thousands of years and it always fails. Always. Why think "next time we'll get it right" against all evidence?

Albuquerque Public Schools (sic) and some city councilors are playing tug-of-war with your money yet again. It's like watching hyenas fight over a carcass that they stole from a leopard. The APS wants to build a "magnet school" on the property and the city councilors want an arena. It must be nice to spend other people's money. If an arena is "so critical for the future of tourism in the city and region", then people would be willing to invest in it without being forced to do so. Government need not get involved in any way.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Call to action in defense of liberty

Call to action in defense of liberty

I ran across a comment on a blog that shows the narrowness, or complete lack, of thought that goes into the statist religion. It is as though they wear blinders and refuse to really think about what they write. It is scary that some people apparently really believe there is not any way to "provide" certain things without coercion, force, and murder. It isn't true, of course. However, as I have pointed out before, this is "what we are up against".

I have submitted my comment there, but as it contains several links it is languishing in "Moderationland" at the time I write this.

I ask that you read the comment and put in your two-cents' worth (adjusted for FRN-devalued "dollars"; maybe you could contribute more value than that).

I felt this was important enough to post even without my obligatory Albuquerque content. Really, it is important that sensible people respond to things of this sort as quickly as possible, before the virus spreads to unsuspecting minds. More zombies- not what we need.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Build a monument to Liberty

Build a monument to Liberty

A lot of people seem to like big monuments. But most big monuments celebrate Statism, since it is much easier to afford to build them if you can steal the money to do so.

Victims and accomplices of government's main business, war, are a popular subject for these monuments. This way you can celebrate the State and mourn its victims at the same time. How very efficient and emotionally fulfilling. For some.

One big monument, "Liberty Enlightening the World", or "The Statue of Liberty", was built without theft, to celebrate something actually worth celebrating. Of course, it was then stolen by government and turned into a parody of itself. Unfortunately, it is now a "liberty-free zone" all its own, due to the policies of the government that confiscated it. The same could be said about The Liberty Bell, which is held hostage in the statist "paradise" of Philadelphia. (This is what often happens to things which have no definite owner- the tragedy of the commons in a slightly different manifestation.)

So, how to satisfy the apparent human hunger for big monuments without building altars to death? The best monument to liberty is your own life and the liberated legacy you leave. It takes no theft or coercion, and you can make certain it is not conscripted for the glorification of the State. It is also the biggest monument there is.

In Albuquerque news: Once again, Tasers are shown to not be "non-lethal". An Albuquerque man died after being electro-tortured by LEOs. If the cops are being truthful about the events leading to the man's death, the man did need to be stopped from doing what he was doing. I am not disputing that. However, people need to stop viewing Tasers as a "safe alternative" to shooting an aggressor, and need to stop viewing Tasers as a "compliance device" of any sort.

Never Taser someone you are not willing to kill. A Taser and a badge are as bad a combination as a gun and a badge.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Justice- the definition

"Justice" is what we call the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed and correct the damage; to return a victim to as close to the "pre-victimized condition" as is possible.

It has nothing to do with "punishment" except in the sick minds of statists.


Don't wait for the 'law'

Don't wait for the 'law'

Don't wait for the law to prompt you to do the right thing nor let the law prevent you from doing the right thing. Do the right thing regardless of the law.

I enjoyed reading some of the things readers said they would do if they woke up in a free society. I would love to live in a society where those types of activities were common. Think how much more colorful and interesting the countryside would be. I also enjoyed Claire Wolfe's thoughts on the subject.

Truthfully, I don't really know what I would do since I have never known what it is that I want to do. I'm sure I would wear a gun on my hip all the time. I'd drive without a "license". I'd probably grow some cannabis "just because" (the way I sometimes grow tobacco now, even though I don't smoke). Most of the "what I'd do"s I have already done at some point of my life.
As for the big questions, I have no clue what I'd end up doing. I'll continue to give it thought.

