Wednesday, February 29, 2012

No meaning behind Constitution

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.)

I'm not a big fan of the US Constitution because, as has been pointed out by numerous observers for well over a century, it either established the criminal government we now suffer with, or it did nothing to prevent it. That doesn't mean it is worthless, though. I think it is very useful for illustrating which politicians and government employees belong in chains rather than on your payroll.

If a hypothetical politician or bureaucrat actually cared to stay legal and adhere to the Constitution, he would need to recognize that it would be safer to fail to do something that the Constitution authorizes than to do something it does not. I wonder why that never seems to occur to any of them.

I suppose the answer is that it is more fun to do things than to refrain from doing things. There is no rush of adrenaline in the power of restraint. There is no bluster and swagger in it. Scrupulously staying legal to the point of erring on the side of restraint would take away all the fun of governing for those drawn to that lifestyle.

Think of all the government activities that could not be justified by a Constitutional politician who knew that he would need specific authorization for each and every action he set in motion rather than claiming there would have to be a specific prohibition to stop any of his official acts.

Where specifically does the Constitution authorize the US government to prohibit the introduction of chemical compounds into one's own body? Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the federal government to regulate which crops are grown by private individuals, or what products people can manufacture and sell?

Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the government to run schools, interfere with travel, counterfeit money via the Federal Reserve, torture prisoners, or maintain "forts" in practically every nation on the globe? The answer is that it doesn't.

All those things are illegal for the US government to do- and since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, understood (at least by anyone less ignorant than the buffoons of the Supreme Court) to be illegal for any other government in America to do, as well.

But that's just no fun, and it's not as profitable, either. Which explains why the Constitution and Bill of Rights- which only applies to employees of the government by prohibiting most of their desired actions- will never be obeyed by government At least not voluntarily.


Sunday, February 26, 2012


At this moment I am confronting my biggest phobia. I may be on my way to the hospital or something. I know I should go. And for me to feel bad enough to consider that means I feel bad. I haven't felt like eating in days- among other things. I have no money, no insurance, and I don't want welfare. I feel like I'm dying and I am scared out of my mind. I don't want to leave my 4 year old daughter fatherless, but I also don't want to die and leave her with a lot of debt from my hospital bills.


Thursday, February 23, 2012

"Humans are flawed"... Yeah. What of it?

I saw someone who was trying to justify his "conservative libertarianism", specifically the idea that while government can't do anything else well or without harming the innocent, its "borders" are reasonable and good. His excuse for believing this was that only "conservative libertarians" recognize that people are "limited and flawed". Huh?

Now, this is a smart guy. On most things he is even beyond smart; he is wise. But here he has a giant blind spot that he seems to know is there and is trying to explain away. Yet the result is glaring inconsistency.

I don't believe in government's "borders". I do believe in property lines. I also recognize and accept that people are flawed. Including myself.

Do borders protect me from flawed people? No. Borders empower flawed people and give them more exciting ways to explore the depths of their depravity by violating others in myriad ways.
The only way I can imagine a "border" making a situation better is if the people "inside" had achieved a perfect society. Then it would make sense to defend a border to protect your society from the "outside" influences. But, then, if you need "protection" by restricting travel across property you don't own, by people who are not yours to control, your society wouldn't quite be "perfect", would it?

All people are flawed. All governments are comprised of some of the most flawed among a given population- those who think it's OK to attack and steal, as long as you do it "by the book" (or at least, while wearing the silly hat of government), and are attracted to that power. National borders are where these gangs of official criminals' territories collide. Sometimes that border is maintained by a truce- sometimes by threat. But, it's always just between the criminal gangs, not normal people like you or me. The borders are there to tell other governments that "These people are mine to 'tax' and control as I see fit. You use your subjects, I'll use mine!" Sadly these gangs brainwash some normal people into taking their side against their fellow residents. I have more in common with most "Mexicans" than I do with most "American" puppeticians and bureaucrats and enforcers/reavers. Thank goodness!

The claim that "right libertarians" accept that humans are flawed, while those of us who don't believe in "borders" don't, is ludicrous. It's a red herring of the stinkiest sort.

