Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Frustration.  But you can't get through to some people no matter what.  Even if they are staring down the barrel of a gun.  Or a storm.

With Hurricane Sandy aiming directly at my friends in Pennsylvania I took it upon myself to mention to some of them that I hoped they were taking precautions.

Universally I met with the standard reaction, if they reacted at all:

"Oh, nothing ever happens around here.  I'm not going to be paranoid.  The electric company will keep the lights on, or fix it quick if anything happens.  I have a couple of bottles of water, and some food.  I can go over to ___'s house, or where I work, if I need food or water.  It's just down the block.  I don't need anything.  My cell phone works and it's charged.  Etc."

Sigh.  Denial.  "It can't happen to me!"

Why can't people realize that sometimes you can't just walk a block or two to somewhere you believe will have what you need, and be able to get it when you arrive?  Why do people not realize that cell phones need their towers to be standing and be powered in order to work- even if charged?  That sometimes things are bigger than a couple of days can fix?

How did people become convinced that it is "paranoia" to be able to take care of yourself?  How did people become convinced it is somehow morally superior to refuse to be prepared to survive without relying on other people?

How can people not see the fun in being ready for unexpected events- or even those with plenty of warning?

Does no one think ahead and consider it wise to be prepared anymore?  I guess this means that, once again, I am "No One".

UPDATE: read the comment I just posted below.


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Restitution could provide justice

Restitution could provide justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 28, 2012.)

Recent and ongoing local events illustrate the folly of imprisonment. The situation is not unique. The same type of events repeat, in limited variation, all across America on a continuous basis.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, and subsequent studies which keep confirming it, should demonstrate that you can't give one group of people dominion over another group of people without both groups losing their humanity. It's not healthy for anyone.

Imprisonment also provides a taxpayer-subsidized "Criminal University" where skills, experience, and lessons are passed from one bad guy to many more people- quite a few of whom are "enrolled", not for attacking or stealing, but for violating arbitrary edicts against self-determination or private property rights. You can't teach people to be good by enforcing bad rules.

The primary goal shouldn't be punishment; but protecting the innocent and private property. If punishment actually helped achieve that goal then a better argument for it could be made, but it doesn't. Only restitution provides some justice to the victim. It costs a violator nothing extra to sit in a cage while the victim is "taxed"- stolen from yet again- to keep prisoners. Only the imprisonment industry benefits, although they have a great many people fooled.

Sure, most people will say that there are just some prisoners who should never walk free again. If someone needs to be caged, they need to be dead, but no government is honest enough to be trusted with that power. Remove the "laws" (the illegitimate rules against self defense and against the most effective defensive tools) that protect aggressors and thieves from the rightful consequences of their actions, to bring the price of being a bad guy back up to where it needs to be, and watch the population of actual bad guys dwindle.

And stop harassing everyone else.

Anyone imprisoned for anything other than theft or aggression is, in truth, a political prisoner. Accidents are not crimes, and while they may create an debt, that in no way involves the State. The US now imprisons a larger percentage of its residents than has any regime in history- more even than those such as Soviet Russia and China, not exactly shining examples of liberty or justice. It's not that Americans are worse than any population in history- it's that the laws are wrong.

When your course of action fails to keep things from getting worse, it's time to do something different. Sometimes, the way it's always been done is also the way it's always been done wrong.


Greed- The definition

I think "greed" is basically "self-interest with regard to physical things".

This is not bad in any way, no matter what some people may believe.

However, when you twist that "self-interest with regard to physical things" to where you value it enough to steal, defraud, and/or murder for those things, then that is where you committed the evil act- the greed itself isn't evil.  This is why statism is "greedy" in an evil way- it steals, defrauds, and murders... and claims to be doing it for "the common good".

Everyone is greedy- even those who do altruistic things- otherwise they wouldn't survive. It's how you express that greed that can be the problem.


Sunday, October 28, 2012

I HATE lying anti-liberty bigots!

I get drawn into these "discussions" with lying anti-liberty, gun hating bigots.  I know I shouldn't try to reason with them, but I do.  I am tired of pretending that their ideas have any validity, and tired of pretending that they are anything other than mass-murder enablers.  I try to be civil, but they are so incredibly dishonest and ignorant that it is really difficult.

Anyway, here is a recent exchange from Opposing Views/Facebook:


  "You have a curious concept of the word compromise."

 No, that's the anti-liberty bigots' concept of compromise. My idea of compromise is "I give up something and you give up something". The gun haters have never given up anything at all, but have only demanded "just one more little 'reasonable' law" each time they got gun owners to "compromise". Screw that.

"... the 20K number was completely invented and has no connection to reality"

You're probably right- it is undoubtedly much higher now. And although any single individual might not be subject to all of those "laws"- and many of them are the same "law" imposed on different places- each of those "laws" gets a veil of legitimacy from the existence of all the others, and they ALL hurt everyone. I don't want a person in NYC to be victimized by an anti-gun "law" any more than I want to live under one. Because I value EVERYONE's liberty. Even one anti-gun "law" is too many. The exact number doesn't matter.

" about you suggest a few gun laws that you think should be eliminated..."

I want ALL anti-gun "laws" eliminated. "Compromise" is your Trojan Horse. In any compromise between poison and food, or between liberty and oppression, only the poison and oppression win.

"Let's start by closing the gun show loophole."

There is no such thing. Gun sales at gun shows are subject to the *exact same* counterfeit anti-gun "laws" that gun sales anywhere else are subject to. Stop lying.

"I hope we can all agree that felons with a history of violence shouldn't be allowed to buy guns."

No, I don't agree to that at all. Because there is no way to stop violent felons from buying guns, no matter what "the law" is. And if they can't buy them they will steal or build them. Plus if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted, period. Once someone has been released from prison they should not have their rights continuing to be violated. Many "felons" did not even commit acts of violence in the first place. Plus there are plenty of false convictions. Nope. I'll gladly take my chances with other people's liberty, rather than give a criminal gang the "authority" to decide who may or may not exercise a fundamental human right.

