Friday, September 30, 2011

Liberty Lines 9-29-2011

(Originally published in the State Line Tribune, September 29,2011. No, I don't want a "government job", nor do I think having a county government is legitimate. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the situation in a way that the statists who might read the column would get.)

I see that Parmer County is being forced, by legislative fiat, to hire a new employee who is neither wanted nor needed. Governmental "wisdom" (cough-cough) handed down (or up) from Austin dictates that there must be a county auditor. Being the problem solving, libertarian individual I am, I have an obvious answer in the form of a two-step compromise (my first choice being the abolition of the county government).

Step 1- Appoint me Parmer County auditor, and then completely ignore me.

Step 2- Let the CPA firm who is currently doing the job continue to do so, and direct any and all official inquiries to them. Nothing would change.

I am willing to focus my energies on doing the best thing any government employee can ever do: absolutely nothing. At the only proper pay rate: zero. Being opposed to all taxation on principle, I would obviously refuse any pay or benefits. No salary, no office, no business cards or letterhead. Nothing. For once you would actually get your money's worth.

Perhaps in this way I would set an example for all government employees to follow. Who knows, it might even catch on while there is still a choice. Ignore my offer and you run the high risk of appointing someone with "a vision". Ambition to rule, thus to interfere in the lives of others, is one of the scariest traits any government employee can have. Isn't it time to try the alternative?


Getting back on track and being "prickly"

There will always be obstacles. You just gotta bulldoze your way through them. And don't let yourself be the biggest obstacle in your life. Knowing and doing are two different things, though.

I hate the fact that I allow emotions get me down, as has been the case recently.

In my head I think that if I had either money or love I'd be able to weather times of stress better. Maybe that is just wishful thinking. The other little voice in my head says I should have the strength to weather rough times inside myself. The truth may lie somewhere in between.

I was a little taken aback by Aretae's comment "...what with you being a bit more prickly than me". I'm not complaining at all about that comment, so if you are reading this, Aretae, don't think I am. It made me think. Am I "prickly"?

I guess that depends. My writings are not the place for compromise. That comes in my real-life interactions with the people I am around. So, yes, in my blog I probably am "prickly". In real life I am much harder on myself than I am on anyone else. These are my principles, after all. I may choose to shun the worst tools of State that I am aware of, but I make a lot of allowances for people who are just trying to get through life the best they can, even when their path makes them do the wrong thing according to my understanding of right and wrong. In fact, I find that I am more forgiving than the statists I am around. If asked my opinion, I give it; no holds barred. But I don't go around screaming "Repent!" at those who don't ask for it. I even go along with a lot of the religious practices of my family, and keep my opinions to myself when they start saying religious things; even though it causes me pain and stress. Just to "be nice".

But I admit there are some things I refuse to do because I know in my head, and in my "heart", that they are wrong. I don't want to set a bad example for my kids or for anyone else who may be watching. I don't want to be forced to avert my eyes and mumble excuses about being pragmatic or "just following orders/doing my job" when caught doing the wrong thing. In the short term life might be easier if I waffled; in the long term... I guess we'll see. At least my conscience has never nagged me after I did the "libertarian thing".


Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Don't read this

As I have mentioned before, I spent many years working in pet shops. Back when I got my first pet shop job I was pretty clueless about the governmental barriers to success that had been erected. I was already not a fan of government, but I just wasn't aware of how badly government had mangled the marketplace. That awareness came soon enough.

Over the years I saw more and more licenses "required" in order to keep the business open. I saw more and more things (and animals) criminalized. I saw more and more effective pet medications taken off the market due to governmental fears that they might be "abused". I saw more and more ridiculous hoops and rituals that were "required" in order to not be in violation of some "law" added every year.