It just goes to illustrate, once again, that there is no such thing as "left libertarianism" or "right libertarianism". The "right" or the "left" in those labels are just an admission of the inconsistencies that are still being clung to- the areas where coercion, theft, or any other statist delusion is still accepted as valid. In those limited areas an otherwise "libertarian" individual is not being "libertarian" at all.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Suing The State

In cases of reaver brutality and other acts-of-government I love to see the victims sue the guilty party and win big. The only problem with that is that the guilty party doesn't actually pay for the violation- the penalty is stolen from the victim and everyone else within that imprisoned and milked geographic area.

It would be nice if there could be a change in the "law" to the effect that any government employee who is sued for violating someone pays the restitution directly from his or her own pocket. It's not going to happen since the bad guys are the ones writing and enforcing the "laws".

So, in this flawed situation, do we refuse to sue the bad guys; knowing they aren't the ones who will pay? I don't think so.

I say that the lawsuits can lead to unhappy theft victims who may eventually realize they are getting screwed over twice by the reavers and those who hold their leashes.

It is my intention to avoid allowing myself to be placed in a position where I would feel the need to sue any governmental employee, but I know that isn't always possible. But if it happens, I suppose I would still sue, and I won't blame you for doing it, either.


Tuesday, February 21, 2012

I want my descendants to live free

I want my descendants to live free

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 20, 2012)

What kind of future do I want my kids and their kids to live in?

A tightly-controlled "safe" future where they are watched out for and protected from anything that might harm them? Where human rights are thrown under the bus in the name of some nebulous "common good"? Or a liberated future where they are free to explore their full potential, as long as they don't violate the identical rights of anyone else, with no implied guarantees? Where risks are acknowledged, yet not given artificially-exaggerated weight? No contest. I want my descendants to live free.

When I close my eyes and envision their futures, I don't want to imagine them existing in a gray Soviet world, where Homeland Security (the American KGB) tracks and watches their every move for "their own good" and to protect the "Homeland".

I appreciate and even anticipate some of the technological advances that are on the horizon. However, unless some serious course changes are made, and soon, America is heading toward a strange future. One where technological wonders are in our pockets, our cars, businesses, hospitals, and homes, but we won't really be free to enjoy them. A future where everything not prohibited is mandatory. Where no action is possible which does not violate some arbitrary "law" passed to protect someone at the expense of everyone else. A strange combination of both the glorious color and the dreary grayness of science fiction at its extremes.

A "safe society" is an illusion. In fact, legislating security makes individuals much less safe in very real ways. It trains them to be helpless. It makes them believe they are incompetent to handle normal life situations by perpetuating the myth that "things are different now". It makes them think they have to depend on others- "professionals"- to educate their children, to protect themselves and their property from crime, to enforce contracts, and to know what to do in any situation. That is a lie, and it is no kind of life.

Any safety to be found will be real only if it grows out of liberty, which gives true safety a chance to germinate and thrive. Real safety based upon confidence, experience, and respect for Natural Law rather than a false "safety" based on feelings, prohibitions, and control.

Even though the safety won't be perfect in a free society- it can never be in any real-world example- a life of liberty is fulfilling and colorful. It is more meaningful. I want that world for my kids, because I want that world for myself. Thorns and all.


You've been robbed, but you got a receipt...

If I steal something from you, but leave you a receipt, does that make my theft not a theft? I don't think so.

So, how is it that government can get away with that?
They think that replacing your gold and silver with Federal Reserve Notes is a fair trade, but it isn't.

They think getting you to trade your liberty and giving you a receipt labelled "security" makes it OK. It doesn't.

Sure, if I agree to the trade, even if it is a stupid decision, then I get what I deserve. But I didn't.
Robbers broke in and left a receipt for all they stole and we are supposed to be satisfied. Screw that!


Monday, February 20, 2012

A modest proposal to prevent "bad government"

I think that if there is to be any "governing" allowed to take place, it should take place only under the watchful eyes of angry armed observers standing not more than 6 feet away. No governing should ever be permitted to take place behind metal detectors, or with armed security for the puppeticians being in the same building. The odds need to be leveled, and if one side has the power to destroy the lives of the other side, then the other side must have the same immediate power.

I think that would avoid a lot of the problems that seem to go along with puppeticians and bureaucrats. How many "laws" would end up being passed under those conditions? How many rights would be violated by government actions if that was a prerequisite for any government actions being engaged in? How often would "taxes" be increased?

Eventually it might even reduce the attraction that the sociopaths feel toward being elected to a government job.

Of course, the obvious conclusion is that there should never, ever, be any governing allowed. It isn't healthy or nice.


