Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog

Respect, or fear?

2012-01-27T07:35:00.001-06:00

The State believes it has respect. Maybe in some ignorant corners that might be true. It is more likely that what it really has- where it thinks it sees respect- is fear.

Fear is not respect. Fear, if controlled, leads a person to watch for the enemy to lose focus for a split second, which provides an opportunity to blow him away. Fear often looks like respect to the bad guy. He would be wrong but he won't realize it until it's too late.

And once the fearful begin to strike back, those who have no fear, but have been waiting for the time to be right, will join.

No meaning behind Constitution

2012-01-26T21:28:00.002-06:00

No meaning behind Constitution

My Clovis News Journal column for January 27, 2012. Now, read it and tell me if the headline seems appropriate to my message. Sigh.

"Anti-drunk driving" hypocrites

2012-01-26T08:13:00.004-06:00

I consider most of those who claim to hate "drunk driving" to be hypocrites. And I'll tell you why (as if you had any doubt).

If "drunk driving" is so horrible to your mind, and you claim you'd do anything humanly possible to prevent it from happening, then you must support ending the risk of any legal and civil penalties for driving "drunk" right up until actual harm to another occurs. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

A person must be able to be driving and realize "Hey, I shouldn't be doing this" and stop and ask for help without the risk of punishment. Otherwise they realize they're (legally) better off to make the attempt to get where they are going without getting stopped by a reaver. It's a matter of weighing the risks.

There's a 100% risk of being molested by "the law" if you admit you need help after starting to drive (or probably even entering your car), even though you haven't hurt anyone yet, and a much smaller risk of being hurt, molested, and/or hurting someone else by driving "drunk". Which risk seems riskier to someone who might be judgement-impaired? Or, even to those who are not?

Get rid of the one needless risk, if you are serious about saving lives, or admit you just "don't like it" and don't care about the consequences of your advocacy.

"I don't like it!"

2012-01-25T08:01:00.001-06:00

Going back to my previous post about the pleasure haters; I see them as suffering from the same mental lapse that many other people suffer from when they want to ban something, or claim "There oughta be a law..."

You can show them fact after fact that destroys their position, and they will keep coming up with justification after flimsy justification. But the truth of the matter is that whatever it is they want to punish or prohibit is just something they personally don't like.

And any justification beyond "I don't like it" is a lie.

It reminds me of the debates I have had with Creationists. Science and facts don't matter to them. In fact, usually they eventually wind up saying "I don't care what the facts are; I'm going to believe what I want to believe". That's fine as long as you don't impose your beliefs on anyone else, through "law" or through any other form of coercion.

Keep government out of holidays

2012-01-24T21:52:00.000-06:00

Keep government out of holidays

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 23, 2011. I notice the paper bizarrely hyphenated Christmas as "Christ-mas" once in the article. Not my doing- and I double-checked to make sure.)

Merry Christmas! I hope you can take some time to appreciate all you have, and that you can spend the holiday however it brings you the most joy. I also hope you'll allow others the same liberty.

The winter solstice probably gave our prehistoric ancestors hope because the days which had been growing shorter finally stabilized. They knew from past observations that soon the days would begin to grow longer once again. It gave them reason to celebrate that spring would eventually arrive. The winter solstice was their light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout history different cultures stitched
their own celebrations, especially their own versions of "the light at the end of the tunnel" celebration, on this time of the year. The earliest recorded version of this holiday, from around 4- or 5000 years ago, was called "Zagmuk".

At this time in history "Christmas" is the name most commonly given to the holiday celebrated near the winter solstice. That's why most people use the word no matter what their personal beliefs may happen to be. Unless they have a specific reason to prefer a different celebration, or just want to be contentious.

Personally, I love Christmas. I don't care what words people use when they express good wishes for the holiday. Just as long as they are happy and friendly when they say it. I enjoy the interpersonal warmth around the holidays. I love the songs, the stories, and the decorations. I love the feeling of specialness. I love the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think celebrations are important, especially in the face of the encroaching winter.

That doesn't mean I think governments should sponsor Christmas displays, nor displays of any kind- religious or secular, since any money governments spend was taken by force from people who were given no choice, and it shouldn't be frittered away on things that some people don't consent to. Let the people celebrate unhindered; keep government dark and silent on the subject- neither endorsing nor obstructing any religion.

You have to make a real effort to be disagreeable at this time of year. Don't be twitchy if people say "Merry Christmas", or if they fail to do so and wish you "Happy Holidays" (or "Happy Zagmuk") instead. Just take it in the spirit in which it's offered and smile while you offer the greeting of your choice in return.

Pleasure haters

2012-01-24T07:53:00.004-06:00

I saw a quote in an issue of Reason Magazine that just kept coming back to my mind. It was in reference to Prohibition (both the old one and the current one):

"The eternal temptation to ban things that give people pleasure"

I think it could also be expressed as "The eternal temptation to get pleasure from preventing the pleasure of others".

Either way, there are an awful lot of awful people who seem determined to try to make sure no one is having any fun. That's fine if they stick to being annoying pains in the rear. Unfortunately, the illegitimate institution of The State gives these perverts a way to exert power over others. What a messed up shame.

Respect for the law

2012-01-23T08:20:00.000-06:00

Is "respect for the law" important for civilization? If so, then civilization is doomed. And it isn't our fault.

You can't have respect for something which is absurd. For me to have respect for the law, the law has to follow Natural Law. It can't be arbitrary and bizarre. It can't be counterfeit. But that is just about all it is anymore. The "law" is fake. No one with a lick of sense or any ethics at all could have any respect for it anymore.

So, if "respect for the law" is necessary in order for civilization to survive, 99.9999% or so of the "laws" on the books (the statutory "laws") must- absolutely MUST- be tossed into the garbage heap. Before it is too late. Otherwise no reasonable person can possibly have any respect for the "law". None.

2012-01-22T22:21:00.002-06:00

Feel free to follow me on Pinterest, if you have any desire to wade into another "social site". I'm "pinning" a larger variety of things there than I blog about.

"Window shopping" at Baron Hats

2012-01-22T11:45:00.000-06:00

Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but a lot of times when I would otherwise be bored I go to the Baron Hats website and daydream. It's my version of window-shopping I guess.

I see so many hats I'd buy if I had the money.

But I guess what I'd probably really do if I had the money to afford one hat from them is have my favorite hat reproduced by Baron's in quality materials and workmanship.

Someday...

Old postcard to Mrs. J. Proctor Moore

2012-01-22T00:06:00.005-06:00

My mom has an old postcard that she found in- I believe- her piano many years ago. I'm just posting this so that any relatives of the people mentioned, if they happen to do a Google search on the names, might be able to get the information.

The postcard was mailed from Lamar, Missouri to Mrs. J. Proctor (Maria?) Moore, Liberal, Missouri and postmarked on January 15, 1946. Unfortunately, I am not certain of some of the names that are written. Particularly the recipient. Marie? Maria? Mavis? Marin?

It says (original spelling and all):

Tues 1000 A.M. Dear Maria (?). Sure enough colder this A.M I want to tell you I feel real proud of my work I did yester-d. I used the Maytag & it works fine. So- I washed evrything on the place that was dirty & all dried nice but two chroched rugs. I washed 4 woven and they were aft dry. So brot evrything in. have my ironing all done. I wrote to Norma (?) last night. got a letter from N.A. & Mable yester A.M. were all well. I havent been off of place. didn't go to ch Sun night too cold. Ora came in yester P.M.brot me some M (?) Im so thankful Im able to work. And may God bless you & yours.

love --- Mother

Elbert got home this am

Harm and hurt

2012-01-21T07:19:00.004-06:00

I don't think "hurting someone" and "harming someone" are necessarily the exact same thing. To me it seems like it is possible to "hurt" someone without harming them. And to harm someone without hurting them.

Let me explain. I have been hurt many times. I have cut myself more times than I can count. I have had scrapes and bruises. Most of these left no lasting effects. Any "harm" was temporary. I got over it (even if it wasn't a happy thing at the moment it happened). I don't think those things really harmed me in any way.

On the other hand I have been harmed by things that left no physical damage, but that I will never really heal from. For example, I was abandoned by The Love of My Life a little over 8 years ago. That harmed me, in many ways more than any physical damage I have ever suffered- including a bike wreck that did cause lasting damage.

So, although I realize that to be hurt in any way causes at least temporary harm, I guess when I think of "harm" I am thinking of something a little more permanent.

Sometimes you might even need to hurt someone in order to protect them from harm. It's not a good position to find yourself in.

Now, that doesn't mean that hurting someone or harming them is not a violation of the ZAP; in this case harm and hurt could both be wrong. It depends if they started it. And, sometimes, someone who is innocent may be hurt or harmed by something you did, and you may still have not done anything actually wrong. Accidents happen. You might have a debt to pay in that case, and by shirking your responsibility you would then be doing something wrong.

Just something to consider.

More Dangerous thoughts

2012-01-20T08:23:00.000-06:00

Why is it OK to self-medicate with ibuprofen when you have a headache, or with an antihistamine when you have allergies, or with an over-the-counter sleep aid when insomnia strikes, but not OK to self-medicate with marijuana if you are suffering from boredom?

Boredom is probably more likely to be fatal than a minor headache, nasal allergies, or temporary insomnia would be, yet it is seen as somehow "wrong" to self-medicate- using a very safe medicine, by the way- to alleviate boredom's symptoms. That doesn't make sense.

I want my descendants to live free

2012-01-19T21:06:00.001-06:00

I want my descendants to live free

My Clovis News Journal column for January 20, 2012

Dangerous thoughts

2012-01-19T08:22:00.000-06:00

I just had a random thought. One that might be seen as dangerous by some people.

If an individual owns their own body (a foundational concept of liberty) and can therefore put anything they wish into that body, wouldn't the corollary be that they can also take anything out of their own body if they don't want it there? Even if they chose to put it there in the first place?

History didn't begin with "9-11"

2012-01-18T07:30:00.000-06:00

Thinking back on the posts of the past couple of days made me realize something. For all their blathering about "history", most statists seem to act as though history began on September 11, 2001.

Nothing that happened before that counts. All the decades (or centuries) of meddling in the Middle East never happened. The world was just spinning along, like it had every day since it was created in 4004 BCE, when out of the blue, terrorists attacked and suddenly the slate of history was wiped clean and revenge was justified. Hmmm.

Interesting (lack of) perspective, I think.

Not every problem needs a solution

2012-01-17T22:58:00.000-06:00

Not every problem needs a solution

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 16, 2011)

Everyone knows there are problems in the world. There is theft. There is child abuse. There is poverty. And many more. The question becomes "How do you fix it?"

While it seems most people think a new law or tougher enforcement is the answer, libertarians see those "solutions" as only exacerbating the problems. We also see the current infatuation with statutory law as a reason that so many of the problems surrounding us now seem to have no effective solution.

Not every problem can be fixed, or even should be fixed. The biggest flaw in the "Serenity Prayer" is the line "...Courage to change the things I can..." because not everything that can be changed should be changed. Real wisdom accepts that.

Another fact of reality is that any solved problem creates new problems. The trick is to make sure the problems created by your solution are more minor- easier to solve or live with- than the problem you started with. If a solution seems likely to have consequences worse than the problem, it is best to do nothing until a better solution presents itself. Always be prepared to quickly reject your solution if its unintended consequences are worse than the original problem. Laws never fair well when judged against this benchmark.

A common statutory solution for crime is to ban self defense, or at least regulate it to the point that victims of an attack who fight back will then be at risk of being attacked by the legal system. This emboldens those who care nothing about right and wrong, much less laws, which creates unnecessary hardship and fear for the people who were not doing anything wrong to begin with.

The libertarian solution for crime is, first of all, to recognize that without a specific individual who was attacked or robbed there was no crime, and then remove the barriers to effective self defense, which includes defense of property. The benefit of a doubt must be given to the person who was just going about his business; not to the one who was looking for trouble.

