Monday, December 31, 2012

Wrapping up 2012

Another arbitrarily designated year is coming to an end, and the next is about to begin.

I think a solstice or equinox makes a lot more sense for marking the "endginning" of a year- or a birthday if you have no desire to have a shared holiday experience- but whatever works.

I survived 2012... so far.  I didn't change my situation as much as I would like, but I did make small progress.  That's better than just holding my own or going backwards.  And there are some possibilities on the horizon- at least there seem to be.  And I can keep working toward something better.

I am caring less what "laws" surround me.  I am caring less what "authorities" proclaim.  I would like to see liberty explode over the globe, but I'm not holding my breath.  I know liberty isn't important to very many people, but I also know that only those who know it is important matter.

I hope your year was a good one, and I hope the next is better.


Sunday, December 30, 2012

Change needed

I really feel the need to change something in my life.  But I don't know what.

Maybe a new hobby.  Or perhaps revive an old one.  Maybe a "real job".  Maybe a change of scenery.  Or some (positive) adventure.  Maybe all of the above.

I know one thing I wish I could change, but that depends on the actions of another person, so all I can do there is try to not be an obstruction, even as I recognize it is unlikely to happen.

I did fairly well with my last New Year's resolution, so maybe I should make this my new one- if I can figure out what I need.



Saturday, December 29, 2012

An armed camp? Yes, PLEASE!

“Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?” ~ Dianne Feinstein

Obviously the idiot puppetician has never spent time in an armed camp.  

I have.  Many times.  And it was wonderful.  

People were friendly.  Strangers were openly welcomed, without fear.  Disputes were cordial, or at least peaceably resolved.  No one stole from anyone, even though valuables were left unattended.  No one attacked anyone.  Kids ran free and were watched by everyone.  

I could only wish America could return to being an armed camp.  All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than thugs like Feinstein and her gang- would ever want to give up such a life ever again.

It just shows what a dishonest, horrible, corrupt, despicable, and evil "person" Dianne Feinstein really is.  How sad for her.


Thursday, December 27, 2012

"If YOUR son went on a killing spree...?"

I have gotten this question, or similar (more literate) examples of this line of thinking on several occasions.  And I don't understand the thought processes that generate it.

"So my question to you Sir Had this been your son who committed an unthinkable and utterly unfathomable crime would you still be ok wil the use of and I quote 'Threat of force'"
(All errors, punctuation or lack thereof, and grammatical lapses in the original.)

And the answer is: YES!

If one of my loved-ones tried to commit an act similar to the one perpetrated by the Sandy Hook murderer, I would want him stopped- with deadly force if necessary- before he managed to harm even one innocent person.  Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

If a loved-one attempts a massacre of innocents, then I have already lost him anyway.  I want as little harm to come from his actions as possible.  In a case like this, the "least harm" comes with stopping the attacker as soon as possible.  However you have to.  No matter who it is, or "why" the attack was put into action.

For that matter, if I ever went berserk and tried to go on a killing spree, I would hope someone could stop me before I hurt any innocent person.  If I am not innocent and am an immediate threat, then I need to be stopped.  If my son or daughter is not innocent and is carrying out an attack, then they need to be stopped.

My desire for self-preservation, and for the well-being of my loved ones, does not trump my desire for the safety of innocent people.

This is also why I want to see any cop, soldier, drone operator, politician, or bureaucrat dead as soon as they initiate force, or give a credible indication that they intend to do so.  It is why I will NEVER "support the troops" or honor "law enforcement".

No double standards!


Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Libertarian values bring peace

Libertarian values bring peace

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 23, 2012)

Being libertarian isn't all fun and games. We are not necessarily the "party crowd" we are sometimes made out to be. While some libertarians are undoubtedly that way, as are many non-libertarians, it certainly isn't a given.

Libertarianism is not about "taking liberties", but about respecting the liberty of others to do as they wish with their own life as long as they are not stealing or attacking.

Many, perhaps most, libertarians have very ordinary personal lives. Some may never shoot or own a gun, may never smoke marijuana regardless of whether or not it is still criminalized, and may have no desire to do anything sexually experimental. Libertarians are not usually "libertines", although we will defend the right to be one- within limits.

Many have very deeply held moral beliefs which are quite familiar and traditional, and while realizing that we have no right to tell others how to live, we know that some choices are not right for us. We accept that we have no right to make those choices for others.

I may have no interest in doing something, but as long as the activity is consensual, I would never dream of stopping you or reporting you to "the authorities". It's simply none of my business. This has nothing to do with a libertarian's personal moral beliefs. Libertarians know enough to not interfere with the non-coercive behavior of others even if, personally, we find it disgusting. No one's personal idea of "immoral" should equal "illegal" nor become an excuse for using any form of coercion, official or private, against people. This is what leads to horrors such as Sharia Law and the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs.

We understand there is no such thing as "harming society" because apart from individuals, "society" is meaningless, and that if no third party individual is harmed, no one is harmed.

We generally understand that being offended is not the same as being harmed. This is a hard concept for even some libertarians to live.

We libertarians understand the value of minding our own business as long as the behaviors at issue are voluntarily engaged in by all individuals involved. Minding your own business and letting go of the desire to control the lives of others brings peace to your own life and is the truly neighborly way to be.

At its heart, libertarianism is the radical idea that other people are not your property. What could be more self-evident than that?


Government is imaginary?

I see a few people who make the claim that government isn't real.  It is all in your mind.  And, to an extent, that is true.

The same could be said of "family".  Or "society".  Or the NRA.  Or any group.

There are only individuals.

However, while a group is nothing without individuals, individuals become "more" within the group.  That "more" may be positive or negative.

Seeing yourself as a part of a group can give you courage to do things you would never think of doing on your own.  It might give you the courage to mount an effort to collect coats for poor people, or it might give you the courage to join a middle-of-the-night armed raid on someone's home.

The "collective" has a real-world effect.

It also has an effect on those who are not a part of the group.

It can be discouraging to see individual members of a gang attacking others with no consequences.  It can be discouraging to see what happens to their targets who fight back.  Bad guys find safety in numbers.  And the biggest numbers are found in that coercive, violent gang known as government.

Government doesn't exist apart from bad people willing to do what they believe government is empowered to do- the belief that belonging to government empowers them to do things that are forbidden to non-members- and those individuals, and their beliefs, are a danger to those who find themselves in the cross-hairs.  Ridiculing the existence of government will only get you so far.

While I could fill this blog, every day from now on, with individual examples of evil committed by people who only have the courage to commit the evil because of their membership in The Gang, that would be tiring, and no one would want to read that.  So, the shorthand of referring to the evils of government is useful.

In the end it comes down to individuals initiating force and theft.  But to ignore what motivates them, emboldens them, and helps them escape responsibility is to ignore the elephant in the room. As long as most people see government as a real thing, apart from the interchangeable individuals who make it up, you will keep needing to address that belief.


Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Merry Christmas

Or whichever Winter Solstice holiday you prefer to celebrate.

See you tomorrow.


Monday, December 24, 2012

JPFO's Sandy Hook Index

A lot of very good stuff has been posted on the JPFO site since the Sandy Hook massacre.  They have an index in case you would like to read some of the material.

Sandy Hook Index

(If you wonder why I tag these pro-liberty posts with "NRA", it is to make fun of the NRA for being missing in action, while others carry the weight.)


Sunday, December 23, 2012

The NRA's armed school guard plan

Speaking as a disgruntled NRA life-member, I will say that the NRA's advocacy of placing "armed guards" in schools is nuts.

Let me take a step back: I despise government schools and the entire state "education" system.  It indoctrinates to Statism/socialism instead of educating.  All government schools deserve to be burned, bulldozed, and forgotten.

However, for today they exist and millions of children are compelled to attend them.  As long as this is the reality, the kids need to be protected from attack.

Armed guards are not a good solution.  Especially if they are in uniform of some kind.  A uniform just says "shoot me first and then you are in the clear".