Sunday, February 19, 2012

Is liberty a sphere or a spectrum?

Is the landscape of liberty a sphere or a spectrum?

A lot of people seem to operate on the assumption that it is a sphere- that you can only go so far toward liberty before you find yourself heading back toward slavery- without ever having changed direction. You can only travel so far north before you have to stand still to avoid going south. If they are right, then there is an optimal amount of liberty and anything beyond that is worse than pointless.

On the other hand if the landscape of liberty is a spectrum, there might become a point where you reach the end of the line and there is simply no more liberty to be gained by trying to reach farther, but the pursuit wouldn't be harmful other than wasting your time.

Wouldn't it be great to explore far enough into those unknown reaches that the answer becomes obvious?


Saturday, February 18, 2012

"Better than..."

"Better than..."?

One of my ex-wives used to complain that I thought I was better than everyone else. While she was wrong about that, if she had said better than some other people, she would have been right, although I didn't want to admit it at the time. And, you know what? I still feel the same.

She thought I felt I was better than poor people who shopped at the dented can store she used to like to go to. She was right, but not for the reason she thought. I am better than people who are rude and pushy. Every time I went there, some shopper - not the same one each time- would elbow me aside to look through the cans I was looking at.

I am better than that. I won't shove people aside. When they did that it made them "less than" in my eyes.

But it doesn't stop there. I am better than people who steal. I am better than people who use coercion.

There is plenty room for others to still feel better than me. If you are still married to your first wife, or if you have a good job that pays well and gives you satisfaction, or if you are smarter, more helpful, more friendly... the list could go on indefinitely.

All people have the exact same rights. In that way no one is better than anyone else. But I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone is better than most others in some way. It would be sad if they weren't.


Friday, February 17, 2012

Accepting change

I had a bit of insight into myself that I decided to share.

I easily adopt or adapt to new things that I see as better.

I was thinking about this as I washed dishes. Yes, I do domestic chores. Anyway... not too long ago I figured out a more efficient pattern for arranging the dishes in the drain rack, and immediately began using the newer arrangement. The other (occasional) dishwasher still uses the old pattern.

In many other areas of life I have done the same. I may have been doing something the same way all my life, but when I discover- or am shown- a better way, I usually adopt it quickly. If it holds up, I keep it. If not, I may scrap it and go back to the old way, or once the "spell" is broken, I may research and look for other possibilities. Now, my "new way" may not be new to anyone but me, and my "old way" may not be the way anyone else has ever done anything; I am only talking about "new" or "old" in regards to the way I have been doing things.

I think this is why I am an anarchist/libertarian/voluntaryist. The old way worked OK for me until I started seeing the flaws, and then discovered a better way that didn't have all the flaws. So, I kept adopting "new" ways- tweaking what works to eliminate more flaws- until I got to where I am. Which will probably keep being tweaked.

I have also noticed that most people don't seem to let go of their old ways as easily as I do. Maybe they are more emotionally attached or something. This may mean I am lacking in some emotional component.

Maybe what I lack is unconditional loyalty.

That might just be the problem. After all, I tend to do the same in my relationships. When one ceases to "work" for me, I may try for a while to fix it, but if nothing changes fairly quickly, I stop having any emotional investment in it. I start keeping my eyes open for something better.

I'm not saying any of this is the best way to be; just how I am.

What do you think?


Thursday, February 16, 2012

There is no consent

There is a billboard in the next town that shows a girl, passed out on a couch, surrounded by liquor bottles. The caption states "Just because she isn't saying 'no' doesn't mean she's saying 'yes'."

True. And the same goes for any other kind of supposed "implied consent" as well.

Just because I am not shooting reavers/cops, bureaucrats, and politicians doesn't mean I consent to be subject to their rule. Only a rapist would believe otherwise.

Besides, I am saying "no". Over and over. In language that leaves no room for misinterpretation. But, the rapists of State refuse to hear since it is not in a language that they comprehend. Only brutal, naked force would be understood by thugs such as themselves. They are lucky I am peaceable and my trigger is so difficult to trip.


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Blocked paths and robbery

In the old days reavers known as "highwaymen" would block roads with downed trees so they could rob travelers.

Some of the intended victims didn't submit so easily, and some thieves died. Some of the surviving reavers got wise and realized it would be helpful if they could find a way to get their victims to stop fighting back.

So, now most reavers use speed limits instead of logs.