The same goes for other problems. Most of them can be solved, but solutions that harm the innocent are not worth pursuing. You can't be generous and caring by giving away other people's money. You can't protect the innocent by legalizing the violation of eternal human rights.

Confession...

2012-01-17T17:20:00.002-06:00

Yes, I admit it. I enjoy coming up with hare-brained schemes. Most, maybe all, go nowhere. but they do bring me joy. And that is what life should have more of. And, someday, who knows. Maybe one of my ideas will bear fruit. In the meantime I'll keep thinking up more.

Paul or Obama petition

2012-01-17T16:52:00.002-06:00

Here's the petition "Dedicated Dad" made for you to sign (and spread) to tell the Repubs what you're thinking: Ron Paul or Obama: Your Choice

Have fun with it.

Nominate Ron Paul- or else! (a bad idea?)

2012-01-17T08:13:00.005-06:00

I don't believe in voting. Neither do I believe politics is an ethical way to get anything done. But, I wonder if or how a political threat might work. Yeah it probably violates the ZAP in that if voting is an initiation of force (which it seems it might be), then threatening to vote is advocating or delegating an initiation of force.

However, ignoring all that for a moment...

I wonder what would happen if liberty lovers, en masse, told Republicans in no uncertain terms that if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, we will all vote for Obama. Even if we have to register to vote to do it. Even if we otherwise would never even consider voting, period.

Think of it as putting a mortally injured, dying America out of its misery, if the offer of medicine* is refused.

Just a thought.

I may try this out on my "conservative" relatives. Or, I may post the "threat", without all this post's contemplation, and minus all the uncertainties, somewhere in this form:

Notice is hereby given to the Republican party and all Republican voters: You have a chance to do the right thing. You can nominate Ron Paul. If you nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, I will register to vote, and I will vote for Obama. I will encourage all of my liberty-loving friends, contacts, and acquaintances to do the same- even if they have not voted before or in many years. You will be throwing away your nomination by nominating anyone other than Ron Paul. Is that what you really want to do? It's your call.

Added: I just thought of a shorter way to phrase this threat: "Republicans- I will vote this time, for the first time in years. But, I will either vote for Ron Paul or I will vote for Obama. Your choice." And, no, I don't really intend to vote.

And now there's a petition, too!

(*Yeah, it could be debated whether this is medicine or a placebo. Or even a poison. I'd still enjoy seeing what Repubs would say or do if this idea went viral. I'm not perfect.)

Is minding your own business "dangerous"?

2012-01-16T08:25:00.001-06:00

Once again, I'm not endorsing Ron Paul since voting lends an illusion of legitimacy to a completely illegitimate system. And because you can't vote yourself free.

However, I was talking to a "conservative" statist (a redundancy, I know) who said he thought Ron Paul was the best candidate, except that the mainstream will never accept him enough to elect him because of his foreign policy. He says, in less honest words, that it is just too dangerous to not meddle. If I used such language I would have responded "WTF?"

How has the meddling in other countries' business worked out so far? Has it kept radical individuals from killing innocent Americans? Has it spread liberty around the globe?

No to both.

Intervention is more honestly called trespassing. Intervention led to the act of aggression known as "9-11". Intervention led to all the deaths, American and otherwise, in all the unconstitutional wars (which are actually terrorism) since then. Intervention led to the death of liberty in America. Intervention grows new generations of individuals, in America and around the world, who hate the US government and who are willing to kill and die to try to hurt it. Intervention (among other Crimes of State) led to the growing worthlessness of the money in your bank account and in your wallet.

Intervention leads to more intervention in a feedback loop. It's like beating your dog because he is whining and limping. The more you beat him, the more he will whine and limp. Until he either dies or rips your throat out for being such a cruel jerk. If he dies, an interventionist will get a new dog to kick around since he needs that feeling of being a big, tough guy.

And, intervention abroad leads to the justification for intervention in your private life.

The State has no business intervening anywhere for any reason. It has no justification to exist. I got over it; I wish everyone would.

"Please repost this..."

2012-01-15T14:40:00.003-06:00

Facebook. Repost this or that. Statuses expressing concern or support for cancer patients, deceased babies, victims of abuse, etc. Repost instead of actually doing anything to help.

I think facebook statuses have replaced, or at least joined, prayer as the silly "pretend to do something helpful while not really" activity.

One person doing is more helpful than a million people praying- or reposting.

Childish "Paternalism" and fear of Ron Paul

2012-01-15T07:49:00.000-06:00

Most of the people I interact with in real life call themselves "conservatives". You and I both see the falsehood there. However, recently in The Libertarian Enterprise, L. Neil Smith spelled it out a little more clearly than I had ever seen done.

It inspired me to make the diagram which accompanies this post. (You can click on it to make it easier to read.)

The description of "Paternalism" fits the "conservatives" in my life to a "T".

And, it shows why they are scared of Ron Paul. He doesn't allow them to be bullies by proxy- using the military force of the US government to impose their own version of the "Paternalism" corner of the triangle on those who already have their own version of that same corner imposed on their own society. A Ron Paul presidency would get in the way of the chest thumping and swaggering.

I don't need a president or a government. I have no use for discredited myths and delusions such as The State. I don't need Ron Paul to be president over a government I have long since withdrawn consent from. But I do wonder if these "conservatives" would actually prefer to have 4 more years of Obama over Ron Paul. They will never admit it, but I think- judging by their actions and reactions- they would. They are hypocrites and crybabies. I wish I would live to see them all grow up and get over it.

Modernity hatred- New Luddites?

2012-01-14T07:09:00.002-06:00

"Modernity hatred". I'm not sure what else to call what I see so much of.

You'll never find a person who likes the "old ways" more than I do. Yet, the constant hand-wringing over "new stuff" bewilders me. Cell phones, computers, the internet, fast food, birth control, some social changes, etc. If it was invented after about 1950 many people seem to recoil in horror or rail against it.

And, that would be fine if they didn't meddle with the choices and preferences of others, especially through the application of "laws".

Things change. Get used to it.

Hold onto the old things that you like, but don't insist that everyone must follow your lead (or refuse to go anywhere, depending on how you look at it). I enjoy some of the "new" stuff, too, but not all of it. The way I look at it, we can pick and choose from the knowledge of many thousands of years of humans who have come before us. From our early stone age ancestors to Steve Jobs. Why limit yourself, and why try to remove the freedom of choice from others?

I can keep starting fires with a bow/drill, keep washing with lye soap, keep using kerosene lanterns, keep eating weeds and jerky, and wear brain-tanned buckskin, but there is nothing "better" about those choices- they are just things I like. I can also use a high-tech firesteel or eat a Big Mac, when the mood strikes me without being "guilty" of anything. I would never demand you live the way I do, and I especially would never consider forcing you to live according to my wishes through "laws".

We all lose during election time

2012-01-12T19:53:00.001-06:00

We all lose during election time

My Clovis News Journal column for January 13, 2012

Buy stuff?

2012-01-12T17:48:00.003-06:00

I'm not going to beg for donations... however, I find myself needing money. Worse than usual. Again.

So, please consider buying some stuff from me. Either here or on eBay (both links are always under my picture over there on the left).

Thank you.

"Preps"

2012-01-12T07:27:00.001-06:00

As I mentioned before, I am using this year to work on my "preps". Nothing too big, so far, but something, no matter how minor, every day. I've even allowed "thinking about a certain idea" to count. I'm not going to quibble over what counts. And, that "mere" thinking has paid off as I have already gone ahead and implemented some of the ideas I came up with while apparently doing nothing.

No matter how prepared you are, you could do more.

And, no matter how little you think you can do, you CAN do something. If nothing else, inventory and organize what you already have and come up with a strategy.

I, perhaps like you, have no money to spare on preparations. Yet, many things won't take money. You're on the internet; use it to learn and get ideas. And skills.

You won't regret getting ready or gaining skills unless you count on some particular disaster coming on schedule. Untie your mind from that silliness and just know that whatever happens, your life - and the lives that depend on you - will be better when you prepare for the unexpected. Really. It will increase your liberty no matter what else happens around you. I promise.

Advice for government employees

2012-01-11T08:09:00.000-06:00

If a politician or bureaucrat wanted to stay legal and adhere to the Constitution, it would be better to not do something that the Constitution authorizes than to do something it does not. I wonder why that option never occurs to them?

I will stand up for your liberties

2012-01-10T21:23:00.000-06:00

I will stand up for your liberties

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 9, 2011. Yes, it begins with the same H. L. Mencken quote that begins my current Liberty Lines column, but the columns are completely different, even if inspired by the same incident.)

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Rarely have I read a quote that contained more truth. It is the story of my life. In so many cases my energy is spent defending the rights of people I probably wouldn't like, who are doing things I don't necessarily approve of, simply because I am able to see how their rights are mine. And yours.

This often puts me in the position of defending scoundrels who are having their liberty violated by people with "good intentions", which puts me at odds with those who only see the good intentions and the scoundrels, but not the unintended consequences, or how those consequences could eventually harm us all.

Freedom means doing what you want to do, regardless of whether it is within your rights or not. Liberty is the freedom to do what you have a right to do. While it is sometimes proper to constrain freedom, it is never right to limit anyone's liberty.

As long as those scoundrels are within their rights- they are not attacking, stealing, or trespassing- it doesn't matter if I like them or approve of what they are doing. They still have a right to be doing it and no one has a right, or the authority, to interfere. No matter how noble the interference might seem or how much I might agree with the general objection to what is being done.

If you are willing to violate the scoundrel's rights then you shouldn't be surprised when you discover that you are someone else's scoundrel, facing the torch-bearing villagers who are anxious to storm your castle for the "common good". And, as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, I'll be right there beside you, whether I like you or approve of your actions or not.

You only have the liberty you respect in others. I am willing to fight against the violation of the liberties of others because it is the right thing to do, and my expectation is that no one will call for my liberty to be violated in any way. I'll hold up my end even if others don't reciprocate.

Libertarian buts

2012-01-10T08:22:00.000-06:00

I see a lot of people who claim to be a "libertarian, but". And some who claim to just be "libertarian" while they ignore their big "but" and pretend it is a feature of all "real libertarians".

The biggest "but" is support for the military. Militia, yes. State-controlled military, no. Tax-financed, government military is not "libertarian", no matter how you try to spin it. It doesn't matter if the Constitution says it is OK, or if your family has always been a "military family" and you want to honor their lives.

The second biggest "but", which is related to the first, is belief in national borders. Usually they pretend this "but" is about property rights. If you think national borders are about property rights, just see how much the State that enforces the borders respects your property rights. Nope. It's about violating your property rights. It doesn't matter if the trespasser is an independent migrant from Mexico or an employee of some government agency. Trespassing is trespassing and the backstory doesn't matter. And, if you choose to allow a person on your property, that is your right as a property owner and no one has any say in the matter.

A third "but" is pretending that the US Constitution is a libertarian document. It has some good things in it and it has some horrible things in it. But none of that matters since the US government ignores it all anyway, unless they find a particular part useful to the agenda at the moment. Go ahead and use the Constitution to show that the government is not legitimate since it has unilaterally violated the agreement that bound it, but don't get hung up on this too much. There are better ways to organize a "society" voluntarily.

The last "but" I notice the most is ignoring coercion unless it is committed by The State. Coercion is wrong. The State is wrong because it relies on coercion. Coercion isn't wrong just because it is used by The State.

I'm sure there are lots more "buts" out there. All those who claim to be "libertarian, but without the crazy stuff" have at least one.

As for myself, I try to make sure I have no "but". If my first inclination, when presented with an idea that pushes the envelope of individual liberty, is to pull a "but" out of my... well, you know... then I try to look very hard at why I felt the need to have a "but". What aspect of legitimized (or justified) coercion am I trying to hold on to? And why?

Dumb is as dumb believes

2012-01-09T08:15:00.001-06:00

How can smart people be so dumb?

I was watching a TED talk and it struck me once again that "smart people" can be the dumbest of all.