"So, why would we allow people to bypass the background checks needed to check if someone is a violent felon?"

"We" don't. Not from gun dealers. What you want to do- the reality of the false "gun show loophole" lie- is to ban ALL private gun sales unless they are government approved. Stop lying.

"Next how about a mental health background check."

Ever thought about who is permitted to decide what constitutes a "mental illness"? I have, and I don't trust them to not use political measures, just like the Soviet Union did. It has already been proposed that the desire to own a gun constitutes a "mental illness". Convenient, huh.

"If this was required 'Batman' shooter would have been unable to buy all of those guns."

Only through gun stores. And wait, wasn't it illegal for him to *shoot* people? Why would he be willing to break that BIG law, but be stopped by some minor "law" that is supposedly about stopping him from buying or possessing a gun? And even if he was somehow magically prevented from possessing a gun, would a crazy person be unable to build explosives? Or grab a machete and start hacking? Why is being murdered by a gunshot supposedly worse than being murdered in some other way? He was a killer with a captive victim pool which was disarmed by "law" and which had limited ability to escape.

"I hope we can agree that he was clearly not mentally stable enough to buy a gun and had a clear history of mental health problems that would have shown up on a check."

Just because he was not mentally stable the day he committed the murders doesn't mean he wasn't mentally stable months before. Things change; people snap.

"There, 2 reasonable gun laws."

Not "reasonable" at all. Try again.

"Of course we can show that places with more permissive gun laws have more gun related deaths so that would indicate that they do prevent tragedies..."

Except that it doesn't work that way. Places with stricter anti-gun "laws" have higher rates of murder and violence. Even with guns. You know this as well as I do. Stop lying.

"How about you tell me some times that gun owners (not the police) have prevented a tragedy with their guns."

I could give you several examples, a couple that I have personal knowledge of. Without a shot being fired, by the way. I could also direct you to websites that collect stories of armed people stopping attacks. It happens more than you know because most of these incidents never get reported to the police. But a lot still do get reported. If you were serious about wanting to know about those you could find them easily. There are lots of them.

"Can you give me any examples of mass shootings that were stopped by a private citizen with a gun?"

Yes. Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi. October 1, 1997. But, like all stopped mass shootings, it was stopped before it became too "massive". And there are many more. Look at all the cases where an armed assailant with lots of ammo and multiple guns is stopped before the body count gets anywhere near where it could potentially go. It never becomes a "mass shooting" precisely because someone with a gun stops it. Therefore the news coverage is muted. But if you want to know, you can find out about them.

"You mention that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms 'shall not be infringed' but you and I both know that's not true."

Read it again if you believe that isn't true.

"We both agree that violent gang members should not be allowed to own guns right?"

I don't agree to that at all. Let them be armed, and let their neighbors be armed, too. They'll either calm down or die. We outnumber the violent bad guys overwhelmingly, and had government not been so successful at convincing people that armed self-defense is somehow "unseemly", and criminalizing it, there wouldn't be a gang problem.

"That's infringement."

Yes, and it's illegal.

"We both agree, I assume, that people should not be allowed to own fully automatic military grade machine guns right?"

No, I don't agree. People CAN own fully automatic military grade machine guns now; they just have to pay an illegal "tax" and go through an illegal "approval process". The Second Amendment makes it clear that this regulation is illegal. What difference does it make how fast a gun shoots? The bullets still come out of the barrel one at a time. And it's expensive to shoot an automatic. Your petty thug isn't going to use one, and if he does he'll run out of ammo really quick.

"I hope we can both agree that people should not be allowed to own surface to air missiles or RPG's."

Why not? And why bother? How many people would risk abusing them, knowing that those they target would also have access to the same things? The State owns them, and misuses them. "The People" should always be in possession of superior arms over and above what The State possesses. That is why the Second Amendment was written.

"That's infringement of your right to bear arms. In other words, we all agree that the right to bear arms has to be infringed."

No, actually we don't. Yet, even if we did, it would still be illegal to do so.

"It's just a question of where the line is drawn. So, maybe we should have a 'national conversation' to discuss where to draw that line."

Sure. That's very easy. The "line" is drawn at misuse, not possession. Possession of ANYTHING can't be a legitimate "crime". Yes, that includes "drugs", too.

And, I'll fill you in on another inconvenient detail. The right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we desire, everywhere we go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone predates the Second Amendment. You could repeal it and the right would still exist just as it has since the first human evolved. It exists in Texas, New York City, Tehran, Beijing, Sydney, Tokyo, BFE, and Washington DC whether the local "authorities" respect the right or not. A right can be respected of violated- there is no other option. I choose to respect everyone else's rights because I only deserve the liberty I respect in others. And because I am not a pathetic, whimpering coward begging Big Brother to save me from all the scary people and their tools.

*** Next comment***

"See, I assumed you were a rational human being with a grip on reality."

Funny how your kind sees "rationality" to mean that I'll give up my liberty to the most murderous gang on the planet. No thanks.

"...but since you were unable to give evidence..."

I did give evidence, but people like you are not worth my time. I am not writing these responses to you, but only to show others how dishonest and evil the anti-liberty bigots truly are. I could give case after case, all day long, and you'd deny it ever happened.

"I could again ask you to give one shred of evidence to the widely spread claim of 20K gun laws in this country but you couldn't before and you can't now because it's a blatant lie."

As I said, the exact number is irrelevant. Even one anti-gun "law" is one too many. You Mass Murderer Fan Club folks would rather see a woman raped in an alley than see her standing over the body of her attacker, a smoking gun in her hand. And if you deny it you are lying again. Each and every one of your "reasonable gun laws" will lead to this inevitable result.

"I could point out that your idea of compromise, that I give up everything and you give up nothing, is the exact opposite of what the word compromise means."