The rational solution is to have anyone who wants to be armed, be armed.  Without any tell-tale outward signs.  Without even the knowledge being shared with "authorities" who are a weak link where the information can be obtained and used.

In other words, it is better to assume that everyone is armed.

I also don't like the uniformed guards because kids shouldn't be trained to think of uniformed goons as being on their side.  Because that is a lie.  Don't let kids become conditioned to seeing a police state surrounding them.

Of course, this goes against the indoctrination goals of government schools- they WANT to train kids to accept a police state, and to obey it.

It just shows that the NRA is a statist organization that is more concerned with supporting armed elites, even when they are the bad guys, than in supporting the fundamental human right to own and to carry any type of weapon a person sees fit, in whatever manner they wish, everywhere they go, without ever asking permission of anyone.  Their perverted support of the military and reavers has given clear indications of that for years.

I oppose the NRA's armed school guard plan.


Saturday, December 22, 2012

That everyone be armed...

The most dangerous situation is not when everyone has a gun- it is when only one person has a gun.  Especially when that one person has ill intent.

When you create a "gun free zone" (a "slaughter house") you reduce the chances that good people will be armed, while doing absolutely nothing to disarm the one bad person.



Thursday, December 20, 2012

A friend in need of help

I have a good friend who is in desperate need of $500 by Monday.

If everyone would just send her $1, this would be solved.

I don't have any money to help, but I asked for her permission to publicize her need, and she gave it.  So, if you can help- either by sending her some money through Paypal to:

frezframejenn "at" gmail "dot" com

or by spreading the word to others who can help- please do.  As a personal favor to me.

Thank you.

UPDATE:  I really want to thank those of you who have helped her.  She is very grateful, and so am I.  She isn't "out of the woods" yet, so she and her daughter would appreciate not being forgotten, I am sure.


Fighting anti-liberty bigots

The collectivist anti-liberty bigots are determined to hand us all over to the murderous psychopaths- in the name of "safety".

And those politicians who are said to be on "our side" are weak, cowardly and all-too-willing to compromise "just a little", to appear "reasonable".

Will the final nail be put in the Second Amendment's coffin because of the Sandy Hook massacre?  Or has that coffin been nailed shut for decades, and we are just waiting for them to take the wax corpse off display in the Kremlin and bury it?

It's a fight I never wanted to see, but I will not allow myself and my kids to be sacrificed so that cowards can feel better.  And so that puppeticians can feel more powerful.  And be seen "doing something".

I'll fight because I have to, not because I want to, and not because I declare "war", but because war has been declared against me.


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

I should just shut up...

I am worn out.  Almost feeling defeated.

I don't want to have to spend so much time talking about the stupidity of further violating liberty in the name of "safety".  I don't want to have to talk about the self evident truth that you don't protect anyone by disarming them, and that bad guys don't care what your rules are- they are perfectly willing to violate the Zero Aggression Principle in the most hideous ways imaginable, so any more rules are less than nothing to them.

I know I have to gird my loins for a fight I don't want, didn't ask for... and can't afford to lose.

I was already emotionally exhausted because of an event that happened on December 19, nine years ago, which I have never recovered from.  Every time that date rolls around the pain washes over me and I feel close to drowning.  Plus, this year it is even more overwhelming due to factors I won't mention.

The deaths of those innocent kids in Connecticut, plus all the insane debates, and even some misguided (and utterly disgusting) "support" for them, cuts me to the bone.  But, just like watching a predator coming through a village, and seeing it eating children as it makes its way to my house, I know I don't have the luxury of grief- because my house is right in the path.  Sure, the lead predator is dead (good riddance, Filth!) but his pack (congress, president, and the rest of the anti-liberty bigots) is smelling blood and is even more dangerous than he was.

We fight or we die.

Don't back us into corners, and don't give us reasons to believe we have nothing left to lose.  But, it may already be too late for that.

I know more anti-gun "laws" are coming.  I will not comply.  In fact, if I find I am accidentally complying with any now, I may stop.  I have had enough.  I am too tired to worry about your "laws".  I am angry.  I have no intention of pretending the anti-liberty bigots have any legitimacy to their "arguments" at all.  They enable mass murder.  Period.  Disgusting vermin.

I had to drop out of some discussions on Facebook, because I was just pissing people off.  Even good people, who I agree with.  My diplomacy is at an all-time low ebb.  I have no patience left right now for those who seek to appease evil.

So I should probably just shut up until I feel more patient.


Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Law, at very foundation, irrelevant

Law, at very foundation, irrelevant

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 16, 2012)

How would you behave if there were no laws against murder or theft? How about your friends and relatives? Would any of you go on a rampage? If so, what's really stopping you now?

I think that people who obey such laws would not do those things in the absence of the laws. I also believe that the laws don't do anything to stop those who are determined to commit those vile acts. Good people don't need laws to restrain them and bad people won't be restrained by laws.

On the other hand, the vast majority of laws have nothing to do with right or wrong; good or bad. Not anymore. People routinely ignore them- some saying they don't know the laws exist, or that the laws don't apply to their situation. And it harms no one.

Why would anyone believe that everything needs to be subject to written rules which need to be violently enforced?

Bees need no rules, written and enforced, to make them behave like bees. Dogs need no written rules to make them behave like dogs. The only "dog laws" that are externally-imposed are those that go against the nature of dogs in order to mold them to the whims of humans.

Why do so many people believe that humans need written and enforced rules to behave humanely? Probably because so many unnatural rules, which go against Natural Law and which no one would otherwise obey, have been dreamed up.

The only real rules are those which are universal because of Natural Law, or those which can be opted out of- without abandoning your friends, family, and property. The universal rules are understood from birth: don't attack others and don't steal or damage other people's property. Nothing else is a real law, worth killing over.

No one needs a rule written in a book declaring murder illegal to know it is wrong. It is instinctive, even if it is sometimes violated. The only rules that have to be written down are those that violate human sovereignty. Like those "laws" against politically-incorrect drugs, or "laws" against keeping your own property when The State wants to take it, or "laws" written to punish you for not wearing a seat belt.

Violating these "laws" doesn't make you a worse person; nor does obeying them make you better. What does make you a bad person is aggression and theft, even when those things are permitted by "law" in your circumstances. Law, at its very foundation, is irrelevant.


Anti-liberty bigots on display

I saw a status on Facebook that was admitting that if The State would give up ALL its various weapons first, the poster would vote for "citizen" disarmament.

Not that rights are subject to a vote.... but anyway...

One of the first comments posted was by a Fudd who wanted to keep his shotgun, but wanted to restrict semi-autos and full-autos because access to them is too easy.


Hilariously, he claims to know the difference between automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms, even as his "argument" proves he doesn't.

Moving right along, he claimed that gun shows are places where you can buy both types of firearms with no "background check" at all.  Responding to further incredulous comments he claimed he has been to gun shows and has never seen any feds (or anyone else) monitoring sales in any way, no one conducting "background checks" or complying with the "law" in any way.  And, I suppose he has never seen the dealers on the phone with the NICS either.  I have.  And I've seen plenty of feds- both in uniform and in disguise.

He says he knows a person who has over 200 semi-autos in a collection, and his justification for regulating these seems to be that the collector can't "fire off all of those weapons simultaneously".  Guess what, I can't read all my books simultaneously, either.  Or listen to all my MP3s at once.  Or watch all my DVDs.  Or... well, you get the idea.  I suppose morons such as he would claim that The State should regulate those things, too.

Then I pointed out that while gun dealers are all forced to comply with the NICS "laws", private sellers (in some states) at gun shows are still free to sell guns, just like they are from their own home.  Which he then claimed was proof that I said "not all gun shows are regulated".

When I pointed out that the Second Amendment makes it illegal to make "laws" concerning guns, he said I was wrong.  I told him to read the Second Amendment again.  To which he replied "There's no talking to you, it's your way or the highway, and there is no room for dialogue with any of you. Good night." and "You're all too intransegent [sic] and are too paranoid that someone [w]ill steal your stupid guns. Grow up, guys."