You know what the government calls liberty, don't you? It calls it a "loophole". It's just a freedom that the government overlooked destroying- for now. The Albuquerque City Council is concerned over a loophole it wants to stitch closed in their cell phone ordinance. The way the counterfeit cell phone "law" is written complicates matters for Rulers wanting to "fine" (steal money from) drivers who legally use their cell phones while stopped at a traffic light. That can't be allowed! Can it?

Monday, June 14, 2010

Statists: constantly whining against liberty

Statists: constantly whining against liberty

Statists do not like the flaws in their thinking and in their "system" to be discussed or examined. If you don't believe me you haven't spent much time talking about liberty.

Discuss liberty very much and some statist will eventually accuse you of "whining about government". It doesn't matter if you are discussing the problems with achieving liberty in the presence of a government, just warning others of pitfalls to be aware of, or just talking about living free in spite of "how things are". Just mentioning liberty is enough to upset the statists and cause them to jump in to blindly defend their precious (and empty) religion.

There was a time when I did whine about government. That was a waste of effort. I used to worry about the government but now it is just irrelevant to me. Obviously, I am careful when I run into a representative or agent of the government but otherwise I don't think about it. Cops and other manifestations of the State are eyed with suspicion just as a dog with a foaming mouth would be. There's nothing mystical or omnipotent about either one, but both should be watched and avoided. To do otherwise would be suicidal.

However, to most statists- the most religiously dedicated ones anyway- any criticism or suggestions of ways to work around their cherished "system" is seen as whining. They would prefer those of us who see behind the curtain be quiet and stop exposing their lies. Probably because they have no real answers to the criticisms. When your bag of tricks is empty it is hard to pull something real out of it. So, they are forced to fall back on their magic incantations, which only work on others who suffer from the same delusions. They are sad cases, really.

An employee of Albuquerque's Metro Detention Center has been arrested for doing things his masters didn't like. He is said to have taken bribes to make sure certain prisoners got on the "home detention" program, which he was the coordinator of. Imagine that- an employee of the imprisonment industry being corrupt! Wonders never cease.

Wake up in liberty... What would YOU do?

Wake up in liberty... What would YOU do?

What would you do with your life if you were suddenly free? Say you wake up tomorrow and liberty is the reality of life. You are fully free to live within all your rights, as is everyone else. No one will be asking for permits, licenses, or any other sort of bureaucratic paperwork. None of your property will be stolen through "taxation" or any other form of theft-by-government. There are no longer any "laws" telling you how to live as long as you are not attacking anyone, nor robbing or defrauding anyone. Just let that soak in for a minute. Now, really: What would you do?

We'll assume for this exercise that your "job" doesn't depend on any of those liberty-killing activities that have vanished in this new reality.

Have you always wanted to operate a little shop out of your spare room? Have you wished to grow plants that the former Rulers would have killed you for growing? Do you want to raise dairy cows and sell raw milk to those who want to buy it? Have you always dreamed of being the next John Moses Browning and invent the next generation of "self-defense engines"? Or, maybe, do you have a dream of starting your own software company, but start-up costs, inflated by competition-crushing red tape, have kept your ideas from moving out of your head and into the market?

Consider doing it anyway. Today. In our imperfect world. Without official permission, if that is your style. Yes, you will need to be secretive for now; maybe always. And, yes, the risks if you get caught are a tragic reality you must take into consideration. Yet, is your life so perfect now that there is no benefit in taking the risks? Never forget that there are costs associated with not doing what you should be doing, too. Which, for you-right now in this real world where you live- are the greater risks?

So, what is it you would do? Why not go ahead?

(Oops. According to some people, all libertarians do is "whine about government". I forget to do that too often! I had better get right on that.)

The Albuquerque Bernalillo Water Utility Authority threatens to "fine" (read "steal extra from") anyone who "wastes water" by watering at the wrong time of day.

This illuminates a reality. If water is being wasted, the price is obviously too low. If it is priced according to its relative value in Albuquerque, it will not be wasted. People who can afford the higher price will use what they want, and others will conserve to save money. No theft or threats necessary. And government should not have a monopoly on the local water supply.