Tuesday, February 14, 2012

We all lose during election time

We all lose during election time

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 13, 2012)

I can give you a prediction about the next presidential election almost a year before it happens. Ready? The US government will win and America will lose. The status quo will be elected once more.

There isn't a bit of difference between any of the candidates who will end up on the ballot in the "possible winners" spots. Democrat, Republican, Republicrat, or Demopublican. They all stand for more government, more "laws", and less liberty. The only difference is in their individual angle of attack. They easily get this government-extremist agenda pushed through by fanning the flames of fear that their own favored policies sparked.

I'll even go further than that. I anticipate an Obama win. I'll explain why:

Republicans are too busy cutting their own throats by marginalizing and ignoring the only mainstream candidate who is distinguishable enough from Obama to handily defeat him in a head-to-head battle. You know the candidate of whom I speak: the only one Constitutionally-qualified for the job because he is the only one who adheres to the letter and intent of the document that gives the federal government its only permit to exist. That candidate is Dr. Ron Paul.

I have plenty of disagreements with Dr. Paul. Beyond the fact that he remains a part of the system. However, I do trust him to try to stay "Constitutional"; to act as he is legally authorized to act. That's something no president in several generations could honestly claim.

Whichever of the candidates actually ends up being elected, he will keep doing what Obama has been doing, only more so. On the remote chance it happens to be someone other than Obama, he will campaign by railing against things Obama has done, only to build on Obama's actions once he gets in office. It's the same story every time. Obama campaigned as an anti-Bush, but turned into a continuation of Bush- copying and building on the former's worst offenses as he added new offenses of his own. I expect no change.

But, this expectation gives a certain freedom. Once you see past the smoke and mirrors you can laugh at the show. Let the others chase their tails and tell you their insane and diseased trained monkey is better than the other guy's insane and diseased trained monkey. Look beyond the hype and see that they are all trying to get you to buy a sick monkey that will bite you.


"Keep it in your pants"

How many times have you seen the admonition to "Keep it in your pants"?

Whether in regards to religion (or other opinions) or literally a demand that you keep your pants zipped up so that "it" doesn't show up where it isn't wanted. It is still there, whatever "it" may be, but it's not an issue as long as it doesn't show up.

It's just a simple truth that as long as you "keep it in your pants" it can't really bother anyone else or be any of their business. And, if they insist on making it "their business" they have problems- and should be avoided.

I see it as an acknowledgement that "Bubble Theory" is right, and is generally understood to be right by almost everyone- until you try to look for a "slavery is OK as long as I only do it on my own property" loophole.


Monday, February 13, 2012

Liberty through a lens

I don't mind people seeing liberty through the lens of their own religion, until they start insisting that liberty is inextricably tied to that particular religious view.

I am an atheist. That's just me. I don't make any pretense that libertarians must be atheists. I know many who are not. I certainly don't call for any State control, regulation, prohibition, or oversight of anyone's religious views. Or non-views. Nor do I support any State endorsement or favor for any particular religious views, or non-views.

I stand up for people's religious views, and their right to hold those views, on a regular basis. Even though I think it is silly to believe in things that are beyond any sort of detection, experimentation, or objective observation.

But, I see a fairly common trend that disturbs me. It is when someone who views liberty through the lens of their particular religion demands that everyone view it the same way. Or when some aspect of the State only disturbs them when it ruffles their religious feathers. Such a narrow focus is dangerous.

Sure, a lens can bring things into focus and make you see more clearly. If the lens is the exactly correct one. There are infinite "wrong" lenses and only one right lens, and only a few that are better than nothing. Results count, and by the results I see evidence, strong evidence, that looking through liberty only through the lens of religious faith gives a distorted view.

Long ago I looked through that lens. I see more clearly now that it dropped away. But, what you see is your business until you start demanding everyone see it your way, or you'll have nothing to do with them. Too few of us care about liberty to be that divisive.


Sunday, February 12, 2012

Bad guys prove most people are decent

An internal combustion engine only functions when the temperature around it is a lot cooler than the heat it is generating inside itself. The imbalance is what gives it power. All things that "do work" depend on an imbalance in order to work. Waterfalls, windmills, whatever.

I think the same truth transfers to social situations.

Being a bad guy only "works" if the vast majority of people around you are good.

If everyone is running around robbing and attacking, there's no profit to it. The bad guy would get nowhere. In fact, as the percentage of bad guys increased, the "success" of being a thug would decrease.