It's like the other guy who was calmly wetting himself (in another comment thread) over the availability of guns in America who wanted to educate me about what the Second Amendment said.  So I posted a link to my own website where I talk about and dissect the Second Amendment and the right that it was supposed to protect from government.  He "congratulated" me for having read the article I linked to, but told me to read the original document for myself- he said that even as a non-American he knew the Second Amendment better than I did.  He changed the subject and went off on a strange tangent when I mentioned that I wrote the "article" in question.

And that, folks, is the intellect of our opponents- the anti-liberty bigots.  Their only strength is in numbers, and in the fact that the murderous criminals of government are on their side.


Monday, December 17, 2012

Brain Control- the State's goal

The most dangerous weapon- in fact, the ONLY weapon there is- is the brain.

Let me say that again: there in NO such thing as a weapon beyond the human brain.

Without it a gun or a rock or a fist or a pointy stick or a frozen tuna can't hurt anyone except in extraordinary accidental circumstances.

So, never forget that the final stage of any anti-gun "laws" is to remove you from your brain.  The State doesn't want you to even be able to imagine defending yourself or others from attack.  Because, when all is said and done, agents of The State intend to be the last attackers you will encounter.

Government's need stupid people.


Sunday, December 16, 2012

NM's reps Chavez and Gray deserve some credit

I'll assume you own and carry a gun.  So, why haven't you started murdering people yet?  What's your problem?  What are you waiting for?  You're just letting your gun go to waste!

That's the sort of "logic" being used against a couple of New Mexico legislators, Rep. Ernest H. Chavez (D - Albuquerque) and Rep. William "Bill" Gray (R - Artesia), who didn't initiate force against anyone in the past year by proposing new violations of liberty or property.

KRQE asks "What do you call a lawmaker who doesn't propose any laws?"

I'd say "A good first step!"

KRQE's reporting on this "crisis" shows just how perverted "thinking" has become in America.

To propose, or pass, a new "law" means you are a failure.  Personally and professionally.  Even if that is supposedly your "job".  It means that instead of convincing people to do what you want them to do, you have decided to cheat by using governmental power to force them to go along- under threat of coercive violence.

I'm sure Chavez and Gray still voted for plenty of "laws", so they aren't completely unstained by the blood of innocents, but if every legislator followed their example there would be no new "laws" out there harming people.

There has been no need for any new "law" for thousands of years.  Since the first person "got it" and realized that murder is wrong, that attacking someone who isn't attacking or stealing is wrong, and that taking other people's stuff is wrong, all the necessary laws have been in existence.  And those never even needed to be written down.

So, if Gray or Chavez read this (yeah, right...) I'd like to encourage them to not bend to peer pressure.  Just because you carry a gun- or can propose "laws"- it doesn't mean it's a good thing to use that power to harm your innocent neighbors.  In fact, quite the opposite.  You will have then become part of the problem.  Live to a higher standard.


Saturday, December 15, 2012

"11 Steps to Fascism"

I found this picture on Facebook.  The person who posted the picture said "Almost there".  I think he is being overly optimistic.  All the steps have obviously been taken, with the possible exception of the final step: "Disarm the citizen".

I think all the steps have been taken.  We are there.

Most citizens are already effectively disarmed. Otherwise they would NEVER comply with "gun free zones" ("slaughter houses") or any other anti-gun "laws". They would never apply for permits, nor go through NICS screenings. They wouldn't bother getting permission to own and to carry fully-automatic firearms, or sawed-off shotguns, or silencers.

They beg for permission to exercise a fundamental human right, and wait 'til the "laws" are changed to do so. They have been brainwashed into believing that "laws" are legitimate, when they are not. Screw that.


The State versus the 2nd Amendment

Have you ever noticed that people arrested on gun charges are not allowed to argue their innocence based upon the Second Amendment?  In other words, they are not allowed to use the fact that the Second Amendment makes all gun "laws" illegal as part of their defense.

Why might that be?

The reason is very simple: The State knows they'd lose. They realize they don't have a leg to stand on.

Given the "authority" to rule you, a werewolf wouldn't allow you to use a silver bullet, either.  A vampire would forbid garlic, sunlight, crosses, and wooden stakes.  A rapist would never permit you to use a gun to fend him off, and the US government will never allow one of its victims to point out that the Constitution makes it a serious crime to advocate, pass, or enforce ANY anti-gun "law", no matter how "trivial".

Shall NOT be infringed!

So, when forbidden- by your attacker- to use the one tool that could kill him in one simple stroke, what do you do?  You certainly don't claim that this makes him right.  You point out that this is because he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is dead wrong.  He knows he is the bad guy, and he can't win unless he rigs the "game".

All legitimacy is lost.

(Ironically today, December 15th, is Bill of Rights Day.)


Friday, December 14, 2012

Gun rights vs. Health care rights

I have seen people complaining today that in America gun ownership is a right, but health care (specifically, mental health care) is not.

Guess what, rights are the same everywhere- in Ghana, Japan, America, Antarctica, Italy, Argentina, Tasmania, Iceland, wherever.  Rights are identical for every human being no matter where they live.  The local government can either respect those rights or violate them, but they can't alter them one tiny bit.

So, yes, in America (and everywhere else) gun ownership is a right.

As is health care- as long as you provide it for yourself.

No one is obligated to give you a gun you didn't buy, and no one is obligated to treat your health issues for free either.

You have the fundamental human right to own and carry the gun you obtained without theft or coercion, and you have the fundamental human right to seek any health care you want as long as you don't get it through theft or coercion.

Forcing a medical provider to treat you for "free", or to force someone else to pay the fee for you, is slavery.  It is WRONG.

So, whining about gun rights as opposed to health care rights is exposing yourself as an idiot.


Fear? No. Resolve.

I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to defy those who want me to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I will never comply with those who would wish to take away the tools that allow me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.


Elementary school shooting- like tragic clockwork

Once again, "conveniently" just as puppeticians are discussing a plot to violate your fundamental human right to own and to carry any kind of gun you desire, everywhere you go, in any manner you see fit, without ever asking permission from anyone, a "Manchurian Shooter" has been activated.

I see some anti-liberty bigots crying that "this isn't the time for politics".  Well, they would be right if their anti-liberty politics were not directly to blame.

The story doesn't change; only the details do.

Put innocent people in a place where the good guys are forbidden to have guns.  Make sure escape is made difficult- a bottleneck is good, especially if there are doors that can be locked in a "lock-down" so that no one can get out of harm's way.  Propose some new anti-gun "laws".  Activate the shooter.  Then scream that people who didn't kill or harm anyone must be punished for the acts of a bad guy who broke every law in existence in order to carry out his act.

A person who has no compunction about murdering children will NOT obey your newest anti-gun "law".  And neither will anyone else who sees that you are handing society over to the murderers a little more with every new anti-liberty "law" you parasites propose, pass, and enforce.  It is past time to say "Enough!  Not one more inch!"

New "laws" will NEVER prevent this.  Only by getting rid of counterfeit "laws" that criminalize self-defense and the tools to effectively carry it out will you prevent most of these massacres.  But nothing- not even rounding up all gun owners and putting them in the ovens- will prevent them all.

People who are determined to kill a bunch of people will always find a way to make the attempt.  Do you want to make sure their intended victims are helpless in the face of the attack, or do you want to make sure there is a chance to stop the attack before the body count climbs?

Don't even give me that tired crap about how you don't "think" more guns is the answer.  Because it most assuredly is.  Don't lie about "bullets flying", or "body armor" (which the Aurora shooter has been shown to have NOT been wearing, by the way).  Don't start spewing lies about cops being the only ones "well-trained enough" to be able to stop these attacks.  Because cops never do manage to stop anything in these "gun free zones".

