Friday, December 31, 2010

Reader feedback from CNJ

I got an email this morning from a reader of the local paper. In it the person questioned my parentage, complained about my appearance in the picture beside my columns (included here for your amusement), and then began to complain that I never say anything good about Clovis.

Really? Did the person actually read any of my columns or just make an assumption? Because I thought I was very positive this week about the people who live here. I don't think I have ever been unkind to the regular people in the area in my columns; only to the parasites who prey on the productive people. Plus I always try to point out that the bad people are a tiny, if visible, minority everywhere. Good people outnumber the bad by a huge margin everywhere- as long as you don't only look inside criminal mobs.

She (?) did say one truthful thing when she said "you cannot say one nice thing about our city, state or,how our country is run" (all spelling and punctuation left as it was in the original). Right. Because they shouldn't be "run" at all. Top-down control is a bad idea no matter how you dress it up or how much you want to avoid taking responsibility for yourself. That has nothing to do with Clovis or America, but with the faulty notion of government. As I have said about America (that the USA is not America, but the biggest danger to America) I say about Clovis: the city government should not ever be confused with the city!

Also, I find I am corrupting our youth: "Do you not no [sic], that high school kids read our paper?" And...? They should be led to believe they are not responsible for themselves, but that Daddy Government should be worshiped and He will then take care of all their little troubles? Is that what she is saying? Young people are smarter than that, especially if shown the ethical alternatives to the statist lies. The bad ones will probably continue to be bad and seek either freelance criminal careers or State-sanctioned ones. Maybe if I can reach a few of the good ones I can help them avoid slavery- either as the slave master or the slave.

She goes on to say "And, your comments just rips apart,everything,our forfathers,have started?" Obviously a product of government schooling. History from the warped and wrong perspective of the Rulers. History turned upside-down and inside-out in order to support a revisionist agenda of collectivism and authoritarianism. Pathetic, but all too common.

Then, after being told to move away "from my paper" and from the area, she ends with this final comment (before signing off with another personal insult), which I found hilarious: "Dont upset us,with your crude Ideas," Hehe. Sorry, but that one made me smile. It's just packed full of comic goodness.

So, the CNJ reader feedback score stands at 1:1 for now. As always, I did write back and even refrained from taking advantage of the ample opportunities for ridicule which the email provided.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Do the right thing, law or no law

Do the right thing, law or no law

You know the right thing to do. I know you do. So don't wait for someone else to do it first and don't wait for a "law" to tell you to. Do it now.

I'm reminded of the Hobby Lobby shoppers who tackled a recent shoplifter. Instead of watching the thief and thinking to themselves "That's awful! Someone should do something about that" they took action and did the right thing. Thieves don't fear the law as much as they fear being stopped in their tracks by the only people who can be counted on to be right there when they attempt to carry out their attack. That is you and me, folks. If we once again make up our minds to always do the right thing we will be an insurmountable wall holding back the few bad guys living among us. The risk of being an attacker or a thief must be raised back up where it belongs.

The same need for personal accountability is reflected in the recent letter to the editor concerning speeding. Do the right thing yourself and, one person at a time, things get better. Most people drive at the speed they are most comfortable with, and consequently the speed at which they are the safest (ignoring for a moment the "speed limits" which are not based on anything but arbitrary ideas of what's best for everyone). Those who actually drive faster than they should will not be made responsible by "laws". In fact they may get a double thrill by not only driving faster than they should, but also in feeling they are rebels as long as they don't get caught. The answer is not more enforcement but more responsibility. Don't let a rude driver on your bumper force you to go faster (or slower) than you think you should, and don't feel guilty for blocking his path. And for goodness sake, teach your children to stay alert, aware, and out of the streets.

Need more ways to take action? If you think it is right for people to pay more taxes, don't wait for the tax rate on your neighbors to be increased by "law"; write a check out of your own bank account payable to the government right now.

The responsibility to govern yourself and to be accountable in all your actions reaches into every corner of your life. If you know someone who is in need, step in yourself to help. If you can't help, find those who can. Don't lay the burden on the "taxpayers" by handing that needy person over to some government agency. Getting a person caught up in the welfare and entitlement web is not helping them, but harming them and destroying the future of their children as well.

Reaching out to the government and expecting them to take care of things through more "laws, tougher enforcement, or welfare is the opposite of being responsible. You have the ability within yourself to make things better. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

(As submitted, not as published.)

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

Pardon Billy the Kid and then pardon John Wilkes Booth

One story that keeps cropping up in the Albuquerque news is whether the current governor will grant a pardon to Billy the Kid.