This is a good thing in my eyes. It demonstrates that the vast majority of people are good, otherwise there would be no benefit to being bad.

Bad guys try to short-circuit this by joining government, but even that only "works" for them because we, the good people, still vastly outnumber the bad guys. Some day the good guys may wake up to this fact- and on that day the bad guys will have a very, very bad day. Or, partial day.


Saturday, February 11, 2012

Initiating force

I have once again violated the Zero Aggression Principle. And, once again, I am OK with that.

My daughter touched a hot burner on top of the stove and burned her fingers. I grabbed her, and quite against her will, forcibly held her fingers under cold, running water. Yet, even as I did it I realized that even if it were the right thing to do, I had no right to initiate force and do it. That is how the ZAP works in real-life situations, and is why it is so resilient.

But, as I have pointed out in the past, sometimes you have to do what you believe to be the right thing and accept any consequences that come from your actions.

I do.

Would she demand restitution? I'll ask her, but even after I explain what restitution is, I don't think she will.

And, she is OK, other than a few blisters.


Thursday, February 09, 2012

Prohibition MUST continue!

This was to be my Clovis News Journal column for February 10, 2012, but it was rejected. The reasons are probably obvious, considering this region. Plus my writing skills were said to not be good enough to actually pull it off. Oh well. See what you think.

(Imagine if the prohibition that is currently tearing our society apart were aimed at a different target instead. Please don't get angry before you read it all.)

Some people are calling for an end to the war on Bibles. How can these "soft on crime" types fail to see the lives destroyed by Bibles? To give up now, through re-legalization, is to admit defeat. The law is the only thing stopping many of our fellow citizens from reading Bibles now. Lives are at stake!

Re-legalization advocates claim the Bibles themselves harm very few, rather it's the justice system and societal consequences of being caught that cause most of the problems. Nonsense!

Bibles make some people "feel good". They give them a sense of transcendence; make them believe they are a part of something "bigger than themselves"; that they are special in some way. That's delusional and can be fatal!.

Think of all the families torn apart because a parent was caught with a Bible, or even printing out Bibles to give to innocent children. Consider all the brave BEA (Bible Enforcement Administration) agents and local officers who have been killed, fighting on your behalf, in this war. Each time they go out to make an arrest they risk not coming home to their family. Behind that door they are about to kick in could be someone ready to defend their imagined "right" to own and to read Scriptures.

Consider that the majority of Americans in prison first started down the wrong track by reading or trafficking in Bibles and, once assimilated into the prison culture, got involved in other criminal activities. You say their mind is their own, and what they put into it is their business? Look at the consequences of acting on this belief.

People seem to believe it's a joke. They put Bible-related stickers and emblems on their cars. They flippantly wear clothes with Bible-inspired quotes. Bibles are illegal, and all Bible readers and Scripture pushers are, by definition, criminals! If you support them you should be arrested, too!

If Bible prohibition weren't a good idea, why is it so popular? Bible-tests are now standard practice in order to get a job- no one would want their lives or safety endangered by someone who believes they can pray and alter reality. Do you really want your brain surgeon, your airline pilot, or the teen driver on the street to believe that? This is just too dangerous to be permitted to continue without society trying to do something about it! The war on Bibles must continue, even though Bibles can probably never be completely eliminated. If it saves just one life...

(OK, back to here and now. Horrible, isn't it? Think it could never happen? If you believe the law makes enforcement right, wait until you are on the other side of the law.)


"Tragedy of the Commons" at work

Anyone who doesn't believe "the tragedy of the commons" is real should watch kids who have access to an alcohol hand sanitizer dispenser.

I have observed it myself multiple times in the fast food joint play area.

I'm sure the dispensers are mandated by some stupid "law" in order to keep the kids from spreading their kid germs to other kids who have their own germs, but the kids love the stuff, and use it up about as fast as it gets replenished.

Each kid seems afraid that if they don't use all they can, the others will get it all. So they push and shove and grab all they can until it is gone.

And some adults think this can be changed and eliminated from human nature (or animal behavior). How silly!


Wednesday, February 08, 2012

"Immigration control"

Recently a post on the War on Guns blog gave me inspiration to re-address an old "problem". My comment:

The harder the govgoons make it for people to immigrate, the more it weeds out the good immigrants.