And as I have pointed out, this isn't my idea of compromise, it is the anti-liberty bigots' idea. This is what they have been demanding of gun owners since the first of their kind got the notion to pass the very first anti-gun "law". First it was just that they'd only ban machine guns. Few refused to comply. Then it was any gun that wasn't suited for war. Then it was any gun that could be used in war. Then it was guns by mail, and guns without getting government permission, and then it was sport utility guns- oh, I'm sorry, that would be "assault weapons" to you. Then it was background checks and waiting periods. And cheap revolvers. And normal capacity magazines. And the list goes on and on and on. Each time your kind has said if we just compromise this time... and each time the anti-liberty bigots lied. The goal posts keep being moved away from liberty and closer to a total gun ban. Enough! Not one more inch!

"I could even re-post the link that shows that gun deaths are considerably more common in places with more lax gun laws but you clearly ignored it the first time so why bother this time?"

A lie from a well-known anti-liberty organization is still a lie no matter how many times you post it. And the results have been the same for hundreds of years- places where the people are armed are safer than places where only the government is armed.

"...anybody who thinks that any individual, whether they be a criminal, a terrorist or mentally insane, should be able to walk into a store and, with no background check whatsoever walk out with surface to air missiles is a f***ing moron who is so disconnected from reality that clearly having a rational discussion about gun rights in this country will be impossible."

The rational discussion is: Not one more inch. You try to take our guns and we will defend ourselves to the death. Are you ready? How many guns will you personally try to steal? Or will you only send thugs with guns to steal the guns? Bring it on, Liberty Haters.


Saturday, October 27, 2012

Wading into "preparedness"

Claire Wolfe has been having a preparedness discussion that has a lot of very good information.  Not a hand-wringing TEOTWAWKI- "you GOTTA have ALL this stuff" discussion, but a calm, realistic discussion.

I highly recommend you check it out.

Preparedness priorities, part I

Preparedness priorities, part II

Preparedness priorities, part III

Preparedness priorities, part IV

Preparedness priorities, part V

You can also check out my Preparedness page.

Expect the unexpected. Be adaptable. Survival preps are fun, and they should be fun. If you make them fun people will want to join you. If you make preps tedious and serious people will call you names.

Please don't be like the person I mentioned preparedness to yesterday.  She is convinced there is some basis to the "Mayan Apocalypse" stuff, and that it will actually end up being a good thing, but when I asked if she had set aside "extra food, cash, or whatever", she replied emphatically that no, that was "fear".  I kinda talked her past that, I think, but I wonder why people feel this way about normal "insurance".


Thursday, October 25, 2012

Perusing Dictionary definitions

I am always having to answer to the fact that "The Dictionary" conflates "anarchy" with "chaos", "destruction", and "disorder".  Or presumably negative concepts to that effect.  And I am not often believed outside the anarchist "community".

People don't seem to like it when I point out that dictionary definitions can be wrong due to common usage being incorrect- eventually if enough people use the word in the wrong way, the dictionary reflects that error.

Such is the case with "anarchy".

Several times I have been asked to give one example of another word that has suffered the same fate, and until now I haven't been able to.

That's right- I said "until now".

I have found another word that the dictionary says means two opposite things.  One word is said to mean both "to examine or consider with attention and in detail" and "to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner".

If you do one, you are not doing the other.  The word is "peruse".

Dictionaries are not infallible, and are subject to accidental errors and intentional manipulation.


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

This prohibition is different

Many times I have pointed out that the old alcohol prohibition (which never really ended, but was just changed to profit a nastier gang) and the current prohibition on politically-incorrect drugs have a lot in common.  Such as creating gang violence and inflating prices and selecting for criminals in the supply of the prohibited substances.  Without making the demand for the substances go away even a little.

There is one big difference between the old alcohol prohibition and the current everything else prohibition, though: the most dangerous gangs this prohibition has spawned are the ones with the badges.

Now, I admit, the old prohibition is not something I have first-hand knowledge of.  And history books often lie.  Still, I'm willing to believe them when they claim the worst prohibition-related violence back then was committed by the "criminals".

That simply isn't the case with the current prohibition.

This time, more innocent people are hurt and killed by the prohibition enforcers.  They are worse, by at least an order of magnitude, than the prohibition violators.

And, even the prohibition violators who cause real harm are outnumbered greatly by those who violate prohibition non-violently.  The same can't be said about the enforcers.  Even the "best" of the prohibition enforcers is destroying lives every time he kidnaps or robs someone who did no actual wrong, but only ignored a counterfeit "law".  And the enforcers who cause real harm also outnumber the prohibition violators who cause real harm.  It's time to put an end to this stupidity.


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Changes needed to ensure justice

Changes needed to ensure justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 21, 2012)

"Justice" is the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed by an act of aggression or property loss and correct the damage; to return the victim to as close to the "pre-victimized condition" as is possible.

What, then, is "injustice"? It is often simply the lack of justice. This could be injustice through omission or a case of justice being impossible to provide. Or, it could be (and often is) the opposite of justice. Anti-justice.

This might be the attempt to harm an individual who has already been harmed by an attack or a theft. Laws that criminalize the failure to report a stolen gun being one example.

Injustice could be the attempt to punish an individual for an offense they didn't actually commit. This happens more than most people want to admit- just check out The Innocence Project to see how many innocent people have been railroaded into a conviction just because "someone needs to be punished" when a law is broken, and because prosecutors and judges want to be seen as "tough on crime".

Injustice could also be the attempt to punish an individual for doing something "illegal" that does not harm any individual nor anyone's private property; a "mala prohibitum" act. There is never any justice involved in prosecuting any victimless crime; doing so always creates a victim out of thin air.

If you advocate, pass, support, or enforce any "law" which attempts to criminalize and punish anything other than a physical attack on an innocent person, or the theft or destruction of private property, the result will always be injustice. If you permit a government court to handle any case where the government is an interested party, an egregious conflict of interest, the result will frequently be injustice.

To ensure justice, some things need to change fundamentally. All laws concerned with anything other than an attack on the innocent or the violation of private property need to be abolished and everyone imprisoned for these false offenses needs to be freed immediately. The incentive to punish someone, anyone, for every crime needs to take a back seat to finding the real perpetrator and making things right with his victim through restitution. Finally, courts need to be separated from the control of the government and there needs to be competition in providing this service.