Now, I'll admit I lost interest and stopped watching before the end of the video. I have a rule about exposing myself to stupidity: I only do it if I don't have better uses for my time. So, maybe he ended the talk by saying something surprising and truly smart or wise. But I'm not counting on it.

I gather, from the part I did watch, that this guy, Paddy Ashdown, is a raving statist who doesn't understand economics or government. At all. Yet, there is an apparent consensus that he is "smart". Perhaps he is even considered an "expert" in those areas. He isn't.

He believes that "global" markets are unregulated unless there is a State involved in regulating them. He believes that statutory "law" trumps Natural Law. That is sufficient evidence that he is dumb.

Arrogance of The State

2012-01-08T08:03:00.000-06:00

I have been called "arrogant" a time or two. Or ten. Usually because I wouldn't buy into someone else's (obviously flawed) argument. Or, because someone tried to hurt me and I, instead of reacting as they had expected, was amused. Above it. That sometimes led to a "smirk" as well.

But that's amateurish arrogance compared to governments.

Governments all seem to think they can get away with anything. Forever. Sure, they all do for a time, but none ever have forever, and none ever will.

Governments ignore their own "permission to exist documents"- their "hall pass"- and will kidnap or even kill those who point out the violations.

Governments decide they own you and can tell you what to ingest, whether you can travel (and how, how fast, and what you are "consenting to" in order to travel at all), they rape you, they demand a ransom to "allow" you to keep some of your own property. They forbid self defense and the tools to carry it out effectively. They declare that unless they "educate" the desire to learn out of your children, you are abusing them. They punish you if you know a "law" is wrong and refuse to convict a person for violating it. They decide if you can leave the territory they have fenced off, and steal most of your property if you get permission to go for good. They tell you (and your government-licensed doctor) how your ailments will be allowed to be "treated". They turn local police into militarized occupation forces instead of "peace officers"- who in the best of circumstances were still a useless drain on humanity before they became an open threat to it. They prohibit and punish basic human activities like growing food, trading, sex, hunting, being left alone... and demand you get permission from them for the things you are allowed to do anyway. And, they demand to know every detail of your life so they will know when you aren't doing as you are told. The list of real, current offenses could go on endlessly.

They act as though there will never be any consequences that will result from all this arrogance. Certainly none from the "Mundanes".

Yet, there is a limit. Not to what governments will try to get away with, but how much their targets will accept before they strike back.

There will always come a time when more threats bring less compliance rather than more. When harsher penalties bring more hatred and less obedience. When more surveillance results in too much meaningless data and smarter acts of defiance. When puppeticians and bureaucrats cease to be able to protect their worthless hides through "laws" and certain punishment. When enough people finally see The State, and its supporters, for the parasites they have always truly been, and say "Time's Up!"

I would hate to be on the side of the tyrants when that day dawns.

Self improvement

2012-01-07T06:56:00.001-06:00

I want to be better than "just me"... But I don't know in what way.

How's that for a confusing situation?

Inflation

2012-01-06T07:51:00.001-06:00

Added:

Libertarians come in various forms

2012-01-05T21:39:00.001-06:00

Libertarians come in various forms

My Clovis News Journal column for January 6, 1012

Michael Bloomberg needs to face the music

2012-01-05T07:12:00.001-06:00

The recent kidnapping of a Tennessee woman by Mikey Bloomberg's own New York gangsters, when she rather foolishly tried to obey New York City's idiotic anti-gun "laws", makes me think turnabout is fair play.

Since we all, even Mikey Poopie Bloomers and his associates, commit an average of 3 federal felonies a day, I think next time Poopie Bloomers or any member of his family or any NYC employee sets foot in a less-tyrannical jurisdiction they should also be kidnapped by the local LEOs.

After all, they do something that is clearly illegal- they ban guns and harm gun owners. That's enough justification to tell them to either stay home and stop violating us, or face the consequences.

I'm sick of these ethics-free diseased vermin. We are expected to worship their made up "laws" while they thumb their noses at universally-binding Natural Law as if it doesn't matter. Well, Time's Up!

Now, do any sheriffs or cops out there have the gonads to do the right thing? Or will the anti-liberty thugs get off easy due to their power and influence? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Michael Shermer's latest column

2012-01-04T13:41:00.004-06:00

MORE GOD, LESS CRIME OR MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?

A very good article. And, yes, it concerns John Lott's famous studies, as well as the assertions of a religious guy.

I can't bring myself to wade through all the comments, because I don't feel like reading the goofy opinions of the anti-gun extremists. If you can stomach it, I'm sure there are some good comments mixed in there, too. (I saw that Mr. Lott himself had posted a comment just above mine.)

Ron Paul and other "not quite Libertopias"

2012-01-04T08:07:00.000-06:00

There are a lot of things that don't exactly pass muster with me, as far as true liberty goes, but which I still provisionally support anyway. For one reason or another.

The main reason is usually that I think they'd be "interesting" and upset a lot of statists. I think they'd each qualify as "monkeywrenching". I think there would even be fun involved.

1) In this list I would include a Ron Paul presidency. And, as a part of that, auditing and abolishing the Fed.

2) A rigidly enforced Constitution, where (back to the reality of the document) anything that is not specifically authorized by name or minute description for the government to do, is prohibited- and I'd whimsically add "under penalty of death", to be carried out immediately upon any government employee who advocates or endorses- or somehow attempts to enforce- the most measly unconstitutional idea. Including, particularly, Supreme Courtjesters who quibble over things that no sensible person has any doubt over the clear Constitutional meaning of. ("...shall not be infringed" being among them.) Remember that the Supreme Courtjesters are not the Constitutional "last word" on the Constitution; they usurped that power illegally.

2a) Full re-legalization of all "drugs". "Where, Mr. or Ms. Drug Warrior, does the Constitution spell out- exactly and specifically in clear unambiguous wording- that the government can prohibit people from harming themselves with self-administered chemical compounds? You can't find it? Up against the wall!" (OK, I admit, I am even against a death penalty in these cases, except as carried out by the intended victim at the time and place of the attack. But it's fun to imagine- especially after reading about so many horrible crimes against the innocent carried out by these psychotic prohibitionists!)

3) Secession of any of the formerly united States. Especially, by reason of residency, Texas. Yeah, there are a lot of things in this movement I dislike; things that are decidedly anti-liberty in nature. But I'd still prefer an end to the rapidly-growing cancer that the US government has become- we can deal with mopping up the smaller infections later.

No, none of these things is the Holy Grail. That remains Libertopia, in one form or another. But each of these things would be fun to watch in its own way.

Seeking local discussion on liberty

2012-01-03T20:27:00.000-06:00

Seeking local discussion on liberty

(My Clovis News Journal Column for December 2, 2011)

While liberty is a full-time passion of mine, writing about it is merely a part-time urge. A pretty strong urge that will not be ignored, but one which can be delayed when necessary. Life is usually pretty full of other things which tend to get in the way of things I plan to write about; especially those topics which require more time than simply sorting through the files in my head.

For one thing, I keep intending to talk to some of the other local libertarians I know of, just to see if their experiences "living liberty" relate in any way to mine, but it seems that busy-ness keeps getting in the way. I'm planning to remedy that soon.

And, in pursuit of that goal I would like a chance to get to know more local libertarians, and libertarian-inclined people. Or the "liberty curious", as an imaginary libertarian personal ad might say.

I know more are out there than I have noticed, since as I have mentioned before, libertarians don't usually attract much attention because we are so unremarkable. Maybe you are one.

Perhaps this column has piqued your interest in the past year and you'd like to discuss liberty with other interested people in an informal setting. Maybe you are even suspicious of liberty, but won't be offended if your best arguments don't change my mind. In that case I'd be glad to let you take your best shot. I have been told I am contagious in my libertarianism, however, so you might be taking a risk.

I'm not interested in getting together to fight or argue, but friendly debate is always welcome. One thing I'm probably not very interested in discussing is politics. Well, make that two things, because I'm not interested in talking about sports either. Besides, there are plenty of places to talk about those more mundane topics. Just about anything else, taboo, deep, or just plain odd, is on the table.

So, as long as you are willing, I'd be glad to get together somewhere to get to know you and hear your thoughts on freedom and liberty, and what they mean in your own day-to-day life.

If enough people are interested we could even schedule regular chats at some local venue after the holidays are over.

Don't be shy. I am not scary... to most people. And neither is liberty. My contact information is below.

Run for the hills! It's 2012!

2012-01-02T13:52:00.003-06:00

Yeah, I know... Nothing extraordinary will happen. Not the Mayan "End of the Calendar/World". Not the Zombie Apocalypse. Not anything else (in spite of the best efforts of puppeticians and bureaucrats). Chances are exactly the same for civilization-ending disaster in the coming 12 months as any other random 12 months. Some bad things will happen, but none will be "It".

Still, I plan to use this time to work on my preparations. Just like I did in 1999. Every dozen years or so it's probably good to pretend that TEOTWAWKI is here, just to keep your prep muscles in shape. And, it's fun.

Do you have adequate weaponry and "food" for that weaponry? Is your training with your weaponry "good enough"? Do you have a good knife? Or two?

Do you have alternate forms of money? FRNs are going to eventually stabilize at their intrinsic worthlessness. Are you ready?

Do you have food, medicines, and other "necessary" supplies stored up? Or are you actively building your supplies right now?

Do you have the skills you need in case Murphy's Law makes all your "hoard" useless? Can you build a fire? Can you locate or collect water and make it safe to drink? Can you find or make shelter? Can you do those things if you have nothing but the clothes on your back- or less? Do you have the attitude that will make such a scenario into an adventure instead of a disaster?

Do you have a network of people you can count on? Do you know where the probable "good guys" are, and where the potential zombies live? Are you remembering to keep your yap-hole shut about your preps?

I don't believe for one instant that anything unusually disastrous will occur this year. But I'm going to have fun preparing for it anyway. And my "preps" have, over and over again, made slight, very localized "situations" much more bearable for me and my family in the past. You never know what may happen tomorrow. Be ready for it. Think of it as the ultimate role playing game.

Free speech and threats

2011-12-31T07:59:00.000-06:00

Am I the only person who thinks freedom of speech includes threats and falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

Over and over again I hear and/or read people talking about freedom of speech, but then they go and turn it into a privilege rather than a right by putting silly limits on it.

Recently, on Facebook, someone posted a comment to a link to one of my blogs and said something that could have been construed as a threat of violence. It was just confusing enough that I'm really not sure if that's the way it was meant or not.

Then, almost immediately after I saw that comment I watched a video about how Firefly fans "saved" freedom of speech at a university campus, but even the defenders of free speech fell for the myth that threats are not covered.

I don't buy it.

Now, if you act on a threat, or it seems credible that you might, your target is justified in acting to stop you. If you don't like that consequence maybe you should keep your threats to yourself.

Hastings bookstore- authors beware!

2011-12-30T15:35:00.004-06:00

Recently I praised a company, Buck Knives, for their excellent customer service. Today, I will scold another company, Hastings, for a lack of customer service.

As you know (I hope) I have written some books. I placed 5 copies of each title in the local Hastings store. Here is the email I sent to their headquarters back on November 17, 2011- after several months of getting nowhere with the local management:

To Whom it May Concern,

This is in reference to the Hastings store in Clovis, New Mexico.

I have some books I authored on consignment at that store. I am having a lot of problems that have not been solved or adequately addressed.

The "book manager" position keeps changing, and with the change comes different rules. The "book manager" is also very hard to catch at work. For months I was not able to connect with her and my messages were never answered with a call.

About a month ago I was finally able to catch her (the current book manager at the store). She seemed genuinely interested in helping me, but the records for consignment books and sales were in shambles. The contracts for some of my titles were completely missing; with no record of my books ever being in the store. I was able to find the books on the "local authors" shelf, but two titles (out of 5) were missing. Of those which were missing, I was told that one title had been mailed back to me. I never received them, nor did anyone contact me about this. I would have gladly come to the store and retrieved them. I never got any answer as to what had happened to the other missing title, even though I was told that they would find out and call me.