I do tend to wonder (without really caring) if ABQ has silly "laws" about keeping a nice appearance to your lawn which encourage waste for lawn care. I have seen places with this sort of catch-22 "law" designed to rake in the money one way or another. Me, I'd be perfectly happy with a yard of dirt, mesquite, and cactus that I never watered. Or "needed" to mow.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

'Government force' is redundant

'Government force' is redundant

Many times when you hear a libertarian talking about others sending government into a situation you will hear him use the phrase "government force". The phrase is redundant. Government is nothing but force and coercion (which is often a threat of force). Without force or coercion there is no government.

All government (except self-government, which is not even on most people's conceptual radar) is imposed by force. Even if you agree to some facets of your own governing, there are other people who are having that particular facet imposed on them against their will, while they approve of something else that you are having imposed on you. By force or threat of force.

If you doubt this, just look at the ongoing example of Julian Heicklen. His only "crime" is trying to get government to live within its Constitutional limits. And for this he has been attacked, kidnapped, and held hostage by agents of the government. Government has been applied to his life and liberty. The very act of governing is an act of extreme aggression, even if it is not obvious at first. Yet, the penalty for violating the smallest of the government's silly little rules is always death.

The force is not always initiated force, at least on the face of it. When a cop shoots a mugger in the act of mugging (reaching wildly into the realm of the theoretical here), he does not initiate force in that particular instance, at that specific moment. Yet, where did he get the money for his gun and bullets? Where did he get the money for his fancy uniform and badge? And where does the money come from that finances his career? It comes from theft- just like the mugger he shot. If cops are "necessary", they will be able to be financed without relying on force and coercion. If not... well, they vastly overestimate their importance anyway.

By force you can turn a perfectly good and noble idea into pure evil. Protecting the environment is good. Imposing your idea of "protecting the environment" on someone else is bad. Eating a healthy diet and refraining from abusing substances is good. Forcing everyone to eat the same diet regardless of their tastes and preferences is wrong, and killing people for using (and not even necessarily abusing) certain substances is completely evil. Helping the poor is good. Forcing your neighbors to give up their own property to a government bureaucracy that then claims to "help the poor" is really bad. Exposing dishonest business practices is good. Setting up a government bureaucracy that punishes innovation and puts barriers in the way of new competitors, while "taxing" businesses to death, all in the name of "consumer protection", of course, is bad. Free trade is good. Corporatism, which only exists because of government interference with the market, and which guarantees disasters like the BP "oilcano", is bad.

In each case, the true results of using government is the opposite of the justification used. Government is not the right way to do any of these good things. Government- force- turns a good idea upside down and destroys any good that could have come from it in the process. And statists call libertarians "Utopian".

Goobernut Bill Richardson announced, during a stop in Albuquerque, that he has given away $200,000 of YOUR money to the New Mexico Filmmakers Program. He claims this will guarantee more jobs and business for New Mexico, but what's the point if the new employees will be robbed so more of their money can be given away to other special interests? Someone is "giving us the business" alright.

Is this pay-off just because the entertainment industry is sexy, while more useful, productive industries are not? Probably.

But, that leads to a better idea. If you want to get involved in the movie industry, there is a project in the works you could help voluntarily, that would actually benefit the cause of liberty. Check it out!

Thursday, June 10, 2010

State Supreme Court does right thing; overturns nonsensical DWI conviction

State Supreme Court does right thing; overturns nonsensical DWI conviction

Sometimes, rarely, courts do get it right. This is one of those cases.

A man who was passed out in his car, with the keys in the passenger seat, had his drunk driving conviction overturned by the state Supreme Court.

Seeing as how he was NOT "driving" at the time of his kidnapping by Albuquerque police, anyone with an IQ above that of a cockroach should have known the man was not legally "guilty" of driving while ... anything.

That this case even had to go to the State Supreme Court makes me wonder about the intelligence of the jurors who threw him to the wolves.

I have already given up on hoping for intelligence from the LEOs, who also should have known better. Obviously, their job as the highwaymen, collecting loot at gunpoint for the Rulers, gives them a severe conflict of interest that overrides any sense.