It's like "gun control" [sic]. The bad guys will always be armed, so the "laws" only disarm the good people (the dumb ones, anyway). Anti-immigration "laws" will only keep out those who really want to be "legal"; the gangsters will always get in.

I'm sure many otherwise rational people, particularly "Patriotic Gun Owners" of the sort that slobber on Shire Reave Joe Arpaio's rear end, don't want to see it in this light, but it will still always be the absolute truth.


Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Libertarians come in various forms

Libertarians come in various forms

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 6, 1012)

I've heard it said that getting libertarians together for any project is as difficult as herding cats*. Perhaps that is why I like most cats better than I like most dogs: I'm not terribly fond of the blindly obedient personality. I will admit I'd appreciate it if my cat would clean up her own gooey hairball messes.

I think one reason it is hard to get libertarians together is the nature of individual liberty. What is important to me may not matter at all to the next libertarian. While I spend a large portion of my life writing about liberty (because it energizes me), other libertarians are busy living their own lives in their own way, focusing on their own priorities, and most are not at all concerned with spreading the philosophy. And that is perfectly fine. I am aware there are areas of my life which would benefit if the writing didn't get so much of my time.

I recently sat down for a chat with another local libertarian and was struck by how different from mine was the path which brought him to this philosophy. Different experiences, backgrounds, and lives, leading to the same basic realization- that liberty matters and is not negotiable. Like every libertarian I have ever met, he was extremely intelligent, common-sensical, and stimulating to talk to. And just plain nice. The main difference I can see is that he isn't as publicly outspoken as I am. But that doesn't mean he isn't doing just as much, or more, to promote liberty in his own way.

Among libertarians, even among those libertarians concerned with spreading a love and understanding of liberty, there are differences of opinion as to which methods work. Some are still convinced they can "vote themselves free", while others see no evidence of this. Some prefer "preaching to the choir", while others enjoy stepping into the lions' den to try to show fans of coercion-based statutory "law" the superiority of voluntary action. Some think that it is a waste of time doing anything other than just living their life as they see fit to the best of their ability, and never try to help those who don't want to be helped. "Just let the wagon go into the ravine if those on board insist on staying the course."

Personally, I think there is a place for all those strategies, and it will take a little of all the above to once more make the world excited, and safe, for liberty. I'm not going to be too hard on anyone who is working toward the same goal.


* I actually had a guy comment on the newspaper site that " The herding cats comment was by the inventor of modern Libertarianism to show how easy it was to organize them." Seriously? He thinks that's what it means? Has he ever been around cats OR libertarians? I have my doubts.


"But you might HURT someone!"

I think I've discovered something about myself:

I'm not that impressed (or scared) by "might hurt someone", or "dangerous". I suppose that may color a lot of my opinions.

I'm not saying that I don't see people do things I consider to be dangerous and think to myself "That idiot is going to hurt someone, someday". It's just that my "solution" is never to send The State after that person, but instead to watch out for myself and others and do my best to keep them out of the idiots' way.

We all do things that onlookers would probably think are dangerous and that might hurt someone. If you can do those things without ever harming anyone, then why the complaints? If you do hurt someone, then restitution! Are you sure you can afford it? (Oh, wait. I forgot there isn't much danger of you actually having to answer that question in this justice-free society, where The State pretends putting you in a cage will "make it all better". Morons.)


Monday, February 06, 2012

Sacrificing the healthy to the sick

Sometimes, some people have a serious problem. That's sad. But it can be made worse when everyone else is expected to have their lives and rights tossed aside for the few with the problem.

One example is a peanut allergy. Yeah, it's tragic and can be fatal. I am sorry, but it is the responsibility of the person with the allergy to make sure they avoid peanuts. It is not my responsibility to protect them. I am not going to walk around chanting "Unclean!" so that those who have to avoid peanuts will stay away from me.

Another example is "gun control". Yep, around guns some people will do the wrong thing. That is NOT my fault and I resent being punished for things I did not do. I am not going to walk around chanting "Forgive me- I own guns!" so that the State and pathetically damaged individuals can attack me for being a responsible person.

Everyone has defects that they might prefer that others cater to- some of these can even be fatal. But it hurts us all to demand we order society around the problems, rather than expect those with the problems to order themselves around healthy individuals.


Sunday, February 05, 2012

Learn The Way, Grasshopper.