If you advocate regulating the right of self defense, and the guns that make it more likely to survive, then YOU have blood on your hands.  YOU are guilty of aiding and abetting the murderers.  Don't you dare start trying to point the finger at those of us who work to prevent these acts that get you so excited.  Your Blood Dancing disgusts me.  You are evil.

I hate the fact that there is never time to grieve for the innocents murdered due to the Blood Dancers, those Mass-Murderer Fan Club goons, immediately using this "opportunity" to try to attack me.  And you.  I have to put away my feelings and prepare to defend myself from those who hate liberty.  I can cry later.


Thursday, December 13, 2012

Don't pledge? Hand hecklers a card

Yesterday's Pledge of Allegiance problem, and an exchange with L. Neil Smith, resulted in this project:

How about a business card that you can hand to anyone who objects to your act of self-ownership?

I made them in PDF form, and for Avery template 8371 and I'll email the files to anyone who requests them.  Later, I may add them to one of my websites for downloading, but I'll wait and see what people think.

As I do with most of my work, I offer this for free.  Feel free to tip me for my work if you feel so inclined, because, as always, I could really use the money, but it is not necessary to do so if you'd like the files.  Really.


Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Today, I was "this guy"

No, I am no August Landmesser.  I did follow my conscience, though.

It may not have been exactly a Nazi rally, and I probably wasn't in any real danger, but if you won't stand up (or remain seated) for what's right when it is easy, how do you expect to stand up for what's right when it is hard?

You have read of my difficulties since my daughter chose to enroll in the government school.  Today her kindergarten class had a Christmas concert (complete with State-sponsored Christianity).  I was shocked, although I probably shouldn't have been, when they began the program with a Nazi ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance.

I did not stand or chant with the crowd, and may have been the only to not do so.  I try very hard to avoid places and situations where this ritual will be followed- sometimes despite my best efforts I find myself in the middle of it.  I have not participated in years.

Yes, I felt self-conscious, but that's better than feeling like a Nazi.  I was also a little afraid of some "good ol' boy" wanting to make an example of me.  I'm glad nothing happened.


Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Election does not change abuse

Election does not change abuse

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 9, 2012.)

The election has come and gone, and even though I am writing this before any actual results are in, I already know the outcome with absolute certainty. Once again a crooked politician has won the presidency and America- specifically the liberty which is the only thing that distinguishes America from any second-rate banana republic- has been stomped down a little more. If you don't believe me let's discuss this again in three years or so and see where the situation stands at that time.

It is the same story every election. If the incumbent wins re-election he interprets this as a "mandate" for every scatterbrained socialist scheme he has been pursuing and throttles up his rush to destruction. If the opposition wins, he takes the helm with reckless abandon and continues the disastrous policies of his predecessor, with more vigor since he is fresh and energized and has a "mandate".

No new president changes course, or even puts on the brakes. Instead, after winning the election by pretending to differ from the incumbent, they all embrace the powers the other guy wielded and abused, put their own twist on the use and abuse, and start collecting more powers to hand off to the next guy, for him to wield and abuse in exciting new ways.

I can't believe some people don't see this.

In the long run, while the political clowns desperately want you to believe it matters what they do, it really doesn't. Remember this when choosing where to spend your precious energy.

Now that this quadrennial national circus is over for a while perhaps Americans can concentrate on important things.

Things like watching out for your neighbor without prying into his business.

Things like exploring new ways to make money and help the local economy while helping yourself- voluntarily.

Things like respecting other people's choices to do as they see fit, even if you really hate their particular choices, as long as they respect the same liberty for others.

Things like keeping your own house in order by refusing to attack the innocent, refusing to take any other person's property without their permission, and refusing to hire anyone to do either on your behalf.

In other words, acting like a neighbor instead of looking for a political advantage over anyone.

It will be a refreshing change. And, just maybe, the next time elections roll around you'll remember the important things instead of listening to the childish clowns and getting drawn into their playground squabbles.


Monday, December 10, 2012

Sunday, December 09, 2012

It's about power

It's not about Obama.  It wasn't about Bush.  It wasn't about FDR or "America's Lenin", the mis-sainted Abraham Lincoln.

It's about giving the guy who demonstrates nothing but the fact that he can win an election the power to control things that are none of his business.

It doesn't matter if you like giving him that power, or if you only want him to use it against those people you don't like.  He doesn't deserve that power- no one does- and he can't use it without hurting innocent people.


Saturday, December 08, 2012

No new ideas?

It used to bother me when I came up with a thought, a "new idea", and then discovered that other people (Lysander Spooner, H. D. Thoreau, etc.) had thought the same thought long before I did.

This doesn't bother me much anymore.

Some things are just so self-evident that people who think will continue to come up with the same ideas over and over again.  This is a very good thing.

The fact that I have an idea isn't very influential.  Perhaps someday someone more influential than me will have the idea and it will spread like wildfire.  Or, perhaps someday enough people will have the same idea at the same time and it will cause a huge shift in society.

Keep thinking those thoughts and don't worry that countless others throughout history have probably thought of the same thing.  There may be no new ideas, but there are certainly new situations where those old ideas are needed.

And be sure and take those liberty-enhancing thoughts you have and put them to work in the real world instead of keeping them hidden inside your head.  Because, ultimately, that's the only real value to having the ideas.


Wednesday, December 05, 2012

"Fighting for honor"?

A while back on another blog, a commenter went ballistic about "fighting for honor" in some hypothetical scenario (which I don't remember).  That really stuck in my head and has been rolling around in there since then.  Fighting for honor.  It's a concept I have heard all my life, but never gave it much thought.

Honor.  What is it?

Well, if you follow the link above you'll see that says "honor" is:

1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
4. such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.
5. high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.

How can you fight for any of those things?  I see nothing there that can be protected or enhanced by fighting for "honor".

If, though, you could, is it worth fighting for?

I don't think so.  In fact, I think if you fight for honor, you lose it.

I think you build honor by fighting for other things that demonstrate that you have honor, not for the honor, itself.

When you fight for the liberty of an enemy, you build honor.

When you fight for the right of others to do things that you don't personally like, but that they are not violating anyone else's rights by doing, your honor increases.

When you defend the innocent from an attacker, you show you have honor.

You don't need to fight for it.

When you fight because someone has questioned your honor, or your heritage, or your beliefs, your honor withers.

When you fight because you have been disrespected, your honor dies.

When you do evil things because you hope to boost your honor, you lose it.

At least in my eyes.  I have trouble seeing how it could be otherwise.


Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Government should open market

Government should open market

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 2, 2012.)

I will probably never understand those who feel that the solution to any problem is to get the government to do something about it, either by popular vote or government edict.

Very few things should ever be subject to a vote, and nothing that would violate the rights of the losing side should ever be put to a vote- nor imposed by law.

I recently watched an online video that told the story of how the Dutch got their bicycle paths. Instead of having those who thought it was a good idea join together in voluntary cooperation, the advocates instead joined forces to have government impose the plan on everyone. I'd agree with them that good bicycle paths are a great idea, and I'd enjoy having them, but if I force others to finance them I have taken something wonderful and turned it into something ugly. I have spat in the soup.

Why do you have to use coercion and "law" to effect changes that you think are a good idea? Is your plan not good enough that people would voluntarily support it? And is it so expensive that you can't allow those who are opposed, for whatever reason, to opt out of helping you pay for it? Nothing is that important.

The same applies to any government service.

I have no problem paying for what I use, or using what I am forced to pay for. The problem is being forced to pay for things that I neither want, nor use. Most coercively-financed things fall into this category.

In a free market situation I could choose the services that suit me best, at a price that is more appropriate for me, just by being allowed to spend my money as I see fit, rather than as some "majority" or "authority" demands.

I'm not saying force the government to stop offering its version of any service, just open the market to competition. If the government option is the best, people will support it. Voluntarily. With their own money, instead of with their neighbor's money.