The man in this case seems even more clearly innocent of any "driving" than the passed-out drunk LEO in the case we have discussed before, since this man was in a parking lot, rather than on the side of the road. Which one would you suspect might have actually been sober when he parked his car?


Sad news: J.D. Tuccille is dropping his Civil Liberties Examiner column. I understand the "why", I'm just going to miss him there. It is Examiner's loss. I intend to keep dropping by his Disloyal Opposition blog, which it sounds like he plans to continue.

Don't forget Project LTE - Drop by and support the writers of pro-liberty letters-to-editors, and pile on anti-liberty letters-to-editors that need to be refuted and ridiculed. It will make you happy.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Think 'voluntarily'

Think 'voluntarily'

A comment on a recent column, where I suggested that the Albuquerque man "arrested" for being naked in the thrift store "probably needs treatment", made me realize something. I think "voluntarily" while most of "society" thinks "coercively".

When you hear a neighbor saying some person should do "X", what they are usually really saying is that they should be forced to do "X", not that they should be asked to do "X", and then left alone if they refuse.

It is obvious why a person in our society would just assume when "treatment" is proposed it is forced "treatment"; that is what most people would mean. We have come to assume that anything suggested is really being imposed, and it is often a safe assumption. I suppose I need to be more clear from now on when I state things of that sort, and I appreciate the commenter bringing it to my attention..

Are we really so weak, and our faith in our opinions so flimsy, that we don't feel there is good enough reason backing our ideas to win agreement with logic and principles? Are we so pathetic we must resort to coercion? No, we are not. That is where statists find themselves.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Monitoring the livestock- DWI bracelets

Monitoring the livestock- DWI bracelets

A reader brought to my attention a news story about "DWI bracelets" which are being used in Texas. They monitor the alcohol that is perspired through the skin of people who have been court-ordered to not drink at all. Some people, in order to make themselves "look good" to their masters in government choose to wear, and pay for the "privilege" of wearing, the bracelets before they are ordered to do so. While I would never interfere with their right to make such a choice, I find the idea a bit disgusting.

I guess the violation of privacy is slightly better than having a government-assigned guardian to live with you on a day-and-night basis. But not much better. Guardians can be bought-off or may develop a conscience.

However, technology can always be defeated or tricked. Someone will always find a way if the desire and motivation is strong enough. This is good news for liberty.

If you drink and drive and then hurt an innocent person, you owe restitution. However, until someone is hurt no aggression has occurred. And drinking and driving is no "worse" than driving while sleepy, distracted, angry, or depressed. There is no such thing as a perfect driver; there are only people who take responsibility for themselves and those who do not.

Politicians and bureaucrats really need a different hobby. One Albuquerque city councilor has decided that electronic billboards look trashy and distract drivers. He wants them banned (at least temporarily) and "studied". I'm pretty sure I heard this same nonsense a while back.

Look in the mirror councilcritter Benton, if you are looking for things that clutter and endanger Albuquerque. Law pollution makes a place trashier than any of those pretty billboards ever could. And, yes, they are pretty, in a city environment. The wilderness would not be enhanced by them, but a city can't be harmed by them, either. I'll bet he thinks Christmas decorations are trashy and distracting too. Just another sign that if you give a thug power, he will constantly look for excuses to abuse it. He needs to get a life. Not every freedom "needs" a law restricting it.

Monday, June 07, 2010

The sight of a naked man almost kills woman. Oh, wait...

The sight of a naked man almost kills woman. Oh, wait...

Offensensitivity. It is a crippling condition where the sufferer seeks to be offended by almost anything. Words, sights, thoughts, opinions... almost anything other than actual aggression. In fact, aggression is the tool of preference for those who suffer from offensensitivity; to be used enthusiastically against all who dare offend them in some way.

I'm sorry if this offends someone, but seeing something, "even" a naked human body "doing lewd things", can not hurt anyone. Yet this is what the bizarre Puritan/State coalition would have us believe, and it has landed a man with purported mental problems in some hot water. The fact that he had government-unapproved or regulated medications in his possession only adds to his trouble.