I was asked to fill out new agreements for the books for which there was no longer any record of them being in the store. Which I did. At this time I was also told I must come in and check on sales every 30 days, which is not a problem as long as someone is there who can help me.

I did get paid for 3 books which records showed had been sold since I was last paid.

Today (Nov. 17, 2011) I went back in to check on sales. Once again the book manager was not there. And no one else really knew what was going on.

Now I can find none of my books in the store, and records indicate none of them are in stock, nor did they sell. It was mentioned that the books may have been destroyed in the latest inventory. I paid for those books out of my own pocket, and had anyone called me at the phone number which was on every consignment agreement, I would have come in and picked them up.

Needless to say, I am very unhappy with the situation.

I appreciate Hastings' willingness to sell the books of local authors on consignment. Many other chains simply refuse to do so. However, I can't afford to simply donate my books to Hastings.

Is there anything that you can do about this problem?

Sincerely,

Kent McManigal
Farwell, Texas

Here is the reply I got:

We apologize for your experience at this location. Please know that the information that you have provided has been forwarded onto the correct individuals so that the necessary actions are taken.

You are a valued customer in our stores, and we hope that you will continue to give Hastings the opportunity to provide your home entertainment needs in the future.

If you need anything further please don't hesitate to contact us. Otherwise, no response is needed.

After much more of a runaround, the final answer I got from the local store can be summarized as "tough luck". They won't pay for the books that went missing. They won't accept responsibility for the disappearance.

So, customer beware.

Now is best time to do right

2011-12-29T21:26:00.001-06:00

Now is best time to do right

My Clovis News Journal / Portales News-Tribune column for December 30, 2011

We outnumber the bad guys even more than we thought!

2011-12-29T08:32:00.000-06:00

I could be wrong, but groups such as The Innocence Project and the group I recently read about (in Discover magazine) that is scientifically demonstrating that "arson investigation" is a load of hooey show that there are fewer bad people out there than most people have been led to believe, but that the ones there are might be worse than we thought- responsible for more of the trouble.

Which means that if we each take responsibility to be armed at all times, and stop bad guys who are caught in the act, we can have a larger impact of society than we previously thought.

That's very good news!

I'm selling on eBay. Again.-UPDATED reminder

2011-12-28T11:59:00.000-06:00

Still selling- Did you not get enough reading material for Christmas? I can solve that.

__________________________

Added 12-8-2011: Thanks for the response so far! I'm still waiting for someone to mention the hidden message contained in many listings. No prize for finding it, but maybe the sense of accomplishment will be worth it.

I have added even more books, plus one gem I hesitated to list for sale. I keep thinking about whether I should list some non-book items. Also, there is another seller whose sales go into the same pot, so check out other books there: link

______________________________

Last night I got a big box of books. There are a LOT of "The Cat Who...." books in the box, and some SF, and some Danielle Steel and well, just keep watching. I'm guessing there are 60 or 70 books.

(Added: I have quite a few Robert A. Heinlein and Andre Norton books in the box. I haven't listed them since I'm trying to decide what to read, but let me know if you are looking for a particular title.)

I will be selling them on eBay, adding a few each day for a while. They might make good Christmas/Solstice/Kwanzaa/Hannukah/Festivus/Zagmuk gifts for people you're not too terribly fond of.

So, please, go see what I have for sale. I am dullhawk1840. I try to make the listings entertaining.

Kidnapper- the "protector"

2011-12-28T08:01:00.002-06:00

Speaking, as I was yesterday, of learning lessons from silly sources:

I really enjoyed the movie "Tangled". Of all the Disney cartoon chicks, I like Rapunzel the best. Wow. Anyway... where was I?

The Wicked Kidnapper/"Mother" is The State. She gets Rapunzel to promise, from a`position of enforced ignorance, to never leave her. She gets her to pledge allegiance.

It was all based upon a lie.

When we find out we were lied to, we need to realize our promise is not binding. No matter what we may have said, or what promises we may have made, we were acting on a false premise. We were not the liars, even when we apparently break our word. The deal, if we ever made a deal, is off.

And yes, the Wicked Kidnapper is the bad guy, not the victim. She/it uses us while pretending to be our protector. We are being fed upon. The State, our Wicked Kidnapper, needs us; we do not need it. "She" hopes her lies, and her attempts to shield us from exposure to the truth, will keep us fearful and loyal. She hopes our guilt at wanting out of a false deal will keep us compliant. She will be sad to learn the truth in the moments before she turns to dust.

Libertarians not anti-government

2011-12-27T22:01:00.000-06:00

Libertarians not anti-government

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 25, 2011.)

Recently in this column, which as of this week I have now been writing for a year (party hats and balloons all around!), I have been addressing the misconceptions I have heard repeated about libertarians.

I think it's important to understand your libertarian neighbors, rare though we may seem at first glance to be, so you'll know who you are dealing with and what to expect. I'm happy to provide this service.

A misconception regarding libertarians I run into a lot is that we are "anti-government". That isn't necessarily true. The root of the matter is that libertarians are pro-liberty, and since government is generally anti-liberty it makes us appear, to some observers, to be anti-government. The burden of opposition actually lies with the other side.

You can be anti-government without having the slightest libertarian leanings, and there are plenty of libertarians who still think it is possible to increase liberty through guiding government in "the right direction". I happen to disagree, based upon observation and experience, but I'd enjoy being proved wrong.

But as far as "anti-government"- I have known a lot people over the course of my life who could be described as anti-government. The funny thing about the vast majority of them is that they usually have no problem with the concept of government as long as it is doing what they want done. They are frequently enthusiastic cheerleaders for government coercion and theft, until it is directed at them. At that point they suddenly discover they are "anti-government", until the situation changes once again. That isn't libertarian at all. It is aimlessly "anti-government without any guiding principles". And I think it is dangerous.

If there could exist a hypothetical government which never claimed or enforced a monopoly on force, never sought to finance itself through the twin thefts known as "taxation" and inflating away the value of the currency, never used coercion as a tool against individuals who were not stealing or attacking anyone, and never violated any individual's rights, most libertarians would probably not mind that government. Personally, I would still have no use for it, but I wouldn't spend much effort opposing it.

Because, you see, it's not the government libertarians oppose; it is the unethical behavior they all depend upon in order to exist that we oppose. The same behavior we oppose no matter where it occurs, and no matter who is engaging in it.

Put one foot in front of the other...

2011-12-27T07:54:00.000-06:00

No one wants to believe they are a bad person. Even when they admit they have done something bad they tend to believe they had no choice in the matter, but only did what they "had to do".

I also think that is why so few people change from being a bad person to being good. Justifying their bad behavior by blaming circumstances becomes a habit that is hard to break.

The Winter Warlock learned to put one foot in front of the other in his personal quest to stop being "bad"*, according to the old Christmas TV special. One step at a time. But, first he had to see that what he was doing was wrong, and had to admit it was a choice that he could change.

Funny how often we can learn something from such a trivial source, isn't it.

(*Assuming that he didn't actually own the land that was being crossed by the young Mr. Kringle... If he did own it, he wasn't being very neighborly, but was well within his rights to use force against the trespassers. But, that's another lesson right there. Right up there with the fact that Scrooge was also within his rights before the "ghosts" scared him into changing.)

Wrong again! (I mean me)

2011-12-26T08:02:00.001-06:00

After the Christmas meal had been devoured, and the after-meal stupor had given way to the games, a relative happened to mention the recent jail cell suicide of a suspect in a child abuse case. Her opinion was that his death was a good thing and had saved the "taxpayers" money.

Instead of keeping my mouth shut (wouldn't you just love to have me at your family gatherings) I said that I believe, and the evidence shows, too many innocent people are arrested (and convicted and executed).

She then said "Well, I think if a suspect kills himself it is an admission of guilt." I agreed.

But then I thought about it.

I was wrong.

In the current US Police State a suicide could also be the result of the realization that, even if you are innocent, your life is over once you have been dragged in to the "justice" system by an accusation. Even if you are innocent and are set free by a jury, you will still have the cloud hanging over your head that says that The State thinks you did something bad. Too many State worshipers believe that you wouldn't have been arrested if you didn't do it. And, that's enough to make some people choose death instead of a lifetime of being suspected of getting away with something. In fact, I suspect the innocent might be more inclined to kill themselves after an arrest than people who really don't care.

And, that's also assuming that a suicide is really a suicide, rather than a murder by the kidnappers or their jailhouse "brothers".

Just my thoughts.

Merry Christmas- Happy (late) Solstice!

2011-12-24T12:22:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas. Yuletide greetings. Happy Zagmuk. Happy Festivus. Happy (late) winter solstice- which is the real "reason for the season".

Here's my "deep thought" for the day:

The whole Christmas myth of Santa Claus illustrates why central planning is always a failure. For one individual to visit hundreds of millions of homes in one night, even adjusted for a 24 hour night moving around the planet, would be impossible. Yet, it apparently happens.

How? Santa wouldn't work as a "top down program" administered by one person from one spot, but works pretty well as a "bottom up" deal where each family is responsible for their own little corner of the world- IF they choose to participate. No coercion, no rules. Not perfect, but possible.

Just like every other facet of reality.

Now, enjoy this musical interlude:

Two "deep" questions

2011-12-21T10:54:00.000-06:00

There are two different quotes that touch on the same question, and they have both been going through my mind a lot recently.

One is "What would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?"

The other is "What is it you want the most?"

And I don't have an answer for either one. What does it say about me that I can't answer those questions, and that I have never been able to?

Seriously, I want to be able to answer both of those, and I have been trying to as long as I can remember- even long before I had ever seen the questions in front of me. More than anything else, that is the reason I quit college after 2 years, having never chosen a "major". Am I trying to keep my options open? Or, is that just justification to avoid... something?

And, does it even matter?

.

Coercion no way to win support

2011-12-20T21:30:00.000-06:00

Coercion no way to win support

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for November 18, 2011)

When you decide your house needs a new roof how do you go about getting it done? Do you either try to use your insurance policy or find a way to pay for it yourself? Or, do you go to your neighbors and demand, at gunpoint, that they pay for all or part of it on your behalf?

Only government can consistently choose the latter option and keep getting away with it.

There are a lot of things I think I really "need". Things that would be good for me and probably be good for everyone in my life, but things that cost more than I can possibly afford on my own. There are also things I think would be good for "the community", which I can't do alone.

However I am not under the impression that just because some things would be good, and would arguably benefit a lot of people, I am justified in forcing you to pay for them, even if I can see no other way. I can describe what I want, and try to convince others to pitch in. I could even whine and plead and cry. As long as I don't use coercion- or delegate someone else to use coercion for the cause- I am doing nothing wrong. Annoying, perhaps, but not wrong.

It is also why I would not impose a libertarian paradise on you without leaving you a simple way to opt out.

Just as soon as I use violence, or even skillfully veiled threats of violence, to get my way, I have crossed the line from right to wrong. It doesn't matter what the money was for, or how many people it might benefit. I have de-legitimized my cause by giving up on convincing others to help voluntarily and lowering myself to the level of the common crook.

So, is there something you think should be done that you can't afford to do by yourself? Then start telling others why you believe it is important and convince them to go along with you. Don't turn to coercion, not even through the enforced opinions of a voting majority, to accomplish your goals. That just shows you couldn't sway enough people to voluntarily help you accomplish your goal, but were only able to convince enough who believe coercion is OK and are willing to use force against people who don't want to participate. It means you failed. Don't fail.

Changing the past or embracing it

2011-12-20T11:47:00.004-06:00

Yesterday was the 8th anniversary of what was probably the worst day of my life. I won't go into details.

Almost everything about my life today is a direct result of that one day. And the pain is still almost unbearable at times.

But, because of the pain of that day I sought out like-minded individuals and, instead of simply reading what others were saying about individual liberty, I began speaking out about it. I stood to be counted with the good guys. I felt I had nothing more to lose, and that made me "brave".

Would I change anything if I could? My answer is "no" only because of my daughter, who I would have never had almost 4 years later if that day had gone differently. But, everything else I'd trade away in an instant.