The whole situation reminds me of the rich people who demand that the government raise their taxes. Nothing is stopping them from signing a bank account over to The State. The secret is, they know this already- they just want to force others to do the same thing. It is no different if the advocate of the government "solution" is poor. You can't be generous with other people's money. That is called "theft". It spoils the best of intentions.



There has to be a balance somewhere.

You need to be aware that the US government is capricious and evil.  You need to know that it can and will arbitrarily strand you far from home (after allowing you to leave its "borders"), and then, just maybe, "graciously" allow you to go home again- after a period of letting you sweat.

You need to be aware that cops will kidnap and murder you for doing things that are perfectly ethical.  Like carrying a gun or growing plants.

You need to be prepared for the fact that government goons can destroy your business for any number of sketchy "reasons"- that they can steal your home, car, and even your kids.

However, there have always been bad guys and there always will be- these are just the primary ones who happen to inflict this spot on the Earth at this time in history.  They aren't special.

You can't let these worthless parasites take away your joy in living.  That's what they would really like, and there's no point in handing them that trophy.

However, it isn't safe to ignore them or pretend they aren't the bad guys.

So what do you do?

I'd say, be aware, just don't obsess over them.  Stay balanced.  Find balance.  For every disgusting act of State that enrages you, find something beautiful to balance it out.  Live as free as you can in spite of the goons and their "laws".  Love deeply if you have the opportunity.  Laugh as often as you can.

And keep in mind that there will always be evil thugs who will try to destroy your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness- even in Libertopia.  Don't put them on a pedestal when their proper setting is the sewer.


Monday, December 03, 2012

US dollars = welfare? The alternative

I'm just sitting here wondering what the real difference is between Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)- US "dollars"- and welfare.

Neither has any basis in reality or inherent value.  Both are printed or electronically created out of thin air, and backed by nothing and really paid for by no one.  Other than the fact that the more of either one there is, the less value each "dollar" has.  Just like any other counterfeiting operation.

The use of either one also contributes to the coming economic collapse.

The only difference I can see is one of perception.

I haven't had a single paper "dollar" in my wallet for over a couple of weeks now, but in my pocket I have a couple of Morgan silver dollars, and a few ounces of .999 silver.  So, I'm "broke", yet I'm not.

Right now, that real money doesn't work well at most stores or for paying bills, but I don't carry it for "right now" anyway.  I carry it for when a paper (or electronic) "dollar" finds its true value.  And, I carry it in case of emergency, in the hopes that if I find myself in dire circumstances I will have something of value to trade, since I usually have no FRNs.

As long as other people keep accepting FRNs in trade, I will continue to accept them.  But the instant that trust starts to fade I will start only accepting REAL money for goods or services.  I hope others are smart enough to do the same.  Let the hyperinflation be powerless against you.


Sunday, December 02, 2012

Economic contemplation

I should probably go out and get one of those "jobs" I've heard so much about and not spend so much time writing.

If anyone is feeling a little generous, this would be a nice time to donate a little bit to my Paypal account.

But, if not, I completely understand.


Thursday, November 29, 2012

"No true Scotsbertarian"

How many times have you heard- or written- "No real libertarian would ever...."?  Did someone throw the "No true Scotsman" fallacy in the mix right away?  Did it actually apply?

Because it often doesn't.

If you say "no true Scotsman can survive a complete decapitation", or "no true Scotsman is native to the Moon" then you'd be correct.  By definition.  It's not the same as saying "no true Scotsman would wear pink socks".

I've seen that fallacy called into play when someone says "no libertarian can be in favor of any form of taxation" or "no libertarian can support the 'troops'"

Yet, it is accurate to say that "no true Scotsman can flap his arms and fly to the moon", because any creature which could do that would not be human.  By definition he could not be a "true Scotsman".

So it is with the "pro-tax libertarian"- taxation is theft and is enforced by violating the ZAP, and the same goes for military "service".  Since the ZAP is the definition of "libertarian", no one can support those things and be a libertarian.  At least not a consistent one.

But, if someone claims "no real libertarian would use a public library", then you'd be correct in calling this a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  There is no wrong in using what you are forced to pay for, as long as you don't advocate the continuation of the theft.  There will be a difference of opinion from person to person, and neither side is automatically eliminated from the category of "real libertarian".

Just because I apply a label to myself doesn't make the label accurate.  If I fit the definition, then I am what I say.  If I don't, then I am something other than what I claim to be.  And, that's fine.  People get confused over what words mean all the time.  It's not worth fighting over.  If you don't fit the definition, find where you do fit and correct what you call yourself.  But if you are not a Scotsman, don't be offended when someone points it out.


Wednesday, November 28, 2012

See how helpful The State is?

I ran across a story in the news a couple of days ago.  It said that "For the growing number of teenage girls who are incarcerated each year, detention may be the only time they get health care."

I see more than one disturbing thing in that sentence.

First, that the number of caged teenage girls is increasing.

Second, that State interference has made health care inaccessible to so many people.

And third, that some people try to justify the caging by pointing out that these girls need health care they aren't otherwise getting.

Even though the one girl mentioned in the story wasn't there directly as a consequence of the stupid and evil War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs, I'd be willing to bet money her crime is somehow tied to prohibition.  As is the vast majority of the abuse and other health issues discovered in the health screenings

End that idiotic policy, prohibition, and there would be a fraction of the current number of political prisoners held in cages in America in a few years- if not immediately.  And the rest of the crimes caused or exacerbated by prohibition would dwindle as well.  It would put reavers out of a job, which would be a good thing.  It would diminish the power of the judges.  It would help ALL of society.  Except those who drag society down- the drug warriors and their buddies on the violent supply side (with considerable overlap between the two) of the drug trade.  Those allies are a burden that society can't afford.  Ending prohibition would pull the rug out from under them.  Soon isn't soon enough.


Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Control stifles economic process

Control stifles economic process

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 26, 2012.)

In normal life, people generally see a monopoly as a bad thing. Lack of competition leads to poor services or products, inflated prices, and customer service gets put on the back burner because the money will come in regardless.

Business monopolies can only exist in collusion with government. Without the protectionism of regulation and red tape, competitors would quickly arise to satisfy the unhappy customers. Government stifles this natural process for the benefit of its corporate supporters and donors, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Government is the ultimate destructive monopoly. One whose "services" you can't even refuse. This results in the worst possible scenario.

Why pretend this particular monopoly is good?

A local church doesn't declare rulership over its neighborhood; instead the members mix and mingle in the community on equal footing with members of other churches whose "territories" overlap without borders. You don't tithe to your neighbor's church, you are not subject to its rules, nor are you entitled to any help from them. Those who wish to opt out of membership altogether are not assaulted or robbed for not going along, nor are they forced to leave the area.

A legitimate government would follow the same template: overlapping autonomous "associations" competing for "customers". The only universal rules that would apply everywhere would be based on Natural Law: don't attack others, and don't steal or damage other people's property. Everything else is a matter of opinion.

Overlapping governments could allow people to contract with them, pay the applicable taxes, abide by a set of rules, and get specified benefits in return. Your neighbors on each side might contract with different governments than you do. When signed up with one government you owe no taxes to the others and could get nothing from them without paying for it directly on a per use basis. Only those who wanted to finance a service would have to.

Those who choose to not join any government at all would still have to pay for any government service they wished to use, or they could choose a non-governmental provider, since a lack of a monopolistic government would allow a market in services to develop- including those things people wrongly assume can only be provided by government, such as roads and bike paths, security, education, water and sewer, and justice. Anyone who feels they do not need any particular service would not be forced to pay for it. Then the market would decide whose services were superior and which would die off.

Everyone wins except those who want to justify their coercion and force everyone into a "one size fits all" mold.


Does complexity necessitate theft and coercion?

Does a complex society necessarily sustain its complexity through theft and coercion or could you have an honest complex society?

I have read things that explain how complex societies "require" a State, due to their complexity.  That a monopoly of force is required to keep strangers from attacking and stealing.