A man at an Albuquerque thrift store decided to change into his "new" clothes inside the store instead of in a "portable bathroom" which was offered for the purpose. Now, I could be mistaken, but I'll bet that "bathroom" is not air-conditioned. I have been inside portable outhouses many, many times, and can vouch for the fact that in hot weather, even less severe than we are having now, those "bathrooms" are like ovens and are intolerable for all but the most desperate, and even if you are desperate you want to get in and out as fast as humanly possible. I would not want to change clothes in one. Combined with the claim that he is mentally ill, it doesn't surprise me at all that he chose to not change clothes there.

If the woman and her daughter didn't want to watch, they were free to turn away. If you see a "flasher", stare or point and laugh, if you want, but the photons bouncing off him will not harm you if they travel to your eyes. Only your reaction can harm you. I see the mother claimed that he behaved "in a lewd manner". How long did she need to watch him to decide he was being "lewd". The owners of the store are obviously free to ask him, in his "lewdness", to leave and not come back, but to attack him with the bludgeon of government is wrong. I see no claim that he harmed anyone in any way. "Feeling threatened" is a cop-out. In the absence of a clear and credible threat to cause harm- to attack- it is the coward's excuse for throwing someone to the wolves.

This man probably needs treatment*. He probably needs more of the same sort of medications he was self-medicating with, in order to function. Treatment and holding him hostage ("imprisonment") are not the same thing. Punishment, in this case, is the opposite of what he needs.

Of course, the State is anxious to collect as many of us in its "criminal justice" net as possible, so it will crawl under the covers and use some strange bedfellows for that purpose. And Puritans want to make sure everyone is subjected to their own unfounded beliefs about skin and sexuality, so they gladly use the State to force their pseudo-religious ideas on those who do not share them. It's a dangerous marriage that produces cruel offspring who delight in spreading pain and misery.

*Of a strictly voluntary nature. If he doesn't want treatment, no one has the right to coerce him to be treated as long as he does not harm any innocent person through aggression or fraud.

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Liberty is necessary for human life

Liberty is necessary for human life

Why do you think liberty is important- why is it important to you, and why do you think it is important to others (even those who don't know it is important)? Stop and really think about that.

Then consider the next question: Are you willing to completely respect the liberty of others, even if you despise them and their consensual choices, in order to increase your own liberty? If not, go back and think about your answer to that first question some more.

Oxygen is important to every person, absolutely critical in fact, even if they don't know what oxygen is or have never heard of it. Humans will die almost immediately in an oxygen-free atmosphere. Even if surrounded by nutritious food, clean water, comfortable temperatures, and "entertainment".

Liberty is the same. It is essential for human life. Everyone has some liberty; few have enough. Most people are liberty-starved. They have enough to barely stay alive, but not enough to thrive. If they had a similar level of oxygen in their body, they would be turning blue and their minds would be muddled and confused. If the situation were not corrected, death would soon result. This is true even if, in your lack of liberty, there is guaranteed "health care", police "services", a "national border", military "protection", and a "safety net" to provide food and shelter if you fail to provide for yourself.

Statism is the false liberty; it is the carbon monoxide in this analogy. It is, to most people, invisible and tasteless. It gets inside each cell, or individual, and replaces essential liberty with a toxic substitute that kills. Yet, because it contains the oxygen atom in each molecule, or the word freedom in each statist's empty vocalization, it is ignored until it is too late. The solution is to recognize it as the deadly poison it is, and avoid exposure in a closed environment.

In the world there is rationality and there is wackiness. Democrats and Republicans argue over which brand of wackiness is better and ignore the rationality. They debate replacing liberty with their own particular form of toxic statism, pretending that it is not deadly. Me, I prefer to breathe free- even knowing that my enemy will enjoy liberty as well. My own liberty is more important to me than the childish desire to punish my enemy. How about you?