The issue centers on whether the then-governor, Lew Wallace, promised a pardon in exchange for the Kid's testimony, or whether a pardon was simply hinted at to get Billy to cooperate- in effect tricking him.

Either way I would say it seems to show that politicians weren't any more honest back then than they are now.

Many people might complain that this is a silly thing for a governor to be concerning himself with. Everyone actually connected with the case has been dead for a very long time, and the real truth of what was promised or lied about, as well as whether Billy the Kid was really a bad guy or not, is obscured by the time that has passed.

Maybe it is silly for this to be a government concern. Everything government does is silly at best and harmful at worst. However, as long as The State wastes time worrying about long-dead politicians and their broken promises to long-dead outlaws, The State isn't worrying about, and planning, new ways to molest the rest of us. This can only be good. It's like when all the cops are snarfing down donuts at the donut shop instead of harassing drivers. Let's encourage them to engage in useless, but harmless, exercises! At least until we can fire them all.

Along similar lines, I'd like to get the ball rolling on a pardon for John Wilkes Booth for his freelance trial, sentencing, and justified execution of that murderous tyrant Abraham Lincoln.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Societal Cancer

Cancer is a hideous, deadly disease. It kills way too many people long before "their time". Yet, there is a form of cancer that is often not recognized, and sometimes is even intentionally encouraged. It is Societal Cancer, also known as "The State", or simply "government".

Societal Cancer has killed more people than all other forms of cancer combined. Often after warning signs which are discounted and ridiculed by other sufferers who are in denial. Whereas other forms of cancer are recognized universally as something to be eradicated, Societal Cancer is frequently praised and people are intentionally given the disease against their will- usually at birth.

The good news is that there is a proven cure that is available to every person. It is self responsibility and self control. It is as simple as minding your own business and leaving non-aggressive people alone. And a withdrawal of consent to cooperate with your own destruction by the cancer.

Join in the campaign to stomp out all forms of cancer, including Societal Cancer.


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Bubble Theory vs the ZAP etc.

I've been thinking a lot about my so-called "Bubble Theory of Property Rights" recently. Part of the reason is probably because of the video I made to try to explain my views on it. The rest of the reason is simply because it seems so completely self-evident to me, even in the face of the arguments against it.

Using the concealed weapon example is easiest for me because that's where the discussion began, but it applies just as well to anything you could carry or wear privately on (or in) your body.

It applies to the TSA abuses. It is what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect (although it was then thoroughly compromised with weasel-words telling how government could violate it "legally"). It is at the heart of self-ownership and individual sovereignty, since it means making choices for yourself and accepting the consequences of those choices rather than being responsible for other people's choices.

But I began to wonder how it held up against the Zero Aggression Principle. After studying it, I realized it passes with flying colors.

I completely agree with those who disagree with my Bubble theory of property rights on one particular point: Forbidding weapons from being carried concealed by visitors to private property does not initiate force.

However, the reverse is also true. Bubble theory does not initiate force in any way. You are not using physical force on another person by exercising your bodily property rights even when surrounded by their property.

Is being ZAP-compliant enough? I maintain that the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient, for ethical behavior. You must also not initiate deceit nor commit non-aggressive theft (fraud).

How does Bubble Theory stack up here? It does not deceive any innocent person, nor does it steal any object from anyone. It "steals" no part of the other property owner's rights from him, since his rights end where his property ends, and therefore does not penetrate the bubble of property traveling around with other people's bodies.

The only time it would initiate fraud is if you explicitly agreed to not carry anything the property owner forbade, and then did so anyway. Otherwise, while it might be nicer to acknowledge the prohibition and agree to abide by it, you are not harming anyone in any real way, neither physically nor economically, if you ignore their unreasonable demands. You are not violating the ZAP, nor are you harming anyone, but are taking responsibility for yourself and expressing your individual sovereignty.

That leaves only trespassing as a possible wrong you have committed. Is the property open to "the public", or did you receive an invitation? Then you are not trespassing if you are there. What about your "forbidden object"? An object can not trespass; only a person can. (If you go onto the other person's property and drop your "forbidden object", then you are littering. This is about as close to trespassing as an object can come, but the offense is yours, not the object's.)

No one is obligated to open their property to the presence of others. "Hermit" is a legitimate lifestyle choice. However, if you want to have it both ways: to not be a hermit, but also try to violate the personal rights of those who come to your property, you are not being a good person. I don't think you are even being rational.