The theory goes that simple societies, such as primitive hunter/gatherer societies, can get by without a State because of their small size (fewer individuals and less-complex connections between them), but once you get enough people in a society a State becomes "necessary" to keep people from attacking or robbing "strangers".

If that is true it seems more reason to revert (or advance) to simple societies again, rather than justification for The State and its requisite theft and coercion.

I hope it isn't true.  I like technology and don't think very many of the people I like would survive long (or well) without it.  Even though I also like primitive technology, too.

Of course, I can't really see how anointing some with special powers to rob and kill is better than letting the bad guys just take their chances with robbing or attacking people who might defend themselves.  A monopoly of force just empowers those most likely to abuse it.

And, as I have pointed out in the past, just because something might have been true in the distant past doesn't necessarily mean it is still true today.  Humans haven't changed, but their environment and their world has.  I think technology- guns, internet/communication, and so forth- changes the game in fundamental ways.  I think it puts people on a more even playing field and makes it harder for the bad guys to hide, once you remove the veil of legitimacy that the State seems to confer.

I would be perfectly willing to be a guinea pig and test the theory by living without a State keeping me or my enemies in line in a modern society.


Monday, November 26, 2012

I Hate Cops

I Hate Cops

(Originally published in the Libertarian Enterprise)

Let me just start by saying I hate cops. Yes, I admit it may be an irrational hatred, and I probably shouldn't hate them—and I certainly shouldn't admit it. If you are just going to scold me for that stop reading now and go do something else.

I am also going to make wholly appropriate comparisons of cops to Nazis. If that bothers you, or if you feel tempted to misapply "Godwin's Law" in order to try to shout me down, go away.

I am also going to tell you right now that I am happy every time I hear of a cop being killed. I don't care what the circumstances are. I hate the fact that innocent people also die in some of the same incidents. "Collateral damage" is NEVER justifiable. But fewer live cops is invariably a good thing. If you disagree, fine. Some people would disagree that the earth is not flat and doesn't rest on the back of a stack of giant turtles. And that is just how much sense your objection makes to me. So don't waste my time or yours, and stop reading now.

As I say, I hate cops. And I'm not too fond of copsuckers, either.

I would be perfectly willing to sign an agreement stating that I will exercise my right to never speak to another cop for the rest of my life (obviously, unless I attack or steal and someone else sends cops after me instead of dealing with me like a grown-up), and in exchange I can never, ever expect a cop to come to my aid in any way, in any situation. It would be a low price for such liberty. I'd sign such an agreement in half a heartbeat. The cops could go their way and I'd go mine. I'd never bother them in any way, as long as they didn't attack me.

I know that would disappoint all the sincere copsuckers who love to claim that libertarians are fond of "hating on cops" until someone attacks us, then we run crying and pissing ourselves, begging for the cops to save us. I've never seen it happen, and I suspect it is simply projection on the part of the emasculated copsuckers. So, yeah, I'd sign. I don't "need" cops. There is no situation so horrible that it can't be made much worse by adding a cop to the mix.

Sure, some of you may know cops who you believe are "good" people. And, as long as they aren't being a cop, maybe they are. I have known cops, and I have had long conversations with some, so don't whine that I just need to "sit down with a cop over a cup of coffee" so that I can understand them. That argument is so empty it is silly.

I suspect—no, I am certain that most Nazis were decent people to those they knew. Very few were genuine monsters. The uniform and the swastika was just a "job"—one that was socially acceptable and even honored in society. They probably felt good about their "service"—about protecting society from "anarchy". Most probably never personally killed an innocent person during their whole Nazi experience. And not many cops are Joe Arpaio, either.

Not all bad guys are cops, obviously, but few bad guys self-identify as openly as do the badged reavers. The guy standing in line behind you at the grocery store might be a member of a violent youth gang, but if he displays any outward signs of this affiliation, they are likely to be noticed (or correctly identified) only by other gang members. If all violent gang members wore a tag on their chest identifying them as such in plain language or hieroglyphs, people would treat them differently. People might be more likely to interpret more of their actions as a threat and might be quicker to employ self defense. Since the roster of gang members in any particular gang is so low, this wouldn't be a good survival tactic on their part.

No one could be blamed too harshly for shooting a self-identified gang member who made an aggressive move. Just like no one could have been blamed for shooting anyone wearing the swastika openly who makes a move that seems to be a credible threat to initiate force. Even a nice Nazi like Oskar Schindler would have been a legitimate target simply because of the swastika gang sign he wore (I'm assuming he wore it at least when he attended official functions).

Today, of all the violent gangs, only cops openly display gang signs for all to see and interpret. There is no chance of a mistaken identification. So far, they have suffered no real costs for this arrogance. This is because their gang is not only the largest and most violent, but because they have the support of those they consider their enemies (or their "crop")—"the public". Defend yourself from one of these gangsters and the hordes sent to avenge them is never-ending.

"Law enforcement" is an inexcusably evil "job". There is absolutely no decency in it. That wasn't true of "peace officers", but once they were replaced by "law enforcement officers" no good person could fill that "job". Once a cop enforces even one counterfeit "law"—any law attempting to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft—he becomes an evil thug. There are no two ways about it.

I don't fear cops, except when forced to deal with one. Too many innocent people get murdered on the altar of "Officer Safety" for my comfort, and there's no telling what will set the twitchy, guilt-ridden vermin off. So, yes, any interaction with a potential murderer is upsetting, especially since I never choose to interact with them voluntarily.

My most recent encounter with a LEO happened while I was driving my dad's pickup (I have been without a functioning vehicle for nearly a year now) a few blocks—just across the state line so my sister could pick up an item from the grocery store. I was pulled over because the license plate light wasn't shining. No aggression or theft on my part. Nothing even "unsafe" about that at all—simply a control/tracking issue. Something cops are becoming increasingly obsessed over.

The parasite approached with exaggerated caution and warned me to put my hands where he could see them. Coward. If I were going to defend myself from him (in today's climate, such a reasonable action is suicidal), he would have already been shot. Or, I could have waited until he relaxed a little and turned to walk back to his ThugMobile, and then taken my time with aiming and all the technical details. Nope, it's all about setting the tone.

I couldn't find all the demanded "papers" in my dad's vehicle, and was warned that "in New Mexico it is required that ...". Funny, it seems that the cop isn't allowed to apply New Mexico "law" to cars registered in Texas, when the Texas "requirements" are different. But I neither know "the law", nor really care. My dad, however, later showed me the demanded piece of paper and it stated quite clearly what was "required"—and the Texico, New Mexico cop was wrong. Surprise, surprise.

I was let off, without even a warning ticket. However I find myself not wanting to travel anywhere. I am tired of being surrounded by these parasitic vermin and seeing their disgusting thieving beside the road every time I go anywhere—even if I am not the victim.

America IS a police state—and it is called "The United States of America". And I hate cops.

Deal with it.


Sunday, November 25, 2012

The "Abolish the State button"

One of the standard arguments against liberty that always seems to crop up is that it is hopeless.  The State in some form or another is inevitable.  Liberty- anarchy- won't last long before another State grows out of the fertile soil; from the desires of weak-minded people to be led.

Why abolish The State if it'll just happen again?

OK, then.

I might as well never bathe or wash laundry again since I and my clothes will only get dirty and I'd have to wash again.

I might as well not eat since in a few hours I'll only get hungry once more.

Why bother even getting out of bed?  At the end of the day I'll just need sleep again.

It's really a very childish justification.

Sure, a new State might arise before too long, but not immediately, and it would take some time for it to become tyrannical again.  Is there no value to be found in the liberty the people would enjoy in the meantime?  I think there is.

I'm willing to hit the "Abolish the State button" even if it only turns out to be a "reset button".


Saturday, November 24, 2012

Addicted to a placebo during the plague

There once was a terrible disease that killed a great many people.  It was such a fact of life that, while some people did move to new lands in an attempt to escape its ravages, most didn't recognize the disease as such even as it killed them.  And, of those who tried to move beyond its reach, they invariably brought the sickness with them wherever they migrated.