This is reality, and reality says the past can't be changed anyway (even while it can be discovered to all be a lie written to support the current Rulers). So, I accept the current conditions that the past made happen. I'm not so sure I'd say I embrace any of it.

Life goes on, and I have discovered that monumental change comes when you least expect it, so never get too comfortable with life. The next monumental change may just be wonderful.

.

"The Political Bible" by Rich Rubino

2011-12-19T08:37:00.001-06:00

I've been reading The Political Bible of Little Known Facts in American Politics by Rich Rubino. It is dedicated to "political junkies", one of which I most assuredly am not.

However...It is a very fascinating book. Once I got past my initial bewilderment over why politicians and their oddities are more worthy of a book than are janitors or doctors I found myself enjoying the book.

You can read about things future presidents did before they entered organized crime. Among other things. You can also read about state-level politicians, and congresscritters. And you can read facts about the "founding documents". Seriously, this book is just filled with short snippets that cover the spectrum. Odd things, funny things, sad things.

Since this is a "plotless" book, it is an excellent bathroom book. You can read just a few of the brief entries at a time and never lose your place.

I did enjoy it- in fact, I still am enjoying it. I also know some people I intend to loan it to- but I want it back.

So, thanks, Rich, for allowing me the opportunity to enjoy your obsession.

Buck Knives- Thumbs up!

2011-12-18T15:12:00.003-06:00

I just wanted to say something nice about a company that made me very satisfied: Buck knives.

Recently in my wanderings, I found a Buck knife buried under some gravel. (Not a clue why I decided to dig right there...) It was in rough shape and the tip of the blade was broken off.

I looked online when I got home and discovered that it wasn't a cheap knife by any means, so I emailed Buck an inquiry about their repair services.

I was told that I could send the knife and $10 to them and it would be repaired. Good deal!

Since one of my everyday carry knives is also a buck, and also had its tip broken off when it was very new (over 20 years ago) by (probably) the first person I handed it to (grrr!), I decided I would send it in as well.

Well, I got the knives back and ... WOW! The found knife looked almost new. They had not only replaced the broken blade with a new, and fairly sharp, blade, but they had also polished the handle very nicely. The wood still has some deep scratches, but everything is smooth and feels nice in the hand. It was more than I expected and I was thrilled.

My everyday knife looked new. It was in pretty good shape anyway (I had long ago reshaped the blade so the broken tip wasn't even noticeable to anyone but me), but it is in practically perfect shape now. Once again, they hit the bullseye!

Just a bit of sharpening and the knives were up to my sharpness standards (which are ridiculously high).

No, Buck isn't paying or otherwise rewarding me to say any of this. I tried to send Buck an email to tell them how happy I was with their repair service as soon as I got the knives back, but the email wouldn't go through. So I hope they will someday see this and know they got my respect. $20 for two like-new knives is a deal that just can't be beat.

"Freedom: Time to Take it Back!" by Ron Fontaine

2011-12-18T13:54:00.003-06:00

Here is something good to read today. I didn't write it, but it seems like something that could have come out of my brain. It has been around a while, but I just now ran across it.

Freedom: Time to Take it Back! by Ron Fontaine

My own opinion is that "we" don't need to take anything back. I intend to exercise my liberty regardless of what anyone else does. It would be nice if I had enough company that The State was afraid to move against me in the knowledge that to do so would result in its immediate destruction. But, either way, I withdraw consent.

Facts, right or wrong, vs Opinions

2011-12-18T08:46:00.000-06:00

Do all solutions create more problems? Yes. You may not like that fact, but it will remain a fact in spite of your displeasure. And, regardless of the statement made by a commenter on the above-linked column.

But, let's pretend for a moment I am wrong. Is the above statement about solutions and problems a "fact" or an "opinion"?

Even if it is wrong, it is an erroneous fact, not an opinion.

An opinion is saying "chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream" or "They Might be Giants is the best musical group". Saying "The Unicorn is the most massive of the cetaceans" is wrong, but it is not an opinion.

The Golden Rule

2011-12-17T08:32:00.000-06:00

I have mentioned before that The Zero Aggression Principle says about the same thing as The Golden Rule. Turns out I was a little off- well, maybe.

A new friend and I were talking the other night and he mentioned something I'm not sure I've ever heard before (well, more than one thing, but that may be the subject of more posts).

He said The Golden Rule should be (and may actually have originally been) "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

From a "negative rights" perspective, that makes perfect sense to me.

"Sharia law is coming!"

2011-12-15T08:01:00.000-06:00

I just saw another person post a warning that "Sharia law is coming!"

No, it's already here. You just don't see it because it's based upon a religion you happen to be a part of.

Kinda scary to think you might lose your privileged position and be subject to someone else's nonsensical "laws" and draconian punishments for doing things you have an absolute, eternal human right to do, isn't it. Maybe you shoulda thought about that before doing unto others.

Adventures in Amarillo

2011-12-14T08:40:00.000-06:00

I went to the big city today. Spent some time in a mall. Yeah, believe it or not I do enjoy malls and the opportunity they provide for people watching. And going to the knife store.

Anyway, I was sitting in the play area watching my daughter play with the other kids when she suddenly commented about the baby running off. She was pointing past the exit. I turned and looked and, yep, there was a little kid (probably not much over a year old) toddling for the mall's exit. I quickly scanned to see if any adults seemed to be going after him, and seeing no one, I took off.

The path he chose was not crowded so I didn't exactly run or anything, but just walked with purpose after him. (with my 40" inseam, I cover ground quickly) About halfway there a woman asked if that was my kid. I said "No. He just left the play area and no one went after him, so I thought I should bring him back." About this time (I never stopped walking) he reached the exit and started trying to get past the Salvation Army bell ringer, who was trying to keep him from wiggling through. I got to the kid and offered him my hand. He quite happily took it and I began leading him back to the play area. He traveled just as fast back as he did in his escape attempt.

The bystander was still standing there staring at the scene. She once again asked about his parents. I said that no one seemed to be watching him or noticing that he was gone. I said I just figured I'd get him back in the play area and see who claimed him.

I took him in and was met by my daughter's mom, who loudly asked a chatting woman if this was her kid. She answered "Well, if I have to claim him..."

I told her that he made it all the way to the exit and would have made it outside had the bell ringer not held him back. (Of course, he wouldn't have gotten through the second set of doors, as by that point I was right there.) She just kinda shrugged and led him back to where she was sitting. Then resumed chatting to someone sitting a few feet from her as the kid started playing again.

The bystander came up to me and made some comments about the mother's lack of attention and seemed completely bewildered how anyone could just let their kid wander off that way, and seem so unconcerned after it had happened.

I did notice he was watched a little more carefully after that, since his subsequent escape attempts were thwarted by his mother before he could leave the area.

Just another day...

Libertarians aren't angry people

2011-12-13T22:34:00.000-06:00

Libertarians aren't angry people (...in general) If that link doesn't work, try this one.

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 11, 2011.)

One accusation I have seen repeatedly leveled at libertarians, by people who see themselves as being in the mainstream, is that libertarians must be "angry". Just because we speak out against the use of coercion, and don't fall for exceptions based upon- well, anything, we must be "angry"?

Now, I won't deny I have known a couple of angry libertarians. And angry conservatives and angry liberals too, for that matter. Considering human nature, and with all else being equal, you might imagine the percentages are comparable.

On the other hand, a philosophy that rejects aggression seems ill-suited to angry people. Angry people are drawn to revenge and punishment. If a libertarian is consistent, revenge and punishment (beyond restitution to the individuals directly harmed by an act of aggression or theft) are impossible to justify.

To assume a person must be angry just because he speaks out when he see things wrong with the world makes no sense. Are you angry when you say the house needs fresh paint, or when you mention to someone that your car needs gas? Neither am I angry when I point out that coercion is wrong, and that I do not want any individual, or any group, using it against others on my behalf. It is just the way it is.

Now, I might be angry if I know my house needs to be painted, but someone uses coercion or theft to prevent me from painting it. Or if I see someone forcing others to paint his house against their will. And, knowing that liberty would solve most of the real and imagined problems in society, I get more than a little frustrated when popular pundits and powerful puppeticians (* note to editor: Yes, I made up a word to describe politicians who are controlled by something other than Principle. You can change it back to "politician" if you must) propose the opposite- and then pretend to be surprised when the problems inevitably get worse.

Perhaps the "angry" label is applied because libertarians are not ashamed to speak out. Silence changes nothing, and it gives an illusion of consent where none exists. I prefer to give fair warning and point out the lines in the sand. No one seems too shocked that liberals/conservatives speak out; only that those who don't buy into that false dichotomy speak up.

I feel bad for those who have hitched their wagon to the twin horses of coercion and theft. The choice was theirs to make, and I wonder if the accusation is an attempt to put libertarians on the defensive.

Arguing is so tiresome

2011-12-13T08:17:00.003-06:00

You know, I'm getting tired of arguing.

I feel like it might just be easier to let people wallow in happy ignorance than to try to show them a little light of truth.

But, the problem is that I care about people and I think operating from faulty premises hurts them.

It's like if I see someone in a survival situation trying to make a fire without matches. I've started thousands of fires that way. If I see someone trying in a way that I see isn't going to work I want to at least give pointers. People generally hate that. I know because I've done that, too.

I've also been on the other side. I was once the guy who had tried to make a fire with a bow/drill... and failed- probably hundreds of times. I had read every description ever written of the making of the kit, and the techniques, and failed time and time again. Then, one day high in the Rockies, I heard a guy was going to do a demonstration on bow/drill firemaking. I swallowed my pride and showed up- an ignorant pilgrim in need of help. I watched him make a fire- and saw him correct the one fatal error in every single description I had ever read- and I had a fire in minutes the very next time I tried. Which was just as fast as I could gather the materials.

But, perhaps I had to be at the point where I was ready for help. (I think I was ready for help years earlier; I just couldn't find it.)

So, the best thing might be to clear a spot and build my own fire without uttering a word. Or, just let objections go unanswered while just living it. That makes me feel a little like I am ignoring my duty, though.

Concentration camps, and those who support them.

2011-12-12T08:12:00.000-06:00

Prison.

Is my life one iota better because there are prisons? No!

Oh, but you might claim I am "safer" when the bad guys are locked up where they can't hurt me. And I would scoff.

Prisons are nothing but concentration camps that enrich and empower the real bad guys.

Not all are as bad as this example, but none are good. And those who work in them should examine the evil they are supporting and enabling.

Prison, and the looming threat of prison, is used to silence legitimate dissent. A large percentage who are imprisoned are political prisoners- caged and controlled for violating drug "laws", gun "laws", and other counterfeit "laws". Some are caged and controlled for being uppity enough to do the right thing and defend their own life or property instead of standing aside while testosterone-jacked thugs who work for the State do the job (poorly and randomly) for them.

"Society", meaning individuals like you and me, would be safer if there were no prisons, and those who decide to attack or steal had to face targets who didn't have to worry that the legitimate act of self defense- of life or property- would result in a potential prison sentence.

Concentration camps are disgusting, and all associated with them would be ashamed if they had any ethics or principles.

New excuse to keep long hair

2011-12-11T14:38:00.002-06:00

I just read this little article: Hair Is An Extension Of The Nervous System, Why Indians Keep Their Hair Long. Read it. It isn't very long.

No, I don't buy it either.

Hair is dead, and it made of keratin, not nerve tissue. However, I'll take whatever silly justifications I can when told I "should" cut my hair.

I know I feel better when my hair is long. That's enough for me.

Anti-Christmas Christians

2011-12-11T12:13:00.004-06:00

I don't remember ever seeing as much anti-Christmas whining as I'm seeing this year. By Christians.

A lot of it is based around this video which keeps cropping up on Facebook. My thoughts are "so what?" You try to co-opt an ancient holiday, and then moan and complain because the original bits of it won't go away peacefully and let you have it all your way? OK, so it was your ancestors, not you, who tried that sneaky little trick. Still... Why not just enjoy the holiday?