As I say, I will still do my best to respect the wishes of other property owners, but I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I respect the property and liberty of others, as I claim to, then I can not pretend to have any control over what is inside their personal property bubbles. If I don't trust you with your liberty, then I don't trust you and have no business inviting you onto my property in the first place. You do what you feel is right, just as I will.

Added: I think claiming that real estate property rights can exist without "the bubble" of personal property rights existing is like claiming that you can exist without your grandparents ever having existed. Just my view on the matter...

Sunday, December 26, 2010

The pot calling the kettle black- and filing suit

A former student of Sandia High School in Albuquerque is suing a teacher and the school district because he claims the teacher made racial jokes at his expense. Yet, the only supposedly "racial" comment the news report singles out is that the teacher called him a "black hole".

I hate to tell the little genius, but "black hole" is not a racial comment at all. That is simply the name of a physical phenomenon that he somehow reminded the teacher of. It is no more racist than would calling him a "black sheep" be (something I readily admit to being). It is not racist to mention "the pot calling the kettle 'black'". It is not racist to fear black cats as bad luck. Stupid, yes, but not racist.

I have known a bunch of people who could have been called "black holes". Any information you gave them got sucked in by their intense density and was utterly destroyed. No information or intelligence ever shone from them in any way.

Sorry, but someone who dwells on things of this nature, looking for a "racist angle" to claim victimhood with, is themselves a racist and needs to grow up. Fast; before you have made such a fool of yourself you can never recover.

None of this in any way excuses the inexcusable existence of "public schools". This could just as easily happen in any other education setting- except that teachers and learners could be matched more efficiently, and no one who qualified as a "black hole" would face compulsory attendance "laws" if they were a waste of time, and your stolen money would not be used to pay for the resulting legal battle- in a free society that had rid itself of the government indoctrination camps we euphemistically call "schools".

Forgive my whine

I have to admit, I don't feel like writing anything recently. I'm tired. I feel it is pointless to write words that will be lost on those who are only too happy to bend over for The State as long as The State is killing and harming "those people" on their behalf. And the decent people (like you) already know what I'm going to write most of the time anyway.

I need to write my column for the CNJ in the next day or two and I have no clue what I might write on. I don't feel like starting a fight this week.

Examiner.... who knows. I desperately need to write for them or I won't be able to afford my phone (which is about the only social life I have). Sigh.

I'm drained and I need to be recharged. Yet, I am still draining instead.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Milgram runs amok in ABQ

Seems there might be a systemic problem in the "corrections" business.

An Albuquerque corrections officer has been arrested for raping a female inmate and for also allowing another inmate (who just happens to be a former corrections officer who is in jail for raping female inmates) to, once again, rape a female inmate.

It's like the Milgram Experiment being run full-scale with real-life consequences and no one to step in and stop it before it goes too far. Am I the only one who sees the evil of this? Especially considering how many of the inmates are in jail, not for doing anything wrong, but simply as political prisoners.

Once is too many times. Twice is horrible. How many times have not been reported, and how many other rapists are working for corrections [sic] facilities?


Please check out all my videos at And feel free to spread them around.


Thursday, December 23, 2010

State should stay out of private life

State should stay out of private life

As a libertarian, I'm accustomed to being misunderstood. It goes with the territory. So many times commenters think they are being clever and have caught an error in libertarianism, only to reveal they didn't read or hear what was being said.

Case in point: a while ago, in a comment posted to an article in the Clovis News Journal about the election day failure of the bond issues for the local punishment industry, I observed that the "justice system" would be much cheaper and better if counterfeit "laws" were not being enforced. These are the "laws" the violation of which have no specific, individual victims; are expressions of self-ownership; or are consensual acts between responsible individuals which are no one's business except those involved.

Drug use, gun possession, most traffic "laws", prostitution, and things of this nature should never have been made into things The State seeks to regulate, prohibit, or control. Things that are actually wrong, such as theft or fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, and murder would still be subject to punishment or, better yet, restitution. No one has a right to control your private life unless you violate the identical rights of others by infringing on their life or property.

However, if your drug use, your religious beliefs, your job, or anything else is used as an excuse for committing harmful acts (such as theft or assault), you are liable for the harm you caused and your rationale is meaningless. Wrong is wrong.

One reply to my comment sarcastically stated something to the effect that of course the "crime rate" would go down if assault and robbery were made legal. That the commenter completely missed my entire point was obvious. This is a source of frustration; not those who read and understand, yet disagree. They may be wrong, but their wrongness is at least based upon their principles and value system (flawed and inconsistent as those may be) rather than upon the belief I am advocating the opposite of what I am.