A few doctors and pharmacists finally joined together, saying they would try to cure this horrible affliction.  They worked very hard under unpleasant, and even dangerous, conditions to come up with a new medicine.

When they announced their success they were hailed as heroes.

The public believed the new medicine would cure the disease, or at least control its symptoms enough that it wouldn't kill as many people.  Possibly, with the help of this new medicine, the disease could be harnessed, like a vaccine, to prevent even worse diseases.

So the new miracle drug was administered both as a cure for the disease and as a treatment to keep the disease from getting out of control- and at first it did seem to work.  There were signs from the beginning, though, that things were not quite as advertised.

Sadly, as the years went by it turned out that this apparent success was mostly a placebo effect.  It also turned out that the doctors and pharmacists hadn't really tried to cure the plague- only to rein it in.  See, some of them liked some of the side-effects of the disease.  It kept them in business, and allowed them to make a good living dealing with the symptoms.  Some of them even intentionally infected unsuspecting people so that they could then "help" them feel better.

The worst was yet to come.

In time the disease came back with a vengeance.  This time it was worse than ever.  It had become immune to even the mitigating effects of the medicine.  It was raging out of control and mutating in frightening new ways.  The medicine had failed.

Yet, strange as it may seem, some of the people had become addicted to the medicine and didn't want to give it up- even refusing to admit that it had failed.  Instead of finding an actual cure for the disease, they insisted that the medicine would have worked, if only it had been used as prescribed.  They became almost rabid in their promotion of the medicine as a treatment (or even as a cure), even as it kept failing to work as advertised, and even as the disease became a raging epidemic, threatening a pandemic of disastrous proportions which needed only the smallest, unpredictable trigger to become highly fatal.

Anyone pointing out that the medicine had failed, and that changing the dosage or forcing doctors to prescribe it wouldn't change the fact that the medicine didn't actually contain the correct ingredients to cure the disease, became the enemy.

So, here we sit.  In the midst of a plague of State that shows no signs of getting better any time soon, but instead seems guaranteed to get much worse before the inevitable collapse comes.  While those addicted to the placebo of the Constitution refuse to break their addiction and embrace the actual cure that a few ignored or reviled underground experimenters have discovered.

The disease may still kill you since those infected are very dangerous, but once you inoculate yourself against it at least you won't be spreading the disease to new patients anymore.  You will have become part of the cure rather than a contagious victim of denial.


Thursday, November 22, 2012

Prejudiced for statism

Wow.  I get really insulted when people make the erroneous conclusion that when I say something, I have their statist prejudices.

If I speak out against coerced X, don't assume I am against the voluntary equivalent of X.

A while back on the newspaper's site, I read about a woman who had stopped smoking- in part because her young daughter said it was "disgusting".

In a comment I wondered whether the daughter had come to the conclusion on her own, or whether others had planted this notion (which, by the way, I agree with) into her head.  I mentioned "brainwashing".

I really didn't quite understand the objections to my comment at first.

Finally, after more commentary, I realized that while I was assuming that the others understood I was talking about other people- not the parents- putting ideas into the kid's head, the commenters assumed I was objecting to parents sharing their own opinions with their children.

It was a very statist assumption to make.  So, I clarified:

"I wasn't speaking of what parents tell their kids, but of what busybodies tell other peoples' kids. 
And, no, I don't want other people telling my kids things 'for their own good', since very often it is a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. This is where you get 'authorities' telling your kids that 'guns are bad, mommy and daddy shouldn't have them, and if they do they are bad people. Or 'daddy is killing the planet by not watching his carbon footprint'. 
This goes on in many parts of the country. Let me warn my kids of the dangers of smoking on my own, and I'll return the favor by not implanting my opinions in your kids' minds."

I have a very hard time remembering that when I am trying to communicate with statists, even the simplest of assumptions can't be assumed.  They have a hard time thinking without the statist prejudices.

I was waiting for someone to object by saying that by writing I am implanting my opinions in other people's kids' minds- but no one did.  I would have simply said that I put my opinions (or truth) out there, and if their kids are influenced by me in any way, then I am impressed that they can read, and that they can understand what they read, and that they can think rationally about what they read.  But that I am not forcing anyone to think about anything in any particular way.

So there!  :P


Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Secession talk makes me smile

Those people who are emotionally opposed to secession and the breakup of the "United" [sic] States remind me of those people you hear about from time to time who kept a dead loved-one's corpse in the house for a few years, talking to it and ignoring the stench of death.

I am all in favor of secession.  Individual secession is my favorite, of course, but all secession is a step in the right direction.

Secession is like chopping up a gigantic, evil, GMO super-squid.  The more pieces you chop it into, the better, but all the chopping is a good thing.  Each chop makes me happy to see.

So, keep chopping and support any and all secession advocates- just don't let them know we'll keep seceding from the tentacles they revere, too.


Tuesday, November 20, 2012

State should stay out of economy

State should stay out of economy

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 19, 2012)

The Clovis cosmetics plant fiasco is a good demonstration of the truth that the best thing government can do, about the economy and everything else, is: nothing. It's a result that it seems anyone who doesn't look at life through the "beer goggles" of government could have seen coming. Judging from comments I saw when the deal was first announced, I'd say many are not surprised.

Yes, the area could use more jobs, but handing out "tax" money to bring them in is just not a good idea, even if you believe it is ethical to do so. Apparently, it doesn't even work.

By all means give new companies a tax break, as a good first step. All new companies. Don't play favorites. Then get rid of local "laws" that prevent some businesses from operating in the area, eliminate red tape and anti-business regulations and zoning, and eliminate all the government fees and licenses. Deal with any actual problems- fraud, theft, faulty products, breach of contract- as they arise rather than punishing everyone based upon "what might happen".

Get out of the way and allow the free market to exist, and then stay out of the way to allow it to work. This is a big problem crippling the economy all across America: there has been no free market in at least a century. And yet, economic woes are somehow still blamed on "too little regulation" by the socialists who get all the attention. It's sickening.

Blaming the free market, or some imaginary "lack of regulation" for recent economic woes is like blaming ghosts for the loss of your chickens. The supposed culprit was nowhere near the scene of the crime.

America can't afford this kind of economic interference anymore. If it ever could.

The city still claims it didn't lose the money it handed out. Sure, the city can foreclose on the property in order to get its "investment" back- but unless someone buys that foreclosed property, what good does that do? The money is still wasted. It doesn't seem that the property is in great demand, otherwise someone would have purchased it on their own, voluntarily, without expecting government to give them money for the project.

Maybe somehow the deal will still pan out. Or, perhaps the property will get foreclosed and someone else will come along and buy it to start a business that will boost the local economy. If this happens, no one will have learned anything, but the harm will at least be mitigated. That's better than nothing.


Government should stay out...

I often hear a certain segment of the population say government should stay out of our bedrooms.  True.  But it doesn't go far enough.

They- those individuals who lower themselves to the point of working for government in some capacity- should stay off our property completely.

They should stay out of our bedrooms, our kitchens, our medicine cabinets, our pockets, our living rooms, our garages, our bars, our pet stores, our restaurants, our gun shops, our doctors' offices, our schools, our hospitals, our banks, our factories, our airports ... government should stay out of our lives.

A complete separation of life and State.  Staying out of our bedrooms is just the beginning.


Monday, November 19, 2012

Biology trumps all- except denial

I hesitate to post this one, because I know people will make assumptions and jump to conclusions and use this opinion as justification to dislike me.  Oh well.  Truth sometimes hurts.

There is a woman I have known since I was a teenager.  She has been a friend of one of my sisters since they were pretty young.  Her husband was a youth director at a church.  He apparently got caught "hitting on" (sexting? flirting with?) "young people" and lost his job.  And lost his wife.  He admitted doing it, and said he "has had this problem for a long time".  (I neither know nor care whether he actually did anything physical.)