So, here's a compromise: you Christians who aren't happy about the pagan aspects of a pagan holiday which you tried to claim for yourselves, why not find out with absolute certainty if/when Jesus was born and then go celebrate that date as your holiday and leave Christmas- by whatever name- to the rest of us. You are perfectly welcome to continue to celebrate with us, of course. Just stop trying to poop on the fun. OK?

Offensive materials online

2011-12-10T08:17:00.000-06:00

I keep seeing different governments and moralizers trying to forbid or regulate "offensive material" on the internet.

Offensive to whom?

Pro-cop drivel is extremely offensive to me, so why should I be exposed to it?

Anti-gun nonsense also offends me. As does pro-military stuff and anti-sex hand-wringing. Yet no one seems bothered that I am routinely exposed to this crap. For that matter, I have never sought to have anyone protect me from it. I need to be aware that it is out there so it doesn't catch me unaware. I can pretty much control what I am exposed to by avoiding certain sites. I am not a baby to be coddled. Can't say the same about the statists and moralizers.

Some people just don't get it- firefighting edition

2011-12-09T20:10:00.003-06:00

Another entry in "Some people just don't get it".

Someone, or a site, calling himself/itself "Needlenose" has latched onto a symptom of The State and declared it to be a consequence of "Libertopia". He is gloating over the "libertarian" Tennessee firefi... firewatchers who refused to put out a fire until they got paid.

So, I posted the following comment (over a day ago, but it is still languishing in Moderation):

"You kinda miss the point, since things like this would probably not happen in Libertopia, yet this event did happen in a coercive, non-libertopian society."

Defeating "confirmation bias"

2011-12-09T09:00:00.000-06:00

How can you be sure that libertarianism- respect for the liberty of each individual- is the right path?

Confirmation bias means that we will ignore counter evidence and play up the importance of evidence that supports our case.

However, I didn't always support the whole "liberty package". In fact, there are aspects of libertarianism I used to hate. However, when presented with evidence that showed that respecting individual liberty was better- made my life and the lives of those around me safer, wealthier, and more consistent- I switched sides on those issues. I didn't allow confirmation bias to obscure the evidence for liberty.

Perhaps that means something.

Liberty Lines- December 8, 2011

2011-12-08T08:26:00.000-06:00

(The State Line Tribune, December 8, 2011)

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Freedom of speech is meaningless until you want to say something that those with power- be they a dictator or a voting majority- don't want you to say. And property rights are likewise meaningless until you want to use your property in a way those with power don't like.

With the Esparza property rights case in Texico, a property owner's rights are being trampled, apparently with universal approval, and that's sad.

This doesn't mean I appreciate junk and litter. On the contrary, I hate them with a passion. However my right to do something about it ends at my property lines. I have every right to take action to stop anyone from damaging my property, but only until I try to control someone else's property. Requests and privacy fences; not invasion and theft.

Ah, but some will claim that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so property rights don't mean you can use your property in a way that might devalue your neighbors' property or cause a "health hazard".

You have the right to shout whatever you wish to shout, wherever you wish to shout it, but you are accountable for any actual harm that occurs from your doing so. Offending or frightening someone is not harming them; they are still fully responsible for how they react to your shout.

Accordingly, you have a right to use your property however you wish and then you have a responsibility to pay any real damages your usage causes your neighbors. Resorting to "legal coercion" when negotiation fails means you are cheating to get what you want.

That includes billing property owners for work they did not consent to having done on their property.

The individuals actually harmed, not any government entity, are within their rights to demand restitution for the harm, and they are also within their rights to fence their property, shoot or poison any pests coming from the problem property (regardless of "laws" to the contrary), and to completely shun the owner- refuse to have any dealings or do business with him in any way even if it means he starves in the dark and cold. No one is within their rights to take ownership of someone's property by controlling how they use it just because the person isn't cooperative.

If I had the money I'd even help the property owner pay any lien that is placed on his property so that it won't be stolen, "legally" or not, from him. Because it's the right thing to do.

Busting another myth

2011-12-07T19:41:00.003-06:00

The news says that the Mythbusters guys have had an accident and shot a cannonball through a house and left a path of destruction through a neighborhood, ending with a damaged van.

The truth is somewhat different.

I have watched the show a lot. Whenever cannons or guns are involved, the Mythbusters crew defers to local Only Ones. You know, enforcers who are the "only ones" to be trusted with guns and such. So, if an accident happened, it was NOT the Mythbusters who screwed up. It was just another Lee Paige moment.

Gun bans

2011-12-07T09:00:00.000-06:00

Outlawing guns in big cities makes as much sense as outlawing snow shovels in the Rocky Mountains.

And don't forget, any "laws" forbidding owning or carrying, or demanding a license for either, are "laws" which outlaw guns.

Don't let imperfections ruin life

2011-12-06T20:14:00.000-06:00

Don't let imperfections ruin life

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 4, 2011.)

The imperfections in the world can bring some entertainment. I am glad for that. Unbroken comfort can make you more numb than jumping into that frozen lake with a polar bear club.

Recently I enjoyed sitting outside during the dirt storm that hit the area. My young daughter enjoyed it with me. She ran around laughing as the dirt engulfed her- obviously exhilarated by the novelty of the situation. We could have hunkered indoors and complained about the weather, but look at the joy we would have missed. Adverse conditions can be fun to sit through, with the right attitude. Witness storm chasers.

Some people live lives of bitterness just because everything in the world isn't perfect. They seem to believe the only way to make themselves feel better is to force everyone else to conform to their idea of "perfect". That is sad. Sure, there are so many things that could be better, but you may as well enjoy what you can when the opportunity presents itself. You are only responsible for your life, and you have an obligation to mind your own business. Remembering that frees up a huge amount of your life.

For example: I value liberty, but I can still enjoy life even though I am surrounded by a government that I don't need, I don't want, I don't respect, and that only gets in the way. There is no Utopia. Even in a free society there will still be bad guys trying to use coercion or other aspects of the political method in order to deprive individuals of their life, liberty, and property. If you can't enjoy life now, under government, you wouldn't be able to enjoy a life of liberty. either. If you can't enjoy a little dirt storm now and then, you probably can't enjoy the rainy days. There will always be something you could complain about.

That doesn't mean you let evil go unnoticed or unchallenged. It just means you call a spade a spade, then move on and don't let it ruin your day. In fact, you can probably get on with the business of living more easily when you clear the air and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Just weather the storm, try not to get blown away, and laugh at the foolishness of it all. Especially the foolishness of those who mistake the storm for life.

Cursed turn signals!!!

2011-12-06T08:10:00.000-06:00

I have come to the conclusion that I really dislike turn signals. I know, that's not a popular opinion. You are more likely to hear people cussing about those who don't use turn signals. But I have come to really despise the stupid things.

And, here's why.

Sure, it sounds like a good idea: let other drivers know that you intend to turn (or change lanes) before you do it. Of course, unless your move will actually interfere with other drivers in some way, it's pointless, but we'll ignore that for a moment.

The reality of turn signals comes down to this: Some drivers use your warning as a challenge to cut you off before you can do what you signaled your intention to do.

And, in the case of others signaling for your "benefit", in most cases it seems that the signal is ripe for tragic confusion. Here in town I can't trust drivers to turn when they are signaling that they are turning. And I am not talking about people who used their signal when changing lanes and then forgot to turn it off. When I am trying to pull out on the highway and see an apparent opening due to someone signaling, it usually turns out that they are actually turning beyond where I sit. If I trust their signal and pull out I will be hit. If they wait until they are past me to begin signaling so as to not be misleading me, the signal is meaningless. And in that case, according to the "law", they didn't turn on their signal far enough in advance of their turn. So, signal or not, I need to wait until they either turn or pass me before I make a move, just as I would have to do in the absence of turn signals.

And, in response to one person I mentioned this to (after just such an event while they were driving) who couldn't wrap their mind around my point at all, I am not saying hand signals are "better". I think it's usually better- but not always- to forgo the signal completely. If you can signal in a way that has little chance of causing confusion, do it. If not, leave the lever alone!

Who started it?

2011-12-05T08:39:00.000-06:00

Is it "theft" or an example of trespassing in order to retrieve your stolen property from someone else's property when your negotiations fail?

I don't think it is.

I have never been in a situation where I had to make that decision, but I wouldn't fault someone for breaking in and re-taking possession of their own stolen property as long as they did as little damage as possible on entering, and didn't take anything extra. What about you?

I think it is the same sort of situation where using violence against someone who is initiating force against you is not attacking them, but self defense.

I also don't think it is "cheating" if you don't stay faithful to the remnants of a relationship where the other person has unilaterally ended the sexual component.

And, there are other similar situations out there.

To me it all comes back to "who started it?"

Fictional Mentors

2011-12-03T06:03:00.001-06:00

My favorite fictional character "mentors", and the list may not be complete, are: Sherlock Holmes, Malcolm Reynolds, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Crocodile Dundee, and Captain Jack Sparrow. (If I think of more, I'll add them- sneak them into the line-up- later.)

Those are the characters I would most like to "be like" in some major way. None of them are perfect, and I would prefer to gain their good qualities while avoiding their flaws. Of course, I already have plenty of flaws of my own; perhaps theirs wouldn't be much worse.

I'm not sure what that says about me other than that it's probably silly of me to have "favorite fictional character mentors" at all.

Be Alert. Do it for YOU.

2011-12-02T08:31:00.003-06:00

I was a little surprised that anyone wouldn't have already known this on their own.

Being alert and aware doesn't just protect you from bad guys and dangerous situations, it also allows you to notice the good stuff too.

I'm not always there, but I try. When my situational awareness slips, and then I snap back, I realize how much I have missed. Everything was gray and muffled, and once I start being aware again, the colors come flooding back.

I know a lot of people who stumble through life, noticing almost nothing. It shocks me how much they don't see. They don't know where their cell phone is, because, even though they are the one who laid it down and they have passed it repeatedly, they neither noticed placing it there, nor noticed it when they walked through the room. But outdoors this inconvenience becomes even more tragic. They don't see the animal tracks under their feel, nor the kestrel sailing overhead, nor the flower blooming in the shadow. They don't hear the prairie dog scolding them from a distance, or the sandhill cranes calling from high in the sky. They are missing out on life.

Let's face it- the lurking danger is pretty rare, but the beauty you could be enjoying is everywhere. Stay alert so you can enjoy your surroundings, and so that when the lurking danger does appear you will notice it before it becomes a problem.

It isn't an inconvenience or a burden to be alert. It's one of the greatest gifts you can give yourself.

Pedobear Panic!

2011-12-01T08:15:00.000-06:00

Pedobear? Really, Albuquerque Panic-Pushers are worried that pedophiles would advertise themselves as pedophiles? That should be their fondest wish!

Personally, I think it's a good thing when predators self-identify. Cops do it with uniforms and silly hair-hats. Encourage pedophiles to do it with Pedobear. It saves the rest of us a lot of trouble.

Look, it's just a cartoon character, and if someone chooses to display it they probably aren't going to be an actual pedophile. The real danger comes from those who want to avoid any suspicion.

But even if a pedophile has a Pedobear sticker on his car, so what? Teach your kids to stay away from that character, kinda like any other warning symbol. And more importantly, teach your kids to be aware of their surroundings and that it is OK to try to hurt anyone who tries to attack them. And teach them how to do it.

Climate change no excuse for tyranny

2011-11-30T21:01:00.000-06:00

Climate change no excuse for tyranny

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 28, 2011. This is the long version.)

You are being lied to about "global warming". By both sides.

Of course, it's no longer called "global warming", but "anthropogenic global climate change", to communicate the idea that the average global temperature might go up or go down in the short term, along with other climatic effects, and that human activities- specifically technology- are the cause.

No matter the name, "anthropogenic global climate change" ("AGCC" for short) is presented as a clear line in the sand between those who believe they have the right to control how you live "for the greater good" and those who don't.