Often I want to reply that the commenter should have his mom re-read my comment to him, pointing out specifically the main thrust of my argument which pulls the rug out from under his snarky reply. Then I realize I would probably be wasting my time. It's better to just ignore those types. The problem is that they believe government can be the solution, and they vote based on that mistaken conviction. This should scare anyone who has sense.

(This is as I submitted it, not as it was published.)

Concert raided; violations invented

Concert raided; violations invented

The man who organized the concert that was raided by Albuquerque LEOs, who called it a "rave", is being singled out for the wrong thing.

Providing entertainment that is voluntary and initiates no force or fraud against anyone is not wrong. Tricking people into becoming a slave of the federal government is wrong. He organized the concert but he is also a national guard recruiter. Let's get our priorities straight.

I always wonder who alerts the LEOs to events such as this concert. Busybodiness should have consequences.

I see no allegations that anything wrong was going on, or that anyone was harmed. Of course, the "officials" were able to find "code violations". There is no building on earth that would be completely free of these if examined close enough. The "officials" also say that "underage girls" were wearing "very inappropriate outfits". So what? What gives the "officials" the authority to decide what is inappropriate for anyone else?

There exists in authoritarians the perverted desire to make certain that no one has any fun (except for their own guys who get a thrill out of their acts of coercion and control). I'll not excuse their harmful perversion.


Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Criminal pruning hits ABQ

Albuquerque city officials are furious that someone took matters into their own hands and did a little freelance tree pruning. Practicing on some trees the city planted.
Yes, the pruning job was amateurish and may cause the trees to die (probably not as a direct result of the trimming, but as a result of the city removing the trimmed trees). Added to that, the city is reacting like a spoiled brat and throwing a tantrum over the incident. It's amusing to see.
Yet, government does the exact same thing to people's property all the time. With even less justification (assuming the city is correct about the reason the trees were pruned). They never let themselves be held accountable for the results of their actions. It just goes to show that government employees think they are an elite class; above everyone else. Their wishes and opinions become "law", while ours, if acted upon, are crimes.


Dependent on the bully?

(This was submitted as my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected, so I am free to post it here instead. The air base is totally off-limits as a topic for me to write about in the paper.)

This area has an addiction and Cannon Air Force Base is the drug. Just look at what happened when the community was threatened with having the drug taken away. The resulting uproar was what you would expect of an addict faced with losing his supply.

As a libertarian I respect the right of an addict to use any substance he wants as long as he harms no one else. That means not stealing to support the habit, and not attacking anyone while using the addiction as an excuse. As long as he harms no one else it is none of my business what he chooses to do with himself, even if it means destroying himself in the process. [Note: I didn't really expect that the majority of CNJ readers would connect the dots that in this case, the government is stealing the money to "pay for" the air base, but I was trying to avoid mentioning, once again, that taxation is theft.]

I will still point out that addictions are not healthy and try to talk the addict out of his self-destructive behavior just because I care, but the final choice is always up to the addict.

Would breaking the addiction really be fatal to this area as so many seem to think? Or, as is usually the case, would it seem much less critical after the withdrawal symptoms had run their course? Wouldn't there be a freedom in not feeling that your survival is tied to someone else's benevolence? I think there would be. Would the community survive? Yes. There would be changes and adjustments, and life would go on. Don't ever let anyone make you think you need to beg them to keep you alive and healthy.

Personally, I think this community has an inferiority complex that is not realistic. There are a lot of good people here, and a lot of opportunities. It's easy for each of us to become a better person and make even more opportunities. Stop letting the few bad guys who do the majority of the bad things be your defining example of the area. Outshine them. Then maybe you won't tie your self worth to something that is really not within your control.

If it is what you want to do, embrace and celebrate the air base, but don't let it hold you hostage and don't let it bully you.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

"Covenant of Unanimous Consent" video


"Bubble of Personal Property" video

Here's my least popular idea, in video form!

Or you can watch the full length version:


Government 'services'

There are different types of government "services" and different ways of dealing with them.

First off, there are the services that are harmless (other than in how they are financed). Libraries and zoos fall into this category. These things do not intrude upon the lives of those who have no interest in them. Don't like the library? Ignore it and no book police will come to your house and force books upon you. In a free society, let them be run by private individuals and funded voluntarily, rather than how it is usually done today, and there is nothing wrong with them. People could then choose to use them or not, and if not, they aren't forced to pay for that which they don't use.