There were "laws" regulating signs, fire extinguishers, parking, advertising, etc. That was above and beyond the "pet shop specific" stuff saying how you were required to house certain animals, what you could sell in the state and what you couldn't, and all that sort of thing. There were probably "laws" regarding keeping the animals fed and their quarters clean, but I never ran into any of that stuff. Although "health department" goons did come snooping a few times, but they never said anything.

And I knowingly and willingly violated many of those "laws" each and every day. I had to. To follow them all "to the letter" would have resulted in paralysis. Every working minute would have been wasted on some bureaucratic nonsense that had nothing to do with the welfare of the animals in my care or the customers who also depended upon me.

I lied on forms. I told customers that if they lied on the forms that were "required" when they bought certain animals (like those dangerous parakeets and iguanas!) that there would be no way for any enforcers to know. I even stared down bureaucrats who showed up to make sure I was following all their edicts and examine all the paperwork.

It got bad enough that I don't want to work in a pet store ever again. Not until The State dies.

Anytime I look into any other business venture I might enjoy, I run into more of the same. And that's the problem. There is nothing I can do to make money "legally" anymore that is worth the trouble. At least nothing I am comfortable/competent doing. I'm too tired to work to avoid the traps. I don't feel like being subjected to molestation in order to get a job. I don't feel like giving out some governmentally-mandated number (either my own or Elvis' orphaned number) in order to be hired. My family would not support my decision to do things "extra-legally" (even though I would not do anything dishonest or aggressive to get money).

The things I have done that I thought might make money have not worked out that well. Most ended up costing more than they brought in. I know that means I should keep trying and experimenting, but I am having a dry spell for ideas and a lack of any money to pursue anything anyway. I am also not getting any emotional support here at home, but instead am being drained of any positivity and ambition. The past performance of my attempts is used against me.

I hate to admit it, but right now I feel like giving up. I know you don't come here to read that. That's why posting has been sparse here and basically non-existent on Dispatches from Libertopia. I hope this passes soon.


Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Libertarianism starts with respect

Libertarianism starts with respect

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 25, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I sometimes hear people make the claim that libertarianism is "Utopian", just like communism, because "it sounds good on paper, but it will never work in the real world". Ridiculous! Communism requires the impossible- omniscient central planners- in order to "work". Libertarianism only needs YOU to not steal or attack; it places no obligation on others. Are you claiming that is beyond your ability?

Clovis is not perfect, but it is good, and can be better. There is no Utopia, but you can prevent a place from becoming a dystopia. Allow people to opt out of anything they don't want, never put your neighbor's inalienable rights or liberty to a vote, don't enforce laws that have no ethical foundation, embrace "live and let live", and respect the property and person of others.

As a corollary to that don't support, defend, nor turn a blind eye toward those who do steal and attack. No justification makes those things OK.

There wouldn't be any more arguing over which faction is allowed to make decisions concerning how to take your money and spend it on things you don't want. No one would be allowed authority to violate your property rights any longer for any reason. The silly youth gangs would face the reality of straightening up or being weeded out of the population quickly. I'm willing to bet this change would even improve the local economy. Why wait for someone else to go first?

Even if everyone in this area suddenly adopted libertarian principles, no place will ever be perfect. The weather would still be the same; like it or not. The same will be true of the people. People will always be people. If you don't like your neighbors now, that would probably not change. Some people can't seem to stop meddling and I don't expect that personality flaw to go away. However, respecting the rights and liberty of others, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, takes away the meddlers' power to ruin other people's lives.

Clovis has potential. It isn't up to any new "laws" being passed, old "laws" being enforced, or anyone else taking the initiative. It is, as it always has been and always will be, up to you. I'm excited about the possibilities. Are you up to it?


Sunday, September 25, 2011

Santorum: "Funny" isn't always nice

I think Rick Santorum is authoritarian scum. Yet, I don't think what has been done to his name is very nice. Yes, people have a right to make any word take on any meaning they want. You shouldn't always do everything you have a right to do, though. I'm sure there are some innocent Santorums ("Santori"?) out there who don't deserve this humiliation.