If you value justice you will insist on these changes; if you only give lip service to justice while actually thirsting for punishment and retribution you'll be content with the status quo. Where do you stand?


"Officer safety"

I despise the bogus concept of "officer safety".  What a completely disgusting justification for anything some corrupt cop (redundancy alert) wants to do to you.

Why would a reaver's safety be more important than mine or anyone else's?  Why shouldn't I be able to disarm and cuff any cop I encounter as a safety precaution?  You know, just until I ascertain that he is not a threat to me or to anyone else ("the public")?  Who is actually more likely to shoot whom?  Well, check out the statistics for yourself.

I don't shoot people whom I claim were driving "too fast", or whose tires I claim crossed a painted stripe, just because they don't wish to be stopped and robbed or kidnapped by me.  Cops do.  I don't shoot people who are trying to get away from me.  Cops do.  I don't break into people's houses because they are doing something I don't like, and then murder them if they resist.  Cops do.  I don't rob, kidnap, or murder people for growing some kind of plant.  Cops do.  So exactly who is endangered by whom?

I don't feel endangered by some guy with a holstered gun on his hip, unless he also wears a badge.  Cops do.  I don't even feel endangered by most people who have unholstered their gun- unless, once again, they hide behind a badge.  Cops flip out over that.  The reason I don't is that I am not a coward, I am not paranoid, and I don't go around escalating situations that I initiate.  It's that simple.

If a LEO feels he needs to violate people for his own "safety", it indicates to me that he knows he is guilty of doing things that normal people know are wrong.  A guilty conscience- probably combined with an instinctual knowledge that his victims would be ethically justified in killing him for his evil behavior- makes his own safety become his primary concern.  It shows that he is a violator and a coward, and somewhere deep inside he probably knows it.

If a cop is concerned about his safety, he can do the same things others do for safety.  Wear a seatbelt- or not; don't look down the barrel of your gun to see if it's loaded; don't initiate car chases; don't trespass; don't rob; don't be an aggressor; don't stick your tongue into light sockets; don't harass people who are minding their own business; and don't interfere with travelers.  Distilled down: don't be an idiot or a prick and your safety factor increases exponentially.

But this is too hard for people whose brains are encumbered with the Enforcer Defect.

They want to be able to be a bad guy and still go home at the end of their shift- after doing the wrong thing for hours at your expense.  Well, Officer, the rest of us have just as much right to go home at the end of your shift as you do.  And unless we are stupid enough to seek you out, our lives are worth more than yours could ever be.  We didn't start it.  And we outrank you, since you are supposed to be our servant.  You're a butler-gone-bad.

Your cowardice, paranoia, and your sense of entitlement is an indication that you can't be trusted with any amount of "authority".  You need to go find an honest job and stop being a predator.  Unfortunately most cops can't handle a real job- especially one that has real risks beyond the minuscule "risks" their preferred "career" entails.  That's obvious since they keep being cops.

Well, Mr. Cop, your safety means as much to me as the safety of a rapist.  I don't need your "help".  You're fired.  Now, go away.


Monday, October 22, 2012

Wonders never cease...

I just spoke to a Texas family member who is a very staunch Republican.

He just told me he sent in his absentee ballot- and voted straight Libertarian.

He was tired of voting for Republicans who are indistinguishable from the Democrats- and that's really all there are.  He wanted to send a message to the Republicans.

Now, I'm ambivalent about v*ting (as Claire Wolfe would write it)- I don't think it's the right thing for me to do right now.  But for you?  You'll have to decide that for yourself.  But it still tickled me to hear how he voted.

So, how about it, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats?  You can overcome the inertia.  Voting for your parties' nominees is a wasted vote.  It tells them that you like what they've been doing and how they've been doing it.  For decades.

Do something different this one time and see if you don't feel better about yourself.  Either vote for someone in a third party (and if you do that you might as well vote for the guys and gals who are in the third LARGEST party), or refuse to play a completely rigged game at all.

The choice is yours... choose wisely.


Sunday, October 21, 2012

Who is the real danger?

Who is a greater danger to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Freelance criminals?  Or cops?

Anytime one goes out in public, and many times when you think you are safe in your own home, you are in danger of being victimized by an aggressor or thief.

The chance of being victimized on any particular day is very small. Of course, it does happen without warning every single day to many people, all of whom thought it wouldn't happen to them and couldn't happen here.  You should always be prepared.

Many people (more than the anti-liberty bigots/gun-haters suspect) take responsibility for their own safety, and the safety of the innocent people around them, by carrying a weapon.  With or, in most cases, without government permission.

Unfortunately for civilization, the chance of being stopped and attacked by a cop who is willing to enforce victim disarmament "laws", having your weapon discovered, and being kidnapped or murdered, grows larger each and every day that those counterfeit "laws" stay "on the books".

Carrying a weapon "deeply" enough that it is less likely to be seen by the reavers makes it much harder to access when needed in a hurry to fend off an attacker or thief.  But this is the reality of the world we live in.  You weigh the risks and decide which risk is greater.

You can avoid the danger of being attacked by the badged reavers for the "crime" of taking personal responsibility for your own safety by abdicating that responsibility and walking around unarmed. Or you can beg permission from The State to be "allowed" to carry a weapon.  Subject to their whims, restrictions, disarmament zones, fees, and inclusion in criminal databases, of course.

Either of these poor options robs you of your humanity in a real way, since it is an admission that you belong to The State.

Unfortunately, the danger from government enforcers is probably greater today than the danger of being victimized by freelance criminals. It makes the decision more difficult.

You have to decide based upon your incomplete assessment of the situation surrounding you- Who is a bigger danger: criminals or cops?  I know who I think is more dangerous.

I expect to be able to go my whole life without ever being put in much real danger from an encounter with a "criminal"- danger that I can't handle- but I have already had several encounters with cops that could have turned deadly if the cop was simply having a bad day.  So far, I've lucked out, but I know who is more dangerous to the good guys.