Those voluntary services I have little problem using, even when government run, though I'd rather have the option of using privately funded alternatives.

Another category is the things that may be necessary but are monopolized by governments, so become a bureaucratic and regulatory burden. Things like roads and water systems. There is no reason to prohibit competition or to have government provide these things at all. If it really is necessary, someone will find a way to do it without coercion and theft.

The last category is less justifiable. This includes all those things that shouldn't be done at all. Things like (modern) police, bureaucrats, tax collectors, meter maids, code enforcement, and other coercive, property rights-violating, "services". These things have no value to individuals (and, by extension, civilization) and should not be done, and wouldn't be done if they didn't rely on theft, "taxation", to fund them.

This last category I would like to see done away with so utterly, completely, and totally that even the memory that they once existed is fuzzy.


An Albuquerque man gets to stay in his apartment a little longer due to an impossibility- or at least something statists claim is impossible: the generosity of individuals who were not forced at gun-point to help someone in need. I can't tell you how often statist claim that things like this would never happen without government coercion. Yet they do happen and here is proof.


Saturday, December 18, 2010

"Love it or leave it"- the video

"Love it or Leave it"

Suppose I am the "head of the household", and as such I claim to have certain rules for living under my roof.

Say I reserve the authority (not "the right" as no such right could ever exist) to stop and search any family member at any time. Not just while they were under my roof, but anywhere they might be.

Suppose I make up rules regarding how fast they may walk in the house (even in their own room, and even if no one else is present), what they are allowed to buy with their own money, and how much of their money they must turn over to me- not for rent, which is charged separately, but just for the privilege of existing. Suppose I dictate what color sheets they are allowed to put on their bed, or what they can read while relaxing there. Suppose I make them pay a ransom on each thing they buy with their own money.

Suppose I tell them I own their body and dictate what they can and can't do with themselves. What they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest.

I will also demand they allow me to photograph them naked or grope their body in an intimate and invasive way before they leave the house, or perhaps even when they try to go from room to room in the house.

I, backed up by the other members of the house who see nothing wrong with this system, say "if you don't like it, move in with another family somewhere." If the unhappy person decides they don't like living in the house, under my rules, they can theoretically move out, but only with my permission and under my conditions. Even if they move out they will still be ordered to hand over a percentage of the money they will earn. Plus, I will demand they give me most of their property before they leave. If they don't want to abandon their property or other loved ones to the abusive "head of household" they are told "then shut up and stop complaining!"

Such a "head of household" would be an abusive, insane, monster who would be subject to self defensive actions by those he abuses.

Welcome to the America of the "Love it or leave it" taterheads.

(See the video version, too!)

In Albuquerque news: A "fugitive" is being sought by The Law after slipping out of his ankle monitor. Seems to me he wasn't "a fugitive" until after he got rid of the tracking device.

He has been convicted of nothing yet, but is said to be a "Mexican national" and is facing "federal narcotics trafficking" charges. Neither of those things are wrong, and if he actually committed aggression or theft, why are those things not the crimes he is being charged with? Because the law is a sham.


Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property

Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property

Albuquerque "authorities" have violated another person's property rights- and more. With the help of neighbors who did the wrong thing, probably because it was easy.

The neighbors called the city complaining about "the house". That involved the authorities who decided it was within their authority to tell the woman she couldn't let her adult sons live with her. So, while checking up to make sure their edicts had been obeyed, LEOs found "drugs" in the home and arrested two of the sons.

Of course, the city claims it has the woman's best interests at heart. Conditions in the home were "terrible". "It's not safe for her," the spokescritter benevolently proclaims. And they also have the common good in mind with their acts of aggression, coercion, and theft, saying "It's not safe for any visitors, and it's certainly not safe for the neighborhood."

Shame on the city and shame on the bad neighbors who instead of seeking to help, bludgeoned this elderly woman with The State.



"Theft by any other name" video

I thought I'd try my hand at something a little different. What do you think?

Friday, December 17, 2010

Passed-out drunk cop off the hook

Passed-out drunk cop off the hook

The (now former) Albuquerque cop who was found passed-out drunk in his car on the side of the road has had the charges dropped.

As I have said before, he did the right thing. If you realize you are too drunk to drive you should stop driving. Immediately. "Laws" that would punish you for being responsible and doing the right thing are wrong.