There are plenty of legitimate reasons his wife could be angry at him or dislike him over this.  His violation of their marriage contract, for example.  Or the loss of his job.  Maybe even the fact that he used his position of "authority" as a way to find extramarital adventure.

But not because of who he is attracted to.  That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming.  Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.

Once a young person develops secondary sexual characteristics they become attractive to any normal sexually aware human (of whichever sex is attracted to their sex).  And, no person who is attracted to these sexually-developed young people can be honestly called a "pedophile"- these are not "children" in any meaningful sense of the word.  The artificial extension of "childhood" is a tragedy that is having disastrous social consequences, of which this subject is just one example.

Throughout most of human history, people of this age were sexually active, married, and reproducing.  It is not "wrong"; it just is what it is.  Youth is also attractive since that is a marker of "good breeding potential".  Sounds crass, but it is true, biologically and psychologically.  People can lie to others, or even to themselves, about this attraction, but it doesn't change the reality of the biological programming.

This biological truth trumps religion.  It trumps "law".  It trumps a wife's wishes.  It even trumps social programming and the risk of self-loathing.

I suspect a lot of people who find a job working with young people seek that kind of job specifically because of this stimulation.  Most of them probably never act on it due to social taboos, and they may not even recognize this attraction in themselves because of how they have been trained.  But it is there.  And sometimes, in some people, it will come to the surface.

As long as it is mutually consensual, no "law" can make it wrong.  If it isn't mutually consensual, no "law" can make it right.  And that includes sex.


Sunday, November 18, 2012

Gasoline at $9 per gallon? For your own good...

I have heard from time to time that the government's "Energy Secretary" (what a useless "job"!) wants gas prices to be between $7 and $9 per gallon, in order to coerce less usage.  I wouldn't doubt it, even though the tale may be apocryphal.

My dad blames this on (false) environmentalists.  He's missing the mark.

The government is anti-travel.  It has been for a long time- since long before I was born.

Just look at all the anti-travel "laws" and regulations it has put in place: "driver's licenses", license plates for cars, "drunk driving" laws, speed limits- all violations of the fundamental human right to travel unmolested, and all imposed by government.  Notice the pattern?

Sure, special interests/idiots clamor for one restriction or another, "for the common good" or for "safety", or to prevent theft, or whatever, and since the implications of the suggestions are anti-travel, the government is very happy to oblige.  The new restrictions are put in place and travel gets outlawed just a little more.

Who is really to blame?  It isn't the (false) environmentalists, it isn't the AAA (in the case of those "driver's licenses" all those years ago), it isn't the tee-totalers- they are just the useful idiots the government uses to get what it wants imposed on the rest of us.  And when we reject the lies and object to the new restrictions, we are castigated for being "selfish", inconsiderate, or " a danger to society".

Just like the gun "laws" imposed by this same herd of anti-liberty bigots, the restrictions on travel bring to mind just one thought: Not one more inch!


Saturday, November 17, 2012

Seeing both sides

I think I see both (or more) sides of too many issues.  Seriously.

The "welfare thing" for example.  And lots of others.

It doesn't help me much, when trying to decide whom to defend.  It doesn't mean I think both sides are valid for me.  Or ethical for me.  But it makes it harder to condemn others for some of their positions.  Maybe that's a good thing.

If you are personally attacking the innocent, or stealing or destroying their property (or the value thereof), then I cut you no slack.  This is why I can't excuse cops for their acts.

But, on so many other issues the "black and white" is not so clear... if it even exists at all.  At least as I see it.

Certainty is so much more comfortable.


Thursday, November 15, 2012

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Emotionalism Part 2- "Super-Love"

As I said in Part 1, I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders", while the irrational "super-love" frequently goes to "law enforcement" and the military.  But this is just two sides of the same corroded coin, and is often due to people being "too close" to the issue.

I'll focus on the irrational "super-love" this time.

One thing that really bothers me are those libertarians who make excuses for the inexcusable.  Those who "super-love" the enforcers (and to a lesser degree, any government tool).  Maybe a loved one is a cop or in the military, or for some other reason a strong feeling of devotion is experienced toward these enforcers and hired killers.  Maybe they are under the belief that enforcers are "a vital necessity" to keep predators from hurting innocent people.  Sure, it's a delusion, but it can seem very "reasonable" to them.

Recently on facebook I made a comment that was not "respectful" of the FBI.  In the story someone said, of their consideration to join something like the FBI, that they wanted to "stop bad".  O---kay....

I responded:

"You want to 'stop bad'? Don't join a gang like the FBI. Refuse to attack innocent people and don't violate anyone's property rights. Not even if it's your 'job'. Don't support the evil and stupid 'war on politically incorrect drugs' which fuels so much of the aggression in America and beyond. And stand up to those who do- especially when they lie and tell you they are 'the good guys'. Don't be a part of the problem."

It seemed a common sense reply to what I assume was a sincere remark.  I see nothing in my comment that should be offensive to any honest and consistent person.  Or so I thought...

I was told, in a reply from a self-proclaimed libertarian (my "boss"), that:

"[N]ot every good guy is a bad guy. There are true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others, and it takes good cops at all levels to protect the public from that. Are there personal violations that police or other government officials cause, to people and/or their property? Of course, that is and always has been the case. But not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys. There are more bad or stupid policies, like drug control, that detract from freedoms. I agree with you that people have an individual right to make stupid choices."

My response to this comment was too short due to me responding from my Kindle, so I will expand it here.

FBI agents are not "good guys".  For several reasons.

First, they are among the "true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others"- if they restricted this killing and harming to people who were initiating force or stealing, then they would be provisional "good guys".  They don't.

Cops of any sort are NOT "protecting the public", they are the primary predators in society today.  And their actions and enforcement of those admittedly "bad and stupid policies" is the only thing that gives those bad and stupid policies the ability to harm anyone.  The actions those cops take protect the freelance predators from reaping the just consequences of their actions. This is even pretending there is such a thing as a "good cop".

And to claim that "not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys" is missing the truth.  The FBI is unconstitutional.  If you believe the Constitution is what gives the US government its legitimacy, then FBI agents are bad guys before they even enforce their first counterfeit "law", and in doing so either initiate force or steal.  And kidnap.  Their very existence is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution- where is a federal police force specifically authorized?  Nowhere.  If it isn't specifically authorized, it is illegal.  So every FBI employee is a criminal.  If you are not burdened by devotion to a constitution, then you don't even have to go that far to see that they are all bad- their initiation of force and their other enforcement of counterfeit "laws" is enough to show their wrongness regardless of their lack of Constitutional authority.  Even when occasional good comes from their actions.

A "good cop" would not keep his job for even one day.  The first counterfeit "law" he was caught not enforcing would be his last act as a cop.  You can not enforce these things and be a good guy.  Not even once.  There is no such thing as a good cop.  But there are some that are better and some that are worse.

As for the bureaucrats- name one bureaucrat who never violates the property rights of those who are forced to deal with his bureaucracy.  You can't violate property rights as part of your job and be a "good guy".  So if you are collecting fines, fees, selling licenses, writing up ordinances, dealing in permits, or any other bureaucratic "job", you are not a good guy.  Not in your "official capacity", anyway.  But, I admit, you may do some good on occasion- particularly by breaking the rules for the cause of liberty or to protect an innocent person from the unjust rules.  It would still be better to get an honest job.

If, as the commenter admitted, people have "an individual right to make stupid choices", then using violence and kidnapping to violate this right is evil.  Period.

Defending these guys is a very anti-libertarian thing to do.

I understand the desire to throw support behind something that at first glance sounds like it might be good for you, individually, or for "society".  (What I don't understand is the fear or helplessness that seems to be at the root of the belief that these thugs "protect" you.)  I understand the desire to look up to "authority", or someone you have been trained from birth to respect and revere.  It just really bothers me when libertarians ignore the principles of liberty because they have let their emotions get in the way.