Saturday, October 20, 2012

Finally- a distinction worth noticing

The impossible- no, the highly improbable- has happened.

Whereas I had previously thought there is no difference between the two Obamney puppets, the supporters of one have finally made a difference.

It's official: due to the actions of Romney's supporters, I now actually hate him worse than I hate Obama.  That is quite an achievement.  You should be proud of yourselves.

The candidates themselves couldn't have achieved that.  There is nothing substantive, and very little that is vanishingly trivial, to distinguish Obamney 1.0 from Obamney 2.0.  Being unwillingly subjected to their vacuous words and insane opinions wherever I turn couldn't even have accomplished this (but I have managed to avoid this fate).  Only rabid supporters could.

I know that if there were an actual "conservative", with an "R" after his name, on the ballot, you guys would despise Romney and would be doing everything possible to defeat him.  He is the anathema of everything you stand for- according to your apparently forgotten words.  But you are blinded by your hatred of Obama.  I'm not.  I can see that your guy is just as big a socialist- just as corrupt- just as deviant in his beliefs- as that which you now claim to hate in order to create a difference where none exists.

No, I don't like Obama one bit.  I simply hate Romney just a little bit more.

Congratulations, Romnoids.


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Withholding relief = torture

I, and many others, refer to the "War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs" as stupid and evil.

If you have any doubts about those adjectives, you haven't been paying attention.

To keep self-destructive people from harming themselves (probably impossible), and to keep others from doing something they think is fun (also probably impossible), the drug thugs keep sick people from getting desperately-needed relief. That isn't just stupid, it's evil.

Now, whether marijuana / Cannabis is the magical miracle cure-all that some claim it is or not is irrelevant.  Aspirin doesn't cure the root cause of a headache or muscle soreness, but people take it anyway, just for temporary relief.  Why shouldn't they?

And, just maybe, there is something to all the clinical studies (the non-government ones) that show Cannabis to be a powerful cancer fighter.  Along with having other benefits.  But what if it doesn't cure anything?

If marijuana can make a chronically miserable person feel a little better for a while that is all the justification needed for using it- as if any justification were necessary.  Which it isn't.

I have a couple of dear friends who are in constant pain from health conditions.  Because they continue to be in constant pain I suspect that they avoid the simple relief they could have because it is "illegal".  That absolutely infuriates me!

You have no business telling someone else what they can introduce into their bloodstream.  None.  Pretending you do is just wrong.  There is no excuse for it.

And murdering people for possessing a plant or any other politically-incorrect drug is just plain evil.

If you support the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs you might as well  be honest about what you support.  Go out and start torturing children and murdering parents yourself instead of hiring thugs with badges to do your evil work while you stay out of harm's way.


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The opposite of America

First off, I will say that no State is legitimate.  Not one.  To create one that is can't be done.  The very nature of being a State is filled with illegitimacy from the very foundation and throughout its entire structure.

But, I get really tired of those who mistake "The United States of America" for "America".

They are two entirely different things.

Back in the beginning of America, when those states that made it up were written about collectively, it was always called "the united States of America".  No capitalized "u".  America was what mattered.  The states taken together made up America.  One American state would have been "a state of America"; two would have been "two states of America", and if two governors declared war on each other, their states could have been referred to as "warring states of America".  There were states, they joined together in America, but their union was not the primary focus.

Suppose, using a personal example, I referred to my family as the "the joined individuals of the McManigal family".  It would be ridiculous for anyone to primarily think of us as "The Joined Individuals", rather than "McManigals.  It would be substituting the description for the actual thing.

To think of America as "The United States", or even "The United States of America", is just as ridiculous.  

The United States is just the group of evil individuals, the government or "The State", who happen to currently prevent America from experiencing the full flower of liberty that was all that America was supposed to be about.

The United States is the worst enemy America has ever faced.  America is only America as long as it protects the individual from the tyranny of The United States.  Apparently that's a battle America lost and The United States of "America" won.

Time to reboot.  Let's dispense with The State next time, and instead just stay out of the way as people freely associate in a truly voluntary manner.


Tuesday, October 16, 2012

You are responsible for your choices

You are responsible for your choices

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for September 14, 2012.)

In the end, I am only responsible for what I do.

I can make sure my kids are raised with my values and principles, but that doesn't guarantee they will follow when they're grown. I can let people know when they are doing the wrong thing, and refuse to go along, but if they have adopted a different value system they won't necessarily accept mine. I can try to lead by example and try to inform people so that they may realize things they had never before considered, but I can't force anyone to learn anything they don't wish to learn. I can do my best, yet it is not my responsibility when anyone else continues down the wrong path.

When it comes right down to it you can make only yourself do what you know to be right.

But, while I am only responsible for me, I am FULLY responsible for me. If I do the wrong thing I can't blame it on a bad "law" or on the expectations of other people. It isn't circumstances that cause one to attack the innocent or steal, or to accept property that others have stolen on your behalf. The requirements of a job don't excuse any unethical actions, nor does the support of "the majority". Making up different names for coercion or theft doesn't magically make wrong become right.

On one hand, it is a heavy burden to refuse to blame others for your actions, but on the other hand it is quite liberating to realize that it is pointless to accept the blame for other people. To further lighten your load, be mindful of all you do.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but it seems a lot of people "get it", even if they feel unable to express themselves openly around their peers. Almost every week I have at least one person approach me to thank me for saying what they are thinking. That this many are seeing through the smoke and mirrors of The State is inspiring. Maybe eventually enough people will realize that there is strength in being right, and that we are millions strong- one at a time, and the institutionalized theft and coercion will no longer be tolerated.

But if not, the more of us who refuse to do the wrong thing, even when acceptable, the better society will become. The tipping point is approaching. Help bring it on by accepting the responsibility for all you do.


Accepting welfare- wrong, right, or neither?

I may be on the verge of changing my mind and deciding I have been wrong.  For a long time.

At least on the subject of welfare.