On the other hand, I think santorum is made up of a sloppy mix of rickperry and obama. And sometimes a naughty dog will dig a pelosi out of the trash can and chew it up! I'll let you interpret for yourself.


Saturday, September 24, 2011

Consequences of The State... and being flawed

Here is my normal "around town" transportation.

My daughter and groceries ride in the trailer. I provide the power.

I certainly don't mind riding this, but I resent- with a growing hatred- the Acts of State that make this more and more necessary. Taxation and regulation that inflates prices along with fiat "money" that evaporates before your eyes. Plus the proliferation of "laws" that make it hard for a person to earn money without violating principles.

It's partly my fault that I can't afford gasoline, nor to do some rather pressing car maintenance. But, without the interference of The State I would have more opportunities to make money and things would most likely cost much less. Most days I simply don't have the ambition to do what is necessary under The State to improve my financial situation.

In a way, this is good. I avoid most taxation. In other ways, it makes me grumpy. Add this to the fact that I just haven't been feeling great recently- it puts me in a bad mood. Sorry.


Friday, September 23, 2011

Liberty or Security - Good news on the horizon?

Liberty or Security? Which have people been writing about more (in books)? Here's the link. Notice the trend, but especially there at the very end. Could this signify storm clouds on the way for The State? Maybe more people are realizing time's up.


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Fire Ant Parable

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants.

While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be.

All the while, west of you, is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice).

If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it.


Unless things are perfect, there are always improvements that can be made. It doesn't diminish the good that you already have in any way. Don't "Love it or leave it", but "Love it and keep working to improve it".

(Originally posted here.)

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Reality is Radical

Sometimes my family members are "treated" to people recognizing our odd last name and connecting them with me. This happened to a relative of mine today. Fortunately, most people who say something actually mostly agree with the things of mine they have read. Perhaps most people would rather avoid conflict.

Today, my relative told the person who commented that she thinks I am "pretty radical on some things".

Radical. Yes, I am, and for a good reason. The truth is radical. Sticking to the truth is radical. Accepting nothing less than the truth is radical. Reality is radical.

Don't believe me?

Look at gravity. Gravity is radical. It is "extremist" by nature. It makes no exceptions, no matter who you are, and no matter how you might beg or complain. It cares nothing about how good your reasons might be to make an exception "just this one time". It operates according to the same rules everywhere at all times (as far as science has been able to determine). Even when you think gravity is being defeated, it really isn't. Flight depends upon gravity, as does space travel and navigation, and even the "weightlessness" of orbit. You might as well learn to use gravity to your ends rather than fighting it.

So it is with liberty. To be consistent, you must be radical. Anything less is ... well, less.


Libertarians lead invisible life

Libertarians lead invisible life

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 18, 2011. As written, not as published.)

In day-to-day life, being a libertarian really doesn't attract any attention. We are pretty much invisible.

We are the neighbors who mind our own business. We probably don't have noisy parties but won't call the cops about yours. We are the people who pick up the dropped keys for the person struggling with grocery bags. We are the person who picks up, and returns without comment, the baggie of marijuana that inadvertently fell out of the pocket of the guy in front of us in the checkout line. We are the ones who will hold the door open for you, or give you a ride if you run out of gas. We are remarkable only in our unremarkable behavior.

In day-to-day life we aren't out there shouting our philosophy. Libertarians are not screaming in your face, demanding that you worship our symbols or historical figures. We are not threatening to cage you if your lifestyle differs from ours. We are simply going about our business without attacking or stealing. This illustrates how "libertarian" most people are in their daily lives. People behaving decently are indistinguishable from libertarians.

It is only when confronted with acts of aggression or theft that we find it difficult to remain silent. In the face of wrongdoing we speak up and rise to the challenge. And we will defend ourselves. We refuse to equivocate and make excuses, but will call a spade "a spade". This is when we are noticed. And, strangely, this is when we are vilified and ridiculed.