Enjoying the record-high, triple-digit, temperatures in Albuquerque? Is it "anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming/climate change", or just standard environmental variation? Are you willing to risk giving the world's worst polluter and despoiler of the environment the power to take away your choices, and to limit your comfort, on the chance that your sacrifices could make a small positive difference?

Carbon dioxide is plant food. The more plant food, the more plants. The more plants, the less plant food free-for-the taking in the atmosphere. It's just science. Plus, remember that recent volcanic eruption in Iceland? It totally wiped out the net results of any carbon dioxide-limiting sacrifices you could make in your entire lifetime.

Don't soil your own nest, but don't worry about things that you can't affect. And stay cool.


Saturday, June 05, 2010

Raiders strike in ABQ Old Town- take hostage and steal property

Raiders strike in ABQ Old Town- take hostage and steal property

Brave (cough) drug warriors have scored again in Albuquerque; "saving" us all from the danger of making our own choices and from scary free-market, government-prohibited, trade.

In Old Town drug warriors have invaded private property, kidnapped a man, and stolen at least $200,000 worth of his possessions (according to the Federal Baby Incinerators). At least the headline I read is honest when it calls the involved LEOs "raiders" . A raider is one who invades private property, and usually attacks and steals; not a good guy at all. Just look at the synonyms for "raider" listed by rustler, highwayman, pillager, hijacker, looter, marauder, pirate, pilferer, etc.

I'm not saying that the kidnapped and robbed man was necessarily a good guy, either, I don't know him, but the actions of the raiders puts them squarely in the camp of the bad guys. Their actions are evil. There is no, and can be no, legitimate reason for the failed and destructive War on (some) Drugs.

Friday, June 04, 2010

The Jonah temptation

The Jonah temptation

Law pollution and the metastasizing growth of coercive government is wrecking civilization. The "funny" thing is that statists assert that their way is the only way to save civilization- as they destroy it. Current events and the lens of history do not bear out their claims.

Part of me just wants to sit down and shut up and simply watch civilization crumble before my eyes, while shielding myself and my loved-ones from the worst of the disaster. It is not my fault that people choose to listen to the authoritarians and allow themselves to be led to the slaughter. Civilization is nice, but not necessary. I can take care of myself just as well either way. The challenges will be a little different, but they will not necessarily be worse.

Another part of me says that course would be selfish. That part of me wants to warn as many people as I can, and try to get many of them to realize that they do not need government, at any level beyond the self, to make them be good people and to help them interact with others peaceably. If enough people listen the course of events can be changed in time. Maybe.

Unless government is eliminated, and soon, civilization is doomed in the short-term. Yes, it will come back, but it will take many human life-spans to recover. We can either sit and watch it happen, or we can work to educate those around us and work together to prevent the crisis by striking at the root cause. I do not consent to be governed. How about you?


Thieves in Albuquerque are stealing storm drain grates for scrap metal. The question arises, how does the city know the thief's "tax money" didn't pay for the grate he took? This is the problem with stealing money to pay for government things- you lose the ethical high-ground when someone takes something back. I don't recommend taking storm grates since you would be putting innocent, oblivious people at risk of falling down the hole, but the "crime" committed here isn't theft.

Thursday, June 03, 2010

The 'law pollution' tipping point approaches

The 'law pollution' tipping point approaches

I'm sure you are aware that new "laws" are passed all the time. I'm seeing "public service" announcements of changes to Texas' "law" regarding seat belts even now. As these new "laws" are added, the old "laws" remain. The "law" becomes more restrictive with each passing day.
This results in the condition I refer to as "law pollution".

Already every one of us- yes, even you- break a multitude of "laws" every single day. Many years ago a sheriff's deputy told me that by the time we eat breakfast we have already broken lots of "laws", so we might as well not worry about it and just get on with our lives. That was the best advice I have ever gotten from a former cop. I have seen the claim that each of us commits 3 felonies every day now. I have no reason to doubt it. This means that if you berate someone for "breaking the law", though they harm no innocent person, you are a hypocrite. The "law" is meaningless; right or wrong is what you should worry about.