The inconsistency of those who complain about people on welfare, while collecting their own types of welfare, has always annoyed me.  Plus, I would rather see idlers collecting welfare for doing nothing than see a reaver collecting his government paycheck- still welfare- for enforcing "laws" that cause actual harm.  So maybe I haven't been quite as opposed to welfare all along as some others have been.

I would probably qualify for a lot of welfare programs.  "Health care", food stamps, and whatever else that might be out there that doesn't require a history of government "service" to be eligible.  Funny, but I don't even know what welfare is offered.


Some people I have been discussing this with have actually made me question my belief that it would always be wrong for me to accept any sort of welfare. I am mostly recalling this train of thought just from my own remembrance of the points brought up and if I misquote what anyone actually said, I apologize.  I hope I get the gist right, anyway.

It started off with someone suggesting that a good way to topple the State is to bleed it dry, signing up for every handout you can get.  Claire Wolfe calls this type of person, when they are doing it for the cause of liberty, a "Cockapoo".  I have always been highly suspicious of the Cockapoo, suspecting that they simply want to justify getting handouts.  But if they do, that is their business- I just want them to be honest about it.

Then it was pointed out that Jim Davies has written that he believes it is OK to take the handouts.  Hmm. I really respect his opinions.

Yet, Carl Watner, whom I also respect, says it is not OK.  Back to square one.

One thing I worry about, were I to go this route, is developing a dependency on the handouts.  Would the harm I do to myself be greater than any "benefit" I could gain?

One person suggested to me that a way to avoid this dependency is to use the handouts (or the money "saved" by accepting the handouts) for investing.  I would think buying gold and silver, guns and ammo, and stocking up on food and survival supplies would be a good investment.  A nicer TV, not so much.  Then, if/when the handouts stop coming, you haven't become dependent on them, but have actually given yourself a tangible safety net.  Maybe so, anyway.

But are there drawbacks beyond dependency?

Even if I didn't succumb to dependency, would I be setting a bad example? Is this act truly the same thing as "recovering stolen property"?  My stolen property is long gone.  Probably none of it actually went to any welfare recipients, regardless of what "conservatives" say.  The money that goes to welfare payments and government paychecks is "created" out of thin air by the Federal Reserve or banks.  Is the act of accepting welfare, then, still "receiving stolen property", stolen from others instead of from my earlier self, as I have always thought of it?  I really don't know.

Another problem I see is "What would people think?"

Maybe I don't care about this as much as some people do, but I still don't want to destroy any good influence I may have had over the years.  Maybe I give myself too much credit there, but it's an uplifting delusion.  Would my going on welfare say to people "Hey, I now depend on the government for my very survival, so see how great and necessary The State is- even for me!".  Would I look like a hypocrite to the average statist around me?

Sure, getting the money could be viewed as simply compensating for the money and opportunity being stolen by government- just trying to balance the equation.  If not for the interference of government I am quite sure I would be more successful than I am.  True or not, it's what I believe without having any way of knowing for certain.  Does The State owe me for this act of economic wrong perpetrated upon me?  Or am I just looking for justification?

I truly am not sure what to think about this yet.  At this point it is just a mental exercise.  I dislike admitting I was wrong as much as anyone, but I hate being wrong and remaining wrong even more.  It would be just as bad as being right and changing my mind and becoming wrong.

So, what do you think?  Weigh in on the matter and tell me what I have missed.


Monday, October 15, 2012

How Stupid?

Here's an amusing blog post that was brought to my attention:  How Stupid are Americans?


Backed into corners...

Recently I read that if you don't have a Facebook page, the feds consider this suspicious.  You might just be a terrorist.

On the other hand, the army's little exercise in paranoia says that if you do participate in "social networks", such as Facebook, that is a sign you might be a violent extremist.


And, of course, anyone who likes the Constitution is a domestic enemy.  As is anyone, again according to the army, who expresses hatred for the Constitution.

Terrorist if you do; terrorist if you don't.

So if you ever had any doubt that you are a suspected, violent extremist and domestic terrorist, it should now be resolved.  The feds have spoken.  YOU are their enemy.

Might as well enjoy it.


Sunday, October 14, 2012

Self defense, not "vigilantism"

America really is filled with idiots.

I was commenting on a story about school bullies, and someone responded to my comment, saying that "since vigilantism will never be legal, we need police to deal with juvenile assaults just as they would with adult assaults".  (Except all those committed by the reavers, themselves, I suppose.)

Slow down, Pokey.  Self defense is NOT vigilantism.  Not by a long shot.

I hate vigilantes.  What they do doesn't qualify as self defense, but as revenge or retribution.  They are no better than government goons.

Self defense is just the act of stopping yourself from being harmed by someone who is attacking you.  That is your responsibility- whether you choose to fulfill it or not.  If you fight back against someone who is attempting to steal from you this is defense of property, not of "self".  But it is still fine and dandy.  Fight back!  Don't let bad guys get away with it.

But, once they do "get away", following them to exact revenge is not the best way to deal with it.  It is too easy to target the wrong person at this point.  If you feel you must anyway, then you accept full responsibility for any mistakes you make and you will be held accountable.  As you should be.


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Liberty Lines- October 11, 2012

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Farwell TX/Texico NM)

Last week Mike Pomper asked how optimistic he should be, so I'll tell him: Very.

Here's why.

The US government is NOT America.  America will survive- and probably thrive- after the US government completes its suicide.  Don't bother trying to stop them.  They wouldn't listen anyway.  Just don't let them take you down with them.

Nothing you can do will change the course the government is on.  It doesn't matter who you vote for, the course will not change.  You have a better chance of enjoying a bad meal more by flipping your sandwich over than of making a real difference by voting for either of the vetted candidates.  That gives you freedom- it is out of your hands.  You can stop concerning yourself with trivial matters.  Now you are free to focus on the things that actually matter, starting at home.