Those who oppose libertarians at this point seem to do so because they to wish to keep open the option to attack someone, somewhere, for some reason. They want to be able to do things "as a society" that they know to be wrong on a personal level. You can't give anyone, nor any group of people, a right that you don't individually possess. If it is wrong to steal, you can't authorize government to steal, under any euphemism, on your behalf. If it is wrong to kick in your neighbor's door, you can't authorize The State to kick in your neighbor's door for you.

This consistency distinguishes libertarians from those who are not. Fortunately, except in unusual circumstances, it doesn't show up much in daily life. Which is why libertarians are mostly invisible.


Monday, September 19, 2011

"Right" and "Left" = Despicable!

I despise both the "left" and the "right". Not necessarily the people who claim those perverted perspectives, but the "ideological" positions themselves.

The only people of the "right" or the "left" that I despise are those who use their ideology as an excuse to attack and steal. Either in person or by proxy.

Those things are not right, no matter what justification you attempt to use. Aggression and theft wouldn't even be right if you used liberty as an excuse, which is why I am not big on pragmatarianism or utilitarianism. The ends do not justify the means. Sure, you can work "for liberty" by violating the rights of others, but in the long run you do more harm than good.

The "right" and the "left" are both equally evil, differing only in the way that evil is put into motion. It all comes down to slavery vs. liberty, theft vs. honest possession, and truth vs. deception. Which do you support?


Friday, September 16, 2011

Does evil "cancel out" in big groups?

I think a big myth that underlies the flawed reasoning of statists, when trying to justify their desire for a State, is that stupidity, evil, and poor character cancel out in big groups. Kind of like multiplying two negative numbers gives a positive result.

I think that is not the case at all. This gem from Larken Rose illustrates that point quite well.

I think The State attracts the worst of the worst- but mostly those who are smart enough to do things "legally" instead of freelance. Plus, on the chance a decent person is attracted to become a part of The State, and succeeds, I think the inherent corruption he finds himself swimming in corrupts him sooner, rather than later. Even if a hypothetical "good politician" existed, he would be too outnumbered to have any real effect. (Still, if you are a good person who feels a need to be political, I think it is better to run for office than to vote.)

I think a "good group" with one bad person is more likely to do evil, and a "bad group" with one good person in it will not do less evil because of the one good person's influence. It's that old "compromise between food and poison" thing Ayn Rand mentioned.

The State is evil because of the types of people who are drawn to power, and the results of The State will always be evil. Even if decent people were the vast majority in government (just as they are in everyday life), mistakes and bad decisions compound problems until evil is the result.

You don't need The State. Grow up.


Thursday, September 15, 2011

In spite of "law", or in absence of "law"

I think it is a mistake to compare what people do in spite of the "law" to what they do in the absence of "law".

Part of my reasoning is that "law" protects bad guys from real consequences. It is "more illegal" to kill someone who is breaking into your car than it is for him to do the breaking in. This makes bad guys bold.

He breaks into your car in spite of the law, when he might not dare do so in the absence of the law.

I suspect it might be the same in other areas as well.

How do people drive in spite of the law, and how might they drive in the absence of laws regarding driving? I know that I can either drive well, or I can obey the traffic laws. I can NOT do both. How many other problems will be solved once humanity gets over this addiction to statutory "laws"?


Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Truth scares away the statists

Two people flounced off of Claire Wolfe's blog over her pointing out that US government policies were part of the reason the 9/11 terrorists did what they did- in a caption for a picture.

I can't get over people who are so desperate to reject the truth that they become angry when the truth is mentioned.

This isn't in any way saying that the terrorists should be excused- they shouldn't. They are dead anyway so what does it matter?

This isn't blaming any of the innocent victims of the attacks. Their actions did not bring the attacks onto themselves in any way (except for some of those who worked at the Pentagon, obviously).