However, the case that the judge cited as the reason he was dropping the cop's case differs in a rather substantial way. That man was passed out in the driver's seat, but the vehicle's keys were on the passenger seat. The state supreme court said there wasn't enough evidence that he had actually been driving. I agree. In this cop's case, he was on the side of the interstate, with the keys in the ignition, with the vehicle running. Any idiot could deduce he had been driving. If he were not an "Only One" I think the case would not have been dropped under these circumstances. I despise double standards.


Statists following the script

Why is it perfectly OK- normal and natural, in fact- to point out the evils of stealing, kidnapping, or raping when done by freelance thugs, but it becomes "whining" when pointing out the exact same acts by government employees? On top of that ridiculousness, the supporters of those government parasite thugs expect us to thank them for "giving us freedom". What a crock promoted by a bunch of idiots.

It's like a really bad joke where no one even remembers the punchline anymore. And, then, inevitably, they'll whip out the old "Love it or leave it" nonsense- usually mentioning Somalia as a place where we rational people should go and die. (Of course, Somalia is not an anarchy, but a mess of wanna-be governments fighting among themselves- killing scores of innocent people in the process- and where threatened governments of the world try desperately to impose some sort of government on the population, or at least make certain to keep peace from spontaneously occurring, lest it expose the government lie. Somalia is "politics" in its most pure form.)

It's like a script that government worshipers follow anytime their sacred cow is poked. And it fails because it is all one huge lie. It's pathetic that they can't think independently enough to come up with new excuses and a new script, but if they could think independently, they wouldn't be copsuckers and government enthusiasts, would they.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

No obligation to stick with job

No obligation to stick with job

Curry County employees really want a pay raise. Is there anyone who doesn’t?

Even libertarian opinionizing isn’t as profitable as you might imagine (and yes, I’m being silly).

There is no reason to feel an obligation to continue to work in a job that doesn’t pay what you think you are worth if you can find something better. Weigh the pros and cons. If you can’t find something better, maybe you need to come to grips with what your skills are really worth.

Remembering that government jobs pay substantially more on average than private, market-based jobs makes me suspect I know why those who work for the county don’t get out of the government job and find honest work somewhere; adding value to the economy rather than being a drain on it.

I suppose some would claim a sense of being a part of “something important” as their justification. This is misguided.

It isn’t noble or selfless to work for government. Civilization will keep going just fine without government keeping a watchful eye on every little detail.

It has been noted there are only two ways to get money: by economic means and by political means. By giving people that which they are willing to pay for, or by saying to them “your money or your life.”

If the job is really necessary, someone will find a way to do it without financing it with money coercively taken from its rightful owners. If the job can’t be done without forcing people to pay for it, it shouldn’t be done at all.

Most people in the private sector can get more money by helping their bosses make more profit — by making customers happy, by cutting overhead, by being more productive or efficient. Some might even do so by dishonest means, which often get exposed and can cause economic disaster to the boss and the business as a whole.

Most jobs must produce something of value in exchange for the money those doing the jobs are paid.

Only government increases its profit by stealing more from those who produce to give to those who regulate, meddle, file, fold, staple and mutilate. Government jobs produce only bureaucracy.

This isn’t a very nice way to earn money, even when you can get people to vote that their neighbors can’t be looted to pay for it. Nothing is stopping you from donating your own money to the county government, if that’s what you really want to do. It is wrong to decide your neighbor must pay more, too.

Noting that county employees must get permission for a second job should raise an alarm. If this is necessary it means that in their job as a county employee they have too much power, which could be abused or influenced.

The State acts like a psychotic parent

Government is like a psychotic parent who can't let go. If you ask permission, for anything that would indicate a level of "adult" responsibility for you to do, it will say no. Why, if you are responsible, would you ask permission?

Just do it yourself without asking, when you reach the level of maturity where you want to and can. The government will still be angry that you didn't ask and didn't need its permission, but it is the one with the problem, not you.

Subway robbed, employees shot

Subway robbed, employees shot

Is it worth your life to work in a place which doesn't allow you to be prepared to defend your life (and the lives of your customers) properly?

Two employees of a Subway sandwich shop were shot and locked in the cooler by a robber early this morning (Monday) in Albuquerque. They are expected to recover.

I have no idea whether Subway respects the rights of its employees (I could find no information on the subject at their website), but based upon my observations of most, if not all, corporations (which are a government-created entity with no real rights) I would bet the employees are forbidden to carry the tools of effective self defense. This time, they were lucky to survive.

If Subway does forbid employees to carry firearms on the job, those injured in this robbery should expect the corporation to attempt to compensate them for their injuries and suffering. Prevent self defense and you are responsible for any harm that comes to anyone while on your property. No exceptions.