Furthermore, the "national debt" is not your debt and it is not my debt.  It is the debt of the politicians (or as I call them: "puppeticians") who incurred it.  They, and they alone, are the ones who borrowed the money they didn't have, counterfeited even more, and spent like there was no reckoning.  I can't borrow money, hand it out willy-nilly, and then claim the debt is yours and you are responsible for paying it back. Neither can congress or the president.  They dug the hole; let them suffer the consequences, personally.

The more frantically oppressive the government becomes, the more people will withdraw consent.  The more domestic spying that is done, the more "laws" that are passed, the tighter the grip becomes, and the more "money" that is created out of thin air, the more people who will see beyond the rhetoric.

When the house of cards falls the US government will not be able to afford to keep meddling around the world, and the supply of committed "terrorists" will dry up.  Americans will be safer, once again, like we were in the days before The Empire.  There might even be free trade again, boosting the economy beyond what most of us can remember.  The future looks bright unless you tie your fortunes to a sinking ship.

Government needs us; we certainly don't need it.  Wean yourself of any dependency now, while you still can.  Stop looking for answers from those who are incapable of even understanding the questions, and stop wasting your breath trying to reason with those without reason.

The experience might be bumpy, but getting untangled from Leviathan now will limit the danger posed by its death throes.  It's coming whether you are ready or not.


Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Bullying can be solved

Bullying is getting a lot of attention these days.  Yet, it isn't any closer to being solved than it was back when I got bullied in school.

Government schools are, of course, the main breeding grounds for bullying.  Even the bullying that goes on elsewhere generally has its roots in those abusive institutions of indoctrination and submission.  In the government schools, the bullies and the victims learn their roles and hone them.  They each play a part that they can't seem to break out of.  Some people keep playing these roles their whole lives.  That's awful!

As I have pointed out in several online comments, you can't end bullying by punishing the victims when they finally strike back.  No, the victims need to be encouraged to fight back, and as long as their actions are truly in self-defense (and it isn't hard to determine, if you are honest about it), there must be no punishment whatsoever.  I'm not a fan of punishment, anyway, feeling that the "market approach" works better even here.

Instead, "solutions" are suggested that make the problem worse.  The main "solution" for bullying that is touted by the touchy-feelie crowd is to run tell an "authority".  In other words, an even bigger bully.  There is no responsibility here.  It comes down to "my bully is bigger than you are".  Nothing is solved; nothing is learned- other than helplessness and dependency.  Not a good choice.

And then people are surprised when this doesn't solve anything.

You are the only person who will always be present when you are attacked.  It doesn't matter if you have a big bully who can come to your aid- he will not always be there, and he may not always have your best interest at heart anyway.

You.  Whether you are bullied or not- whether you overcome the bullies or not, it is up to you.  It is a choice you will make.  To bully or not.  To let the bullies continue to bully you or not.

In high school I had one tormentor who could never just let me pass.  He hadn't actually touched me, although he did threaten to frequently.  I dreaded seeing him.  I was a peaceful person- a little odd, perhaps- but I had no desire to fight back.  I thought it was wrong.  I thought I could just keep ignoring him and maybe he'd grow tired and leave me alone.

Then one day circumstances were different.

I had had a bad day.  I can't remember particularly what had gone wrong, if anything.  I was leaving the school and the tormentor started his routine.  But this time, for some reason, I had no inhibitions about dealing with him.  I dropped my books on the ground, wheeled around, grabbed him by the collar, lifted his feet off the ground, and shook him like a rag doll.  I told him that if he ever said that to me again I would kill him.  And, at that moment, I was serious.

(Now, he hadn't initiated force.  I was probably wrong to touch him at this point.  I accept my failure.)

I set him down, turned around, picked up my books, and continued on my way.  Behind me I could hear him daring me to come back and fight him.  I felt no need.

He never said another nasty thing to me.  He never came back for revenge.  He was polite to me from that day forward.  Years later a mutual friend told me that this guy had told him how much he respected me for not turning around and fighting him.

I didn't ever have any more problems with any bullies after that.  Did word get around, or did I no longer behave like a victim?  I don't know.

(Years before this incident I had tried to fight back against a group of bullies who were initiating force and stealing from me, and the outcome was vastly different- I was punished,along with the bullies, because I fought back.  I wonder, did those "authorities" who punished me for that first scuffle cause me to put up with more years of torment?  Probably.  Punishing the victims of bullying for fighting back is evil.)

This may or may not be related, but...

It was around the time of my successful bully encounter- probably a year or so later- that I stopped having any nightmares, too.  I had a dream where a guy had broken into the house to kill me and my sisters, and I beat the intruder to death with a baseball bat.  Quite a mess.

For a few months after that a bad dream would start while I slept, but would stop being bad because I would kill the monster/attacker and turn the dream around.  Then the nightmares just faded away, and I haven't had any dreams like that in decades.

I don't know what changed inside me.  But I do know that standing up to the bully was the first change- and it was not a mainly internal change.  The internal change came after.

I do believe that standing up to bullies, whoever they may be, is the right way to solve bullying.  In the long run, it will probably help the bullies just as much as it will help the bullied.  It must be miserable being trapped in that role.


Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Paying attention to politics matter of self-defense

Paying attention to politics matter of self-defense

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 7, 2012)

There is so much more to life than politics. For that, I am glad.

Every day, in a variety of places, I write about libertarianism; the politics, or "anti-politics" as the case may be, of liberty. Everything I am is libertarian. That shouldn't scare you; it just means I will not steal from you and I won't use force against you unless it is in self defense, nor will I have other people do this dirty work on my behalf. If it is wrong for me to do it to you, then it is wrong for me to have other people do it to you, and those acts are still wrong even if I use euphemisms to hide the reality of what is being done. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Other than that, unless you ask, or say something outrageous, politics will never enter the conversation.

Yet, people do say outrageous things all the time, apparently without even thinking about what they are saying, expecting me to enthusiastically agree. They assume I will support using laws against people they assume I will fear or hate. They assume that just because government currently enforces a monopoly in providing certain "services" that this is the only way, or the best way, it can be done. They assume that when I oppose a particular government monopoly, I oppose that which the government is supposedly providing. In most cases, nothing could be further from the truth.