But to deny that government policies - imposed and followed for decades before the attacks - had nothing to do with the attacks.... it's just crazy.

If I constantly annoy my next-door neighbor- calling the cops on him for every little thing he does, playing loud music at all hours, peeing on his lawn when he isn't looking, picking his flowers, telling him what he is allowed to do in his own home- he might not be justified in coming into my house and trying to beat me to death, but it is still reasonable to mention that my behavior was a contributing factor. It is reasonable to scold me for acting like a jerk all that time.

And, it is also reasonable to suggest that if I don't stop acting like that, it will probably happen again, since I have other neighbors I am treating the same.

Statists apparently don't want to wake up to this simple truth and hate anyone who points it out to them. Sad.


Tuesday, September 13, 2011

U.S. credit downgrade long overdue

U.S. credit downgrade long overdue

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 11, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I heard it reported that Timothy Geithner, the treasury secretary of the US, said that Standard & Poor's made a terrible decision when it downgraded the US government's credit rating. He claimed this showed that S&P didn't understand the math that is used to figure the US government's budget.

Yeah, I don't understand the math that results in "2 + 2 = unicorns pooping rainbows" either, so S&P is in good company.

I also have trouble understanding the arrogance that leads this government official to claim that downgrading the credit rating of an institution, in as much debt as the US government is, qualifies as a "terrible decision". When did deciding to tell the truth about a risky situation become "terrible"? Would it have been "terrible" to warn women they shouldn't date Ted Bundy?

No, Mr. Geithner, S&P made a sensible decision based upon reality and upon an understanding of real math. You expose your agenda by your protests. Instead of complaining, do something constructive. For example, stop damaging the credit of the US government by your official actions.

I think the downgrade was long overdue. As soon as someone shows they have no intention of paying off their debts, and they keep racking up more like they can't stop, it's time to cut up the credit cards. It's also time to warn others that the spendthrift is a bad risk. Then, if creditors choose to keep giving that person credit, it is no one's fault but their own when they get left in the cold. No one else is responsible for bailing out those with poor judgment.

The government's debt isn't my debt, and it isn't your debt. It is the responsibility of those who made (and signed) the promises to pay. The debt and the credit rating have only been maintained for this long because other governments understand that the US government intends to keep milking you and your descendants, for as much as they can coercively take, into the foreseeable future and beyond. That's giving credit to an extortionist based upon your belief that he will continue to extort money successfully due to past performance. People like that deserve to lose their investment.

It's time to force responsibility on those who refuse to accept it of their own free will. It is time to withdraw consent and leave them to the vultures.


Monday, September 12, 2011

Do immigration "laws" only hurt "illegals"?

It bothers me deeply when people say that all the "laws" and policies enacted to crack down on "illegal immigrants" only affect the "illegal immigrants".

No they don't.

Let's say a "law" was passed that made glued-on fake beards illegal. You have a beard, but for some reason someone thinks it might look fake. How would it feel to be harassed constantly by enforcers trying to score by kidnapping you for having a fake beard? Even if they had to let you go after pulling at your whiskers- wouldn't you feel like a second-class human? What if you resisted? Or the lying cop claimed you resisted after he killed you for not bowing low enough, quickly enough?

Statists might claim you could just shave it off to avoid the hassle. Sure, but what if you had some terrible scarring you wished to cover up, and since you liked the beard anyway, it was a natural solution?

Statists will say, as they always do, that it isn't beards they have a problem with, but "illegal" beards. What's the difference if it results in your constantly being targeted by enforcers?

Do NOT enforce immigration "laws" on my behalf! I do NOT consent!


Sunday, September 11, 2011

"Blowback Day" again... September 11th

Some statists try to call this day "Patriot Day", but Patriot's Day is April 19.

September 11th would more accurately be known as "Blowback Day" if the raging statists had any clue that actions and policies have consequences.

I doubt they'll ever get that.