Except, that isn't the whole truth. The irony is that some of AGCC's most vocal critics also believe in using the violence of government to violate your property rights and individual sovereignty, but for different reasons. Reasons like "national security", "morality", or "preserving our culture". Those critics have to insist AGCC is false or their belief in using the authority of The State to control you would come back to bite them.

Is AGCC real? No one knows for sure one way or the other, although you'll hear both sides claim they know the truth and that the "other side" is lying in order to promote an agenda. I'll let you in on a secret: it doesn't matter if AGCC is real or not. Making laws that violate individual rights - even in an effort to "save the planet"- is still wrong.

Uncouple AGCC from the agendas and pretend for a moment that it is absolutely factual. Pretend also that climate change would be wholly bad rather than the more likely reality that it would be a mixed bag of good and bad effects. Do you have the right to prevent someone else from doing things that might contribute in some unspecified, non-quantifiable way to AGCC? How do you calculate the exact amount of damage any specific individual's actions are causing to your property? Almost any action taken by people, and most other forms of life, could be claimed to cause some "damage to the planet". It is wrong to criminalize human life.

Think about it another way: Do you have a right to prevent someone from making a mutually consensual individual economic decision that might contribute to the collapse of the world economy? Buying a car using US dollars is economically harmful compared to buying a car with real money like gold or silver, yet as long as the buyer and seller can both agree, it is their decision- even if it might contribute to global economic upheaval in the long run. And don't be fooled: economic problems can be just as deadly as climate problems can.

Your only ethical option is to convince people to do what you believe they should do rather than using collectivism and initiating force to impose your will. Present the best evidence for your position and admit the unknowns. Don't lie to be more persuasive; that will only harm your argument when it is discovered. Make the best choice you can, setting the best example possible, with the information you have. Change is inevitable. Tyranny isn't.

Are we doomed to be wrong?

2011-11-29T07:49:00.000-06:00

I keep reading things that suggest that because of the way human brains work and the limits of our experiences, we are usually wrong about any important issue we form an opinion about.

Whether it's Xerographica talking about the blind men groping an elephant, or Cracked.com's list of the 5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think, I feel I am getting signals from all sides saying that little old me has no chance to ever discover the truth. Either my perspective will be too limited or my brain will deceive me.

But I know that's not completely true.

Sure, I may be blind, feeling only one part of an elephant (and she'd be enjoying it, too), but I don't stand in one place for long. In moving around I would quickly get a clue that things were not as they seemed at first.

And, if everyone is being deceived by their own logical fallacies then they have as little chance of being right from the start as I do. If my ideas are wrong, then chances are those who disagree with me the most are also wrong. As long as I keep listening and testing my ideas, I will at least keep up with those who think differently about the issues. Eventually one of us, out of all of us, will find reality. If you find reality it isn't a good idea to change your mind later just because a lot of people disagree with you. Reality stands up.

One thing that suggests to me that I am at least on the right track is that I now accept some things that I once found absolutely abhorrent. But I heard them (or realized them), I tested them, and they passed, so I accepted them and was forced to adapt in order to be right.

Because being right- seeing reality as it actually is- is important to me. And I do think there is an objective reality and the universe isn't just a subjective guessing game.

Open letter to a local cop

2011-11-27T08:08:00.000-06:00

You are the local cop. I see you everywhere, and watch as you break some of the "laws" I have seen you enforce against others. I know that it is human nature to justify your own behavior, but seeing this disgusts me. It's not that I think you should stop doing the things I see you do; it's that you should stop enforcing those "laws" against others. That's not why I am writing, though.

You may be a "nice" guy. You may even really try to help the community. Most of the time you seem friendly- as long as you are not acting in an "official capacity". I still try to avoid you whenever I can, because although you are a person, I can't trust you to not act as a cop if something triggers you. It's the same reason I won't sleep with a rabid skunk in my bed no matter how tame it seems.

Above all, I pity you. By joining forces with the worst enemy the people in America, and all of humanity, have ever faced you made yourself into a villain. You aligned yourself with the powerful bad guys who think it is their duty to tell other people how to live regardless of natural law, and think they deserve to be supported by the fruits of the labor of those they attempt to rule- in direct violation of natural law. And, by accepting a cut of the loot from those parasites in exchange for imposing their will on your neighbors, you became a parasite yourself. And, often, a thug. Your behavior is no better than any other gang member. You may (usually?) abide by your gang's rules, but when those rules are wrong, that isn't a point in your favor.

Probably no one other than me has ever pointed this truth out to you.

And now that you know the truth, you have a choice. You can change careers, or you can pretend that what I said isn't true and keep on doing what you are doing. But by taking the second path you go from having your guilt extenuated by ignorance to a willing embrace of evil. Your choice will show where your heart lies. Because, even if you never enforce another counterfeit "law" for the rest of your life, you are still living off of money taken by threat of violence from people who do not hand it over willingly. You are receiving stolen property, knowing full-well where it came from. That is enough to erase all the good you might ever do.

So, what is your decision?

Thinkfullness about thankfullness

2011-11-24T08:20:00.001-06:00

Thanksgiving is here again. So, what am I thankful for? A lot.

Among the thankfulness is this: I am so thankful to all my readers for stopping by.

I'm not as "big" as a lot of the bloggers I admire, but it warms my heart to know that you actually take time out of your busy day to read what's on my mind.

So, thank you all.

Choice means running own life

2011-11-22T17:21:00.000-06:00

Choice means running own life

(My CNJ column for October 21, 2011.)

You do have a choice, but it is not the choice you are usually presented with. The real choice is between being responsible for governing your own life or allowing someone else to govern you. To put it more bluntly, the choice is between liberty and slavery. However, if you listen to anyone other than libertarians you will be told that the choice is between limiting liberty in a "reasonable manner" and succumbing to chaotic death and destruction at the hands of others. Wrong.

Life is not really reducible to a choice between a fascist State or a murderous free-for-all. People who try to pretend these are the only available options are not being truthful. Or, perhaps they have been brainwashed into being unable to see any other options.

How many times have you heard the equivalent of "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists"? Or seen someone try to make the point that you must either violate a stranger's rights or watch your children be molested? How many times have you heard the "self-evident" opinion expressed that there is only a choice between tax-financed government schools with compulsory attendance or mass illiteracy and general ignorance. How many "experts" go on television, after an awful criminal act makes the news, to insist government must pass and enforce more gun laws or tragic shootings will continue to occur?

How many people are brave enough to admit that the collectivist "solution" in each of these cases ends up causing more of the problem?

Those who profit from scaring you into believing you face only the two extremes are happy that you are willing to believe it. It makes their work easier if you don't think for yourself. Fear is not a good emotional condition to be in while making decisions. It leads to draconian "for the children" laws that will ultimately hurt the children- if not immediately, then almost certainly once they become adults.

No one can claim fear isn't a powerful motivator, or that false dichotomies, and "for the children" doesn't usually work. That's why the strategies will continue to be popular. However, when you notice these tactics being used you should realize you are being manipulated, and it is not for your benefit or for the benefit of your children. It is strictly for the benefit of those who want to run your life. Don't fall for it.

"Greater Good"? Neither.

2011-11-22T11:19:00.004-06:00

I recently ran into the term "greater good" again. And, as is always the case, the "greater good" being discussed was not great or good.

That term is invariably used to describe harming some individuals in order to promote some group's agenda. The group, through its individual members, decides that the individuals it targets are doing something that is "bad" for "society", and so they must be sacrificed. Sometimes the sacrifice doesn't result in the targeted individuals' actual, physical death, but other times it does.

And the murderers feel smug and get awards for the "good" they have done, while hiding behind the group, and lies, to avoid justice.

I never bought it, and I never will.

The only "greater good" is to respect the life, liberty, and property of every individual. Nothing can be greater than that, and that is the root of all good. Anything less great or less good is evil.

TV's "Parks & Recreation"

2011-11-21T08:06:00.000-06:00

I've been watching the show "Parks & Recreation" on Netflix. Late at night. It is about a fictional town's parks and recreation department, which is headed by a fictional libertarian.

At least the character says he's a libertarian.

Don't get me wrong. I like the character. He has some libertarian characteristics. He also has some anti-social characteristics and some quasi-conservative characteristics. But he is much too eager to accept the government's say on things, and its limits on natural rights, to be a libertarian. Plus, you know, he works for the government. (OK, I accept that it does happen.)

For example: He gave another character a handgun as a 21st birthday gift, and then went on to talk about holding it for her until she got her "license". If you're going to give someone a gun, why wait until the "law" says it is OK, and why make a big deal about licensing and other such nonsense. I suppose you could make the argument that he just wanted an excuse to hang on to the .22 caliber mouse gun a little longer, but that isn't believable. No, I think it showed he is a statist.

Even more telling; he seems to know nothing of the Zero Aggression Principle, or anything else that defines libertarianism.

It bothers me that this may be the only reference to libertarianism that some people will ever see, and it is just plain wrong. They will come away with the notion that "libertarian" means selfish, aimlessly anti-government, and slightly misanthropic, without any guiding principle. But, then, that's what "The Powers That Be" and the mainstream media believe... or want everyone else to believe. It's like having a show about a horse, but using a camel in the starring role.

Still, if you want an amusing way to waste some time, it's a funny show. I can even watch it, in spite of it being about government, and get a laugh.

Lying on the internet, sex predators, and The State

2011-11-19T10:26:00.003-06:00

If lying on the internet is now a federal crime, that means that LEOs pretending to be 15 year-old girls looking for sex with older men are also committing a federal crime.

The State and its sex predators can't have it both ways.

"Public goods"?

2011-11-18T08:13:00.001-06:00

The term "public good" is used to justify a lot of theft and coercion.

There is no such thing as a "public good".

Instead, there is only a tradition that says "the market can't provide this, so we must use the force of the government to provide it by forcing people who don't want it to pay for it".

But that's a lie, and the supposed "public goods" will change from place to place and over time, depending on what the local thieves/politicians want to steal your money for.

Here and now it is roads and "national defense" [sic]. In other places and during other times it has been other things. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that "witchcraft intervention" has been a "public good" somewhere at some time.

If something is wanted (never mind whether it is needed) there will be a market for that thing (or service) and those willing to provide it. No theft or coercion necessary.

Added: a lot more discussion has been carried out here.

Here we come, a-waffling...

2011-11-17T08:29:00.000-06:00

Anyone else ever notice (if you bother to waste your attention on such things) that politicians either waffle all over the "political" map, or they find the most idiotic stance they possibly can and then stand absolutely firm in their idiocy- immune to reason, logic, or decency?

And then those who choose to participate in politics act surprised at the mess that results.

Kinder? Gentler? Me?

2011-11-16T16:24:00.004-06:00

My editor at the paper emailed me after my latest submission (to be published Friday). He commented about me being "kinder and gentler" recently. What?!? Kinder? Gentler? Am I losing my touch?

Yes, I try to say things for the newspaper column that don't compromise principles of liberty in any way, while not sounding mean and nasty. I probably try harder to do that in the newspaper column than in this blog. But, I still say things in every column that I suspect might cause problems. I am still the same old me, and my attitudes and opinions haven't changed a bit. In person I am always (I think) kind and gentle. Sometimes to excess.

But to hear that about my writing is a shock.

Seriously, do I need to re-examine myself to see if I am losing my edge?

Protesters should focus on the Fed

2011-11-15T21:42:00.000-06:00

Protesters should focus on the Fed

My Clovis News Journal column for October 14, 2011. (I actually used the preferred spelling "protestors", but the paper changed it.)

The recent "Occupy Wall Street" events are entertaining political theater. It has been interesting to watch the Democrats derail the movement just as the Republicans derailed the Tea Party movement before. This may also partially explain why so many of the participants are missing the point. Many, if not most, of the protestors blame "capitalism" for the problems they are protesting. Some even are pushing socialism as the solution. They couldn't be more wrong. Of course, those misguided protestors have been raised to believe in the twisted ideals of socialism, so what would you expect them to cry out for?

