Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Aerial trespasser shot at

Aerial trespasser shot at

An Albuquerque gas balloon pilot has been shot at as his balloon drifted over a corn field north of Lubbock, Texas.

If his balloon was over the property of another, then he was trespassing, and his act of calling enforcers to the scene was probably not justified. Of course, it wasn't particularly nice of the shooter to fire on the trespassing balloon, either. This is why I often include trespassing as an act that can justify a forceful response, but usually with the qualifier "sometimes" attached. I do think that there should be some ill-intent involved before shooting is the appropriate response to a trespasser.

A lost person who is not damaging your property should probably just be told to leave, or escorted off. I have led lost people from my property in the past and made it into a pleasant experience for us both. (And not all of them were cute girls, either.) There is no need, in most instances, to get twitchy about it.

I wonder if the violent response to the balloon may have been an unintended consequence of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. If the corn field held a cash crop made artificially profitable by prohibition, an exaggerated response might have been inevitable, since discovery would have bad consequences (not that shooting at someone is the smartest way to avoid LEO attention).

A balloonist or two drifting over your land are technically trespassing, since I don't buy the lie that the sky is State property. However, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as they weren't government employees. I don't think balloons can be steered all that well, and I don't think there is any harmful intent in most cases. However, I wouldn't support the arrest of a person who thought differently about their property rights.



Police chief on "code enforcement"

Here is the police chief's response to my column against "code enforcement" (with my comments in parentheses):

Some residents have bridled at the enforcement of the city codes while others
insist that it's long overdue.

("some residents", or only me?)

We've all seen cities in which there were no minimum standards for neighbors to
observe, where junked cars cause traffic hazards in the streets,...

(No, I have never seen a free city such as you describe. Where are these places? Why is a "junked car" more of a hazard than a 2011 Mercedes parked in the street? I can easily drive around either one, just as I do all the cop cars parked in the street at that one particular house in town. Why are these parked cop cars not a hazard to traffic?)

...where buildings lacking in repair drag down the property values of whole

(So, buy them, fix them up, and raise the property values without using the threat of coercion against the owner. If they are dragging down property values, they should be very affordable. Right?)

...where mosquitoes breed disease,...

(I already addressed the real problems like this in my original article. Using voluntary cooperation rather than brute force.)

...and where homeless animals wander in hunger and misery through their short
and violent lives.

(So let people shoot or adopt the "homeless animals", once again solving the problem without spending one dime of stolen "tax" money or using coercion against anyone. If the animals truly are homeless they are the property of no one and these acts would not violate anyone's rights the way the city's methods do.)

A community like that is not were anyone would choose to live and not something
that the residents of Farwell would ever accept.

(Really? If that's true who are these "some residents" who have "bridled" over your enforcement emphasis? A free community, free of tax parasites who feel it is OK for them to trespass and violate property rights in others ways is exactly where I would choose to live and what I would enthusiastically embrace, not just "accept". Don't assume you understand me, or can speak for me, you tyrant.)

The codes of any city are not designed to establish a dictatorial rule over
citizens, nor would there be any benefit to the city if they did.

(They may not be "designed to establish a dictatorial rule", but that is the real world result, isn't it? And there is a benefit to "the city" at the expense of the residents: money and power. You wouldn't be doing it if this were not the case. And don't lie and claim that isn't true.)

Farwell's officers are only attempting to perform the minimum duty of any
government, that is to ensure that every individual can live in peace and
harmony with his neighbors.

(That is NOT "the minimum duty of any government"; protecting the rights of everyone from being violated by anyone is the minimum duty AND also the maximum duty. It is the ONLY legitimate duty possible for any government. This "code enforcement" nonsense actually violates that duty. Plus, using coercion and threats of violence are not ways to promote peace and harmony. Respecting property rights, and all other rights, of all individuals, even when they do things that are within their rights but that you don't approve of, are the only way to ensure peace and harmony. Your rights end where someone else's begin, no matter what you want. Your enforcement results in suspicion, discord, and could even result in actual violence.)

The citizen who finds a neighbor is intruding onto his property through his
failure to observe even the minimum level of repair or hygiene that might be
expected should not have to deal with the problem himself.

(Why not deal with it himself? That's his job, and no one else's, if it is something that should legitimately be dealt with. Some people might just need to grow up and either take responsibility for themselves or live with their cowardice. And a big part of being a responsible human is accepting that there are some things that are absolutely none of your business.)

Residents can be assured that code enforcement is intended to accomplish no
more than that level of law and order and mutual respect that are the foundation
of any happy community.

(No thank you. I have seen the results of "law and order" and the mass graves that result, and I want no part of it. There can be no mutual respect as long as one party thinks programs such as this are acceptable and OK.)

Farwell Police Chief LK [name withheld to protect the guilty]

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad

Thank your lucky stars, or at least the nature of reality, that I don't have political power and that I'm a libertarian. If I had the power and I believed the lie that political power gives a person (or group of people) the right or the authority to impose their opinions on others who are harming no one (in other words, if I were as evil, narcissistic, and delusional as past and current congresscritters and presidents), what "laws" would I impose?

First I would make it illegal to mow lawns. Probably outlaw the disgusting things altogether. Native species look better (in my opinion), take less resources and effort to keep alive, and are more sensible. Nor do they "go kudzu" on you. I'd probably outlaw all exotic species of outdoor plants, other than food crops. If it didn't grow right here 600 years ago, get rid of it or move it indoors.

Next I'd make it illegal to go out of your house without carrying a functional and loaded gun. There's no excuse for it anyway. If you can't be trusted with a gun, you simply can't be trusted. Period.

Then, littering would be a capital offense. In fact there would be a bounty on litterers. And since everyone would be required to be armed there would be no excuse to not collect.

Plus, I'd look after my own financial concerns. Everyone would be required to buy multiple copies of all my books, assuming that as a statist monster I would bother writing any books. I certainly wouldn't be writing the same ones.

The nation's pastimes would not escape my notice, either. The FOX network would be given a choice: put Firefly back on the air with an adequate budget and full cooperation with the cast and crew's desires and needs, and air it in the best timeslot imaginable, or lose your FCC license. (Yeah, I'd still love the show, I might just be rooting for the Feds in this case.)

There are probably a lot more nasty and evil things I would do, given a complete lack of principles and the power to "legally" damage the lives of others. I have strong opinions, as do most people, but I know my opinions are just that- opinions, and it would be wrong of me to impose my wishes on others who are not attacking, defrauding, stealing, or trespassing.

Yet, none of those things I mentioned are any more insane or harmful than actual "laws" passed by politicians and bureaucrats (and enforced by LEOs) in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Washington DC, and supported by regular "citizens". I mean, really, killing people for having some dried leaves in their possession? Who's the monster?