Remember the victims and remember ALL who are guilty. And mourn those yet to be victimized since this train is being driven full-speed toward the ravine by the delusional pinheads who are holding the controls hostage.

And NEVER forget that government causes terrorism just as surely as a virus causes rabies.


Saturday, September 10, 2011

Liberty Lines 9-8-2011

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Farwell Texas)

I notice some people were annoyed by "Concerned Citizen" getting involved and upsetting the status quo regarding the landfill. I admit I felt the same annoyance when I read of the situation. I suppose, being a libertarian, I am not surprised by this sort of behavior anymore. In fact, I see it happen everywhere, constantly. It's just that most people don't notice such things as long as they approve of the outcome, or at least dislike the target.

Anytime some "Concerned Citizen" runs to government because of a bee in their bonnet, it hurts us all. I even oppose using one government against other governments, as happened with the landfill, except in cases where individual rights are in jeopardy and the offending government could be thwarted by involving another government to muddle the processes. Even then it is probably not the best solution. The danger of unintended consequences is just too great.

The "Concerned Citizen" effect is what burdens us with excess government such as these counterproductive environmental regulations, police departments, gun "laws", code enforcement, and all the other nanny-state nonsense that nibbles away at liberty. It is a large part of the reason that America now has a federal government (not to mention all the innumerable and entangled local manifestations of The State) which directly violates its Constitution with at least 99% of its actions and programs.

Whatever happened to people minding their own business and leaving others alone unless approached? What ever happened to people who would work out problems between themselves without being tattle-tales? That species of human will never be extinct as long as I draw breath. How about you?


Friday, September 09, 2011

Taxation enslaves in both directions

Just because I want to remove tax funding from certain things doesn't mean I necessarily want those things to go away.

Sometimes it means I appreciate them enough to want to remove their chains.

I love zoos, libraries, space travel, and many other things that need to be freed from the restraints of The State. Getting off the dole would be a good first step.

Of course I do want some completely reprehensible things to die a fast and painful death. Police departments and government schools, being a couple of good examples of things that are too harmful to be allowed to exist.


Tuesday, September 06, 2011

No hypocrisy in using public utilities

No hypocrisy in using public utilities

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 4, 2011. As originally written, not as published!)

I've noticed non-libertarians will frequently make the claim that liberty-lovers are hypocritical if they use things that are paid for with taxation. What an odd notion.

As long as The State exists, and continues to fund things through coercive taxation, you and I will be paying for a lot of things we didn't have any choice about funding. We are forced to pay for public schools, libraries, museums, and "public" roads whether we use them or not. In some instances, such as roads, it is impossible to avoid them, so there is no hypocrisy in using what you pay for. If you are paying for something you may as well use it- if you want to. How could anyone have an objection to people using what they are paying for?

This is not the same situation as welfare, which involves people using things not they, but others, were forced to pay for.

With government programs you are forced to pay even when you are allowed to use a private alternative. In this case you end up paying twice- once for the government service you are opting out of, and once for the private alternative you are choosing. Yet, people still make the choice to pay twice, on a daily basis, in order to get what they really want and need.

There is nothing carved in stone saying that using public schools, for example, is against any purported Libertarian Commandment. I do not think public schools are the best choice for educating your children, and in many (or most) cases I think they are actually harmful. However, as long as you are being forced, ultimately at gunpoint, to pay for these schools, you may use them with a clear conscience. If you feel any guilt, it is between you and your children for handing them over to The State for the majority of their formative years.

The same goes for any other service provided by The State. Everyone should have the choice of what to fund and what to use. No one should have to fund the things I choose to use unless they want to.

The hypocrisy is in pretending that it is OK to have a government monopoly, or to force people to pay for something twice if they wish to use an available private option. Opting out of the government "option", including not paying for it if you choose to not use it, must always be allowed.


Monday, September 05, 2011

Labor (Unions) Day

On a gut level, I don't like labor unions. They seem to me to be socialistic and coercive.