Yes, Wall Street is corrupt. What do you expect when you have a government available to be influenced and bought? "Laws" to be manipulated and monopolies to be protected? Under such a system this exact type of corruption and cronyism is inevitable. However to confuse the current situation with capitalism is to show you have no clue what capitalism is.

Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals, rather than the government, own and control the means of production. This hasn't been the case in America in a very long time. While the ownership is still nominally private, the control- through thousands of pages of rules and regulations concerning every aspect of running a business- is by the State. Thus, no capitalism.

A more accurate term for the melding of government and "big business" (usually through the government's creation of corporations) is "fascism". Or, to use a less politically-charged word, "corporatism". Corporatism is not capitalism and is not equivalent to the free market. In fact, it is the mortal enemy of the free market and liberty of all sorts.

Some of the protestors are focusing on an even more deserving villain: The Federal Reserve. They are calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve and and end to its operation. My only disagreement with this point is that the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down regardless of whether it is ever audited or not. The US dollar has lost almost all of its value since the Federal Reserve began its counterfeiting operation back in 1913. Isn't that enough reason to abolish it? Return to sound money based upon things that can be voluntarily agreed upon to have lasting value. Gold and silver are good choices and have worked well as money for thousands of years.

I wish more of the protestors understood these simple facts rather than going with the feel-good soundbites they have been repeating endlessly.

Pragmatarianism examined

2011-11-14T08:26:00.000-06:00

Xerographica keeps harping on the "pragmatarian" idea of still forcibly extracting "taxes" from people, but letting them choose which thugs shall receive the stolen property.

His idea is that in this way tax slaves would be able to reward government agencies for doing what they want done, and de-fund those they don't like. (Yes, this is a simplified synopsis.) In his view, this way, if the market is really better than government, government would fade away due to lack of funds.

How?

Unless you are free to choose to send your "taxes" to a private enterprise instead of an "equivalent" government office, all the "tax" money will still end up going to government, and will be unavailable in the market. Unless I can fund the local militia instead of the Pentagon, how will my choice be honored?

Sure, I could send my "tax" money to the EPA instead of the Pentagon, but I can't choose an actual alternative to the Pentagon.

Considering this deeper: I don't want or need cops or the military. So, would any money I spend on guns, ammo, and training be subtracted from my coerced "tax" burden? After all, I am choosing to spend the protection money on the only one who really has any incentive to protect me and my family. Any money "taxed" from me is money I can't spend on my more personal defense.

If some government agencies end up completely unfunded and evaporate, that means the surviving agencies will be getting larger budgets. Agencies will always spend whatever is available. How will the total "tax" burden ever shrink? The pie will stay the same size (no, that is a lie. It will grow), but it will have fewer, larger, slices.

I'm sorry. I keep going back to this idea with the intention of finding some way to agree with it. I seriously want to like it. It seems so reasonable at first glance.

But the more I think about it the less I actually agree with it.

It's funny because this is the exact same idea I had when I was a teenager. I figured if I could pretend that every cent of the "taxes" I paid were sent to NASA (for example) I wouldn't feel so violated when paying. I could fund something I thought was doing a useful thing. (Yeah, I was terribly naive and didn't see what was really happening because of the government space monopoly.) I grew out of that notion fairly quickly as I learned and observed more.

I still can't make myself believe that theft is "better"- "less wrong"- when you can choose which thief gets the money, or that rape is "nicer" if you can choose your rapist.

I could, conditionally, support "pragmatarianism" as long as there were the option to opt out if you agree to use no government "services" [sic] unless you pay for them up front. But I would still consider those who funded government aggression and theft to be my enemy- guilty of violating the ZAP by sending others to use, or threaten, force against me.

*All government agencies named above are for illustrative purposes only. I have no intention of ever voluntarily sending any of them a cent.

Another Statist Holy Day

2011-11-12T16:11:00.003-06:00

On the heels of "Used Person's Day", where we are supposed to "thank a veteran for our freedom"- LOL), perhaps we should also have "Cop Day".

In honor of this day you can thank a cop for not having shot you. Yet.

It makes just as much sense.

Day of the Used Person

2011-11-11T05:56:00.003-06:00

I really have a hard time stomaching the "veteran" worship this day brings. It's not that I necessarily fault the "veterans". I fault the puppetmaster holding the veterans' strings, and the mindless masses who choose to not see the strings. Or the threat.

Most "veterans" probably didn't know any better and really thought that by signing up, or cooperating with their enslavement during the era of the "draft", they were doing the right thing. Of course, they were NOT- they were being used to advance the interests of a group of insane monsters who want to control the world- but few people are aware enough to realize that.

The constant barrage of "Thank you for your service" and "We thank our veterans" is enough to make me ill. There has been no "service" and I have no ownership interest in any "veterans".

People working for a mass-murdering psychopath are not to be thanked, even if they thought they were doing good. Naive intentions may matter, but the end results are extremely important, too.

The truth is the US government is the American's worst nightmare. The greatest threat America has ever faced. And the only real danger to your liberty and mine.

Want me to think you, Mr. and Ms. Military? Then walk away from your "job" and arrest your employer (the one who writes your checks, not the person the money backing the checks was stolen from). And then, when out of the clutches of the federal domestic enemies, please don't join the domestic enemies of the standing army that occupies America. We were warned about them in no uncertain terms.

Then I could honestly, without any hypocrisy or irony, say "Thank you for protecting liberty". You would then have served with honor.

Pity Herman Cain

2011-11-10T08:23:00.000-06:00

Herman Cain must be a truly messed-up individual. And yet there are those who think he should be allowed to rule them?

In response to the claims of sexual harassment he said "I have never acted inappropriately with anyone. Period."

I don't think there's a human alive who can honestly say that. Thank goodness! On the other hand, I'd be even more worried about him if the claim were true! That's just not healthy.

I have "acted inappropriately" with lots of people. I also enjoy it when others (particularly of the opposite sex) act "inappropriately" with me. But I guess it depends on what you consider "inappropriate". Maybe there are times "inappropriate" is appropriate.

Cain also shows a lack of understanding of reality in that he offers to take a lie detector test to "prove" he is telling the truth. Lie detector tests do not detect lies or verify truth. They are pseudo-science just like astrology and creationism. Or, maybe he knows this but is playing along to satisfy the dupes who support him.

Running to the government

2011-11-09T08:17:00.000-06:00

Claire Wolfe had a link that is an engaging waste of time. It is on a fishing forum and is about "weird things found in the woods". Fascinating, if you have a lot of time to waste.

It made me think of some of the things I have found over the years, but this isn't about that.

No, what gets to me is how many of those "findings"were dutifully (and immediately) reported to agents of The State. I have found my share of marijuana patches and it never even crossed my mind to run to the nearest government employee to report them. I never found a dead body, and I'm glad. I would be conflicted about what to do. I might make an anonymous tip to a funeral home or something.

Never, at any stage of my life, did the default setting in my brain involve running to the government. Is that really such an odd thing?

Socialism weakens freedom

2011-11-08T21:51:00.000-06:00

Socialism weakens freedom

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for September 7, 2011.)

Collectivism or socialism, in whatever form, is like a deadly parasite excreting a poison into its host. As long as your society is vibrant and healthy it can support a small amount of this societal poison. The collectivism feeds off of the rest of the society, dragging it down a little, but not enough to be noticed by the majority of the people who are busy with their own lives. A healthy society is resilient.

If the society starts to become less healthy for some reason, or if more socialism is added since "just a little more won't hurt", the effects will start to grow. Little economic problems will take longer to recover from. Each new problem will have a slightly bigger effect. A feedback loop begins.

At some point there will be too much socialism for the society to sustain. At that point there are two ways things can go from there. Either you get rid of the socialism or you watch the society die.

You can't shield your favorite bits of socialism while demanding that someone else get rid of theirs. Entitlement programs are all equal in the effects they have. Just whom "The Entitled" may be is of no consequence.

Regulations and taxation, too. Everything that is a hindrance to private property and a disincentive to be productive has a broad reach- crippling more than just the intended target.

Each bit of collectivism takes a small bite out of liberty and weakens your society just a little more. Add an intrinsically worthless fiat currency to the mix, such as the US dollar, and you have a recipe for disaster.

After a while, if the situation goes on long enough, it isn't only your society in danger, but much of civilization.

Civilization today is no longer strong enough to indulge collectivist myths and delusions. You want socialism? Then you pay for it yourself and leave the rest of us, who choose to opt out, alone. You'll have to let civilization recover for a couple hundred years before it can weather another round of your statist disease. Perhaps by then our descendants will be smart enough to realize that collectivism always fails, every time it is tried, no matter what you call it or how you justify it. It's just a matter of time.

Epidemics and conspiracies

2011-11-08T08:01:00.001-06:00

I wonder why there can't be an epidemic that does something beneficial- such as destroy the ageing process, or make it impossible for cancer or heart disease to damage those infected. What if something like that has happened in the past to solve a problem we don't know once existed?

Yeah, I know that since there are so many more ways to mess things up (due to entropy) than to get something right that making things worse and causing problems is the overwhelmingly more likely result, but still...

In a similar vein: Why can't there be a conspiracy to spread liberty and help people rather than to hurt individuals and hide the guilty parties? Oh, wait. I think I've said too much...

CIA is now following YOU

2011-11-07T09:14:00.001-06:00

So, the CIA admits it is spying on people's Twitter and facebook posts. To get a "feel" for what people think about its criminal bosses' criminal actions. That could be amusing, especially if turned against them.

I wonder what would happen if lots of people, all over the world, started posting, in a one day concerted effort on Twitter and facebook, things like "The US government is on the brink of collapse!" "US government has lost consent of the governed!" "Angry mobs lynching politicians from coast to coast!" "The US regime is falling!" "USA is dead! Liberty lives!"

Would it spread? Would perception influence reality? Would the feds step in to put an end to it all?

The unstable are among us

2011-11-06T09:00:00.003-06:00

I saw a conservative post this on facebook; as a biblical justification of conservatives:

Ecc 10:2- "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

I just see it as another illustration that the Bible is fallible.

To any rational impartial observer, anything that is inclined- is leaning- is seen to be unstable. Only those who are upright, above the "right vs left" nonsense, are stable. That's the libertarians.

Yearly Reminder- 5th of November

2011-11-05T08:02:00.000-05:00

Remember, remember, this fifth of November,

that government is only a plot.

'Though it's the holiday season,

that is no reason

it should be forgot.

President, Congress, t'was their intent

To violate rights; our money they spent.

Thousands of "laws", each a new crime;

Liberty, it seems, had run out of time.

Elections were held to pacify some,

A new batch of scoundrels to Washington come.

Wake up, wake up, your life is your own!

Wake up, wake up, YOU sit on the throne!

And how shall we live? In true liberty!

What's wrong with this picture?

2011-11-04T08:50:00.004-05:00

Not that there should be a government agency dealing with guns (since the Constitution clearly makes such illegal)- or a government for that matter- but putting anti-gun extremist bureaucrats in charge of such an agency makes as much sense as putting a rapist in charge of a women's shelter.

Fast and Furious/Gunwalker shows that it is time to fire (at the minimum) the rapists... and don't hire more.

Politics

2011-11-03T09:56:00.001-05:00

Politics is a system for attempting to get along with people whom you do not like. Politics goes wrong when that attempt includes coercion.

No one needs politics for dealing with those we like. Getting along with them comes automatically.

The best political system is the one which allows those who really don't like one another to still live their lives peaceably in the same space.

Authoritarianism doesn't work because it usually forces those people together in a way that makes both sides more unhappy than they were before.

Only in a libertarian society can people be free to associate in any way they choose, as long as no one initiates force or steals.

If you truly dislike someone, minimize your dealings with them, and do not cause situations which escalate the dislike on either side. When you must deal with them, do so with the same respect that you would want, and then move along. Don't dwell on the fact that you don't like them. If you can ever grow past the need for your dislike, you might just find that they are not so bad after all. It has happened before for me.

*This is an update of an old post.