Everything that is wrong was already "illegal" millennia ago. No new "wrong" has been discovered since the day of the Neanderthal. Evil people have tried to justify wrongs, such as slavery and theft, by passing "laws" that "legalize" them, but the nature of right and wrong did not change to suit the "law".

This means these new "laws" are invariably counterfeit "laws" ; attempts to control or regulate something other than actual aggression, theft, or fraud. Counterfeit "laws" sound like real laws. They are written in legal language by lawyers. They are backed by the threat of death if you disregard them. They have no foundation in reality, but are based only upon the wishes of people who want to control your behavior. Bad, aggressive, dishonest people, each and every one. You have no ethical obligation to obey any counterfeit "law".

Believe it or not, this constant growth of "the law" is good news. It means there will come a tipping point where even the most delusional "law and order" person among us will realize the truth of the situation and stop trying. This tipping point is now inevitable and getting closer every day.. At that point the vast majority of people will stop respecting "the law" at all. Just as some of us did long ago. The State can't control us all.

It means that even "law enforcement" will be forced to stop imposing "the law" on all but the most obvious "criminal", or lose the respect of those who still, foolishly and without reason, respect them now. It may even mean that all but the worst police give up and find honest work. Because enforcing the "law" will be seen by almost everyone as the act of a desperate, and evil, class of Rulers who have lost all illusion of legitimacy. When that day comes you and I can say "Welcome to the club. We've been waiting for you."

Albuquerque "law enforcement" has arrested a man for an accident that killed a child. What I don't see are any reasons this accident is a "crime". I don't see any intent to cause harm. The man caused harm, intentionally or not, and that means he owes restitution. The State was not harmed and has no reason to be involved. Only if the man refuses to pay restitution is there any reason for a third party to become involved, and the State is never the right third party.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Recruiting for liberty

Recruiting for liberty

The best recruiter for anarchy is government.

During the Bush years it seemed "liberals" were easier to reach with the message that The State is not the way. Right now I find the most receptive ears and minds among "conservatives" due to them actually paying attention since Obama, the Prince of The Other Side, is in office. I'm not talking about the Tea Party folks, but people who actually become aware of the way "things" are. Although, some of those may come from the ranks of the Tea Partiers- if they think independently rather than just listen to what is being preached- I find most to be in absolute denial about the root of the problem. "Conservatism" (tyranny of right-authoritarianism) is not the solution, any more than is "progressivism" (tyranny of left-authoritarianism). No, the solution is to get your head out of dark, tight spots and look around.

People seem to sleep when they believe "their side" is in power. They don't notice that the evils that are done by "their side" are identical to what their enemies do when in office that gets them up-in-arms.

What I notice is that generally once you do reach someone they stay aware even once their former side is back in power. It really is like "taking the red pill". You can't go back; at least not without a conscious effort to deceive yourself. I don't personally know any former "liberals" who woke up during the Bush era who then went back to being "liberals" once Obama was coronated, and I am holding out hope that the same will hold true for the "conservatives" who are waking up now.

The next-best recruiters are those of us who have realized we don't need no stinkin' State, and can communicate why.

Based on past experience, I believe I can convert just about anyone to libertarianism, if not anarchism- if they are rational, honest, and consistent. The only ones who I can't seem to convince are those who at some stage reach the point of "I don't care what the facts are; I'm going to believe what I believe!" These are the ones who make their assertions, and instead of just saying this is what they believe, they demand I agree with them and overlook their inconsistencies. They insist that 2+2=7 just because, in this case, it would be so nice or useful if it did. They claim coercion or aggression, when done by agents of a duly-elected government, is OK because they can't see any other way to accomplish something they really want done. When I don't agree, they run away. Often after flinging their virtual waste products in my general direction. Such is life.

Why would Albuquerque LEOs "need" a helicopter? If you guessed "to break up underage parties", you win the prize. The sheriff's department, when not clowning around (and wasting your money) with other candidates for the sheriff's job, apparently thinks this is a good way to waste a lot of YOUR money.