On the other hand, I have never been in one, and I can see how they could be useful in cases of a business that takes advantage of its employees. What I don't get is why people would form/join a union rather than finding a different way to make money if they are being abused.

My distaste for unions isn't based upon insider knowledge like it is in cases of things I have seen and been a part of from all angles- inside and out. I am looking at unions strictly from the perspective of an outsider looking in. I have never even been around anyone who was in a union, as far as I know.

I have read all the justifications for labor unions, and how the benefits they extracted from employers now grace us all, union or not. But would none of those things have come about anyway, given time and innovation? And what good things will never come about (and never be missed) due to the actions of labor unions? It's like those who claim that since "the government invented the internet" (no, it didn't, but that's another issue), anyone who uses the internet to criticize government is a hypocrite. Diseases can have beneficial side-effects, that doesn't mean you try to get infected.

So, I guess my feelings on Labor Day are pretty typical. Relax and ignore the original excuse to close some government offices.



Sunday, September 04, 2011

"I won't"

I just finished reading the story "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. Nice story!

In this story a military ship is thwarted, and loses many of its men, because people simply say "I won't". The commanders of the ship are powerless to do anything about it because their rule book forbids them to use force against people who are not attacking them- which the inhabitants of the planet are not doing.

Unfortunately for us, today, the Rulers who claim to rule us do not obey the rules which apply to their actions anymore. They don't bother even looking at the rule book to see if their actions are allowed, but make it up as they go along.

Politicians, bureaucrats, and especially those disgusting vermin the cops, routinely murder people for simply saying "no". Sure, copsuckers will claim that no one is murdered by an enforcer for simply saying "no", but that is a lie. It happens frequently- probably every day now. The enemy has no ethics. That means saying "no" will not be enough. You and I will also need to back that refusal with self-defensive force.


Saturday, September 03, 2011

Natural Law and Bubble Theory

Once again, the book The Law of the Somalis (by Michael van Notten) has spoken to me about the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. (Here is the previous observation.)

Now, on page 212 I find:

"[Natural law] permits all activities that do not infringe upon the person or property of another. It takes priority over all other principles and rules that shape human society, including rules legislated by parliaments or established by contract."

Forbidding a person from simply possessing anything on his person (such as, perhaps a gun) on your property as a condition of him entering your property infringes on his person and violates Natural Law. His personal property, as long as it remains out of sight and is unused (makes no appearance outside his "bubble of personal property", does not infringe on your person or real estate in any tangible way. It may "offend" your sensibilities, but you have no right to not be offended. And any contract that attempts to negate Natural Law to suit the real estate owner's wishes is null and void since it violates Natural Law. It is exactly like the fact that slavery is not "OK, as long as you only do it on your own property".

At least, it seems clear enough to me.


Friday, September 02, 2011

Terms of use?

This always makes me laugh:

"Use of the ___ service and this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

Nobody but your lawyer believes that. Nobody. Sorry.


Thursday, September 01, 2011

"Fascist!" "Libertine!"

There's a psychological glitch I have noticed that it seems all humans are subject to. Just as every driver who is going faster or slower than you are is an "idiot", every person who wants more or less liberty than you do is either a "fascist" or a "libertine"*.

I suppose I am probably guilty of that as well- although you probably won't find anyone who wants more liberty- for myself and for YOU- than me. So, to me, almost everyone seems to reside on the "fascist" end of the spectrum.

The thing is, I don't care how much or how little liberty you want for yourself as long as you don't try to impose your wishes on any other person. That is where the "fascists" expose themselves as the bad guys- most of them can't be content controlling themselves, but feel the urge to control you as well.

*This isn't to say there is anything at all wrong with being a libertine, as long as you don't aggress or steal- it's just what most people think of anyone who is more liberty-oriented than themselves. I'd probably be considered a libertine by the majority of the people, even though in reality I'm pretty boring- unless opportunities arise.