Sometimes the contortions of those who fawn over The State leave me in awe. It's like some kind of mental discipline beyond what I am capable of allows them to justify the unjustifiable, and ignore the obvious. They've discovered "Gov fu- The Way of the Coward".


Saturday, February 04, 2012

Disgusting authoritarians

I have read about a couple of studies that found that those who identify themselves as "conservative" are more easily disgusted. Interesting.

Not sure if the correlation indicates causation. Or, even if there is causation, which causes which. Are people who are easily disgusted drawn to "conservatism", or do "conservatives" become more easily disgusted as a way to justify their politics?

I guess someone needs to do a follow-up and watch young kids as they mature and see what happens to those who are easily disgusted in early childhood, versus those who are not.

The study got one thing glaringly wrong when it claimed "Liberals tend to disagree, and are more likely to base judgments on whether an action or a thing causes actual harm". Um, no, they don't. (I interpret this as bias on the part of the researchers.)

Which makes me wonder, what is the correlating factor that is tied to "liberals"?

I suspect it is "offense". I would like to see a study that looks at people who are easily offended and see what their politics resembles.

However, as we all know, "conservative" and "liberal" (or "progressive" if you prefer) are just silly names for authoritarian. Which makes sense. Disgust and offense are also pretty much just different names for the same feeling.

"Conservatives" may be offended by "gay marriage" while "liberals" are disgusted by gun ownership.

So, authoritarians are those who are easily offended/disgusted. And then use offensive and disgusting coercive behavior to try to force everyone else to go along with their own mental shortcomings.


Friday, February 03, 2012

Road monopoly and "their rules"

One place a particularly pathetic defense crops up- for the absurd rules that the government road monopoly imposes- is in discussing driver's licenses.

The government apologist will say "If you don't like the rules the government enforces for using the roads the government built..." Then the apologist will either suggest we stay off the government roads completely, or build our own. Both rather stupid demands considering the reality of the world as it now exists. But, if I have to either live with the rules the government imposes, in order to have the "privilege" of traveling on "its" roads (excuse me, but who paid for them?), or else the poor, beleaguered government will just have to take its toys and go home, building and maintaining no more roads for my "benefit"... well...

My response to the government and its supporters: So stop. We'll adapt. We'll survive. We'll be fine. You are unneeded, unwanted, and totally unwelcome. You don't enrich life; you pollute it. Go away.


Thursday, February 02, 2012

Government can't "take the 5th"

Just in case puppeticians and their disgusting bureaucratic familiars forget, the 5th Amendment doesn't protect government, nor does it give the government in general an excuse to refuse to answer to you or me..

The entire Bill of Rights only exists to protect individuals from government actions. It does not exist to protect government from curious "citizens" or other interested parties. To attempt to use it in this way is wrong. People should have secrets from government; governments should have no secrets from the people.

What this means is that government secrets are not only wrong, but they are also illegal. Any ignored or rejected Freedom of Information Act request is a clear admission of wrongdoing. Any blacked out document that results from a FOI request is unambiguous evidence of guilt. Any government secret of any kind is illegal and a clear sign that the government is doing something wrong that it feels it needs to hide.

Now, you and I both know that government doesn't even bother looking for something to make its secrecy "legal", but it's good to remember that a government secret is a criminal act.


Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Just when you think you have things figured out...

The paper I write a column for, the Clovis News Journal, has been sold by Freedom Communications, and bought by a new company. I'm not sure what that will mean for my continued writing for them, since Freedom Communications is "editorially libertarian", but the new owners say they will have the paper "remain conservative".


Government's "one job"

If you've read my blog for very long, you probably already know how intensely I dislike "pro-lifeism", even though I don't personally like abortion.

I think part of the reason is a difference in how I view government. Government apologists often claim the main justification for government is for it to protect the innocent. (Even though it is so obviously incapable of doing even this one job.) I don't buy it.

I have no use for government. I don't even think government should prohibit murder or punish murderers. I don't want government to say it is protecting my rights. I have a right to own and to carry any type of weapon I see fit. I don't want The State to "protect" that right (even if it could or were inclined to do so); I want it to leave me alone. In fact, I want it to leave alone anyone who would try to violate that right (as if there were any real danger other than from government employees or pathetic monsters who got their original idea from government's prohibitions).

Government doesn't help any situation. The best it can do is stay out of the way and let things resolve themselves. Yet that is something too few demand.

So, even if abortion were murder, I wouldn't want the government declaring its jurisdiction over the matter.