But it gets worse. Many people also twist their moral foundation until it is unrecognizable in order to excuse themselves from any responsibility for standing up for individual liberty. They avoid holding government employees accountable for their actions, which is necessary in order to make society better. It isn't my fault that people misread Romans 13 so that they can feel better about defending the indefensible, but it should embarrass them. As it will if they ever realize what they have done.

Do politics matter? In a perfect world no one would need to pay any attention to politics, since politics would be powerless to affect your life as long as you didn't steal or attack the innocent. The world is not perfect and never will be; not even if humans ever do finally create a free society. So, it remains important, for now, to understand and pay attention to politics for self defense, and refuse to support things that are wrong. The more you pay attention, the less you will consent and the more free you will be.


Wrong is Wrong

If the government passed a law tomorrow that declared that rape was now "legal" (besides for TSA agents, that is), how many of us would immediately go out to commit one? Zero libertarians would, because it is against our principle. The Zero Aggression Principle to be precise. 

Authoritarian types, though, seem only to care about what is "legal"; not what is right. Torture, secret trials, gun "laws", drug "laws", militarized police, "taxation", property codes; all these things may be "legal", but they are still evil and wrong. No amount of "law" or enforcement will ever make wrong "right". 

The IRS claims that the income tax is "legal" because they arrest and convict people for defying it.  And get away with it.  That is the silliest justification I have ever heard. 

If I pass a "law" that says I can enter your house and take what I want, and then use the fact that I will shoot anyone who objects as my justification, does that make my actions legal or right? Of course not.  It doesn't work when The State tries it either.

Government can't be allowed to make up its own rules out of thin air, then judge whether its rules are OK, just as I can't.  An act that is wrong can not be made "not wrong" by edict.

One small step in fixing this perverted state of affairs is in completely re-thinking courts.

Judges, as long as courts are still operated by The State, should only be paid when they rule against the government- if the abuses of the past couple hundred years are to be reversed. You cannot have the "impartial judge" working for only one side as they are now.  This is a serious conflict of interest, and is generally understood to be completely wrong.

The only times the government's courts rule against the government and its wrong acts are when they are making a show of being "fair", not when they could actually make a difference. It's a case of "lose a small one that makes no real difference, so that we can later win the ones that matter".  They will never strike a crippling blow to the US police state. This must change if America is to survive and if right and wrong are to have any place in courts.

For justice to occur there needs to be a separation of court and State.  And then, The State needs to be eliminated.  It's the right thing to do.

(Updated from my archives- OCTOBER 20, 2006)


Monday, October 08, 2012

For anyone who doubts the bad intentions...

Over at War on Guns there is a post about the governuts' paranoia.

Apparently the military sees possibilities for "violent extremism" everywhere- which is funny, coming as it does from the most violently extreme radicals on the planet.  It doesn't matter which "nation" sends these murderers out into the world- what matters is the actions they take.  Killing people and destroying stuff to protect a government is insane.

But, back to the point... Me having this blog is a "warning sign", as is you reading it.

Here's the funny part of the "list".  Look over at the far right column to the most serious and dangerous warning signs- the "ACTION prior to violent activity" column.

Notice how many of those criteria are met by government employees/agents.

"Suddenly acquires weapons".  You have heard of the "sudden" gigantic ammo orders by seemingly "non-shooting" agencies, right?

"Organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology".  Isn't that what "community organizing" is all about, Obamney 1.0?  I'd even say the Republican and Democratic conventions qualify.

"Takes part in criminal activity or has trouble with law enforcement".  Wow, where to start?  Fast and Furious?  All the recent "terrorist plots" that had no terrorists other than the FBI (or whoever) agents who were the driving force behind them?  This one point could be filled out to be an entire book in itself.

"Advocates violence as a viable option for various situations". Like war?  Like invading and violently occupying countries that were not a threat?  Like the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs?  Like reavers murdering innocent people while breaking in to "the wrong house"?  Like reavers murdering people in wheel chairs who are holding an ink pen because they feel threatened by it?  Once again, fodder for an entire book.

"Shows a sudden visual shift from radical to 'normal' behavior to conceal radical behavior".  Kinda like what puppeticians do in public when campaigning as opposed to what they do while they are actually carrying out their "jobs"?

"Takes suspicious or unreported travel (inside or outside of the continental United States)".  How many times does the president or one of his familiars unexpectedly show up in one of the occupied territories where the military is freeing the natives to death?  How many times is the president's itinerary hidden?  Suspicious?  Unreported?  Check.

"Stores or collects mass weapons or hazardous materials".  Ummm.  Hello- GOVERNMENT!  It's almost a definition.

"Verbally indicates hatred for the United States and/or the Constitution".  Which is worse, saying out loud that you hate something, or actively trying to kill it?  Yet, every time some puppetician proposes a new "law" that violates the Constitution (ObamaCare, Social Security, gun "control", airport "security", etc) or funds an agency that violates the Constitution (TSA, Department of Education, FBI, CIA, a "standing army"/the Pentagon, in other words, the entire federal government) he is putting words out there that express hatred for both the country and the Constitution.  If that isn't verbally indicating hatred, then I don't know what would qualify.

"Indicates new interest in public of government facilities".  What, like installing cameras to watch them and those around them all the time?  That sounds like an "interest" that has morphed into an obsession.

"Inquires about weapons of mass effects".  So, no destruction, just "effects".  That sounds nice.  Isn't this what all the weapons labs run by the feds are doing?  Scientific inquiry?  Looking for more ways to "affect" things on a mass scale?

So, yeah, the government meets all its own criteria for being radicalized into violent extremism.

Or, do they claim it can't apply to them, but only to those who are not them?


Sunday, October 07, 2012

"Collective"- the definition

A collective is a coercive group of individuals, where the coercion is turned against the individuals who are members of the group.  Collectives do not rely on unanimous consent, but on "majority rule".

A voluntary group can still do things collectively as long as there is unanimous consent.

A voluntary, ad hoc group is not something I would consider a "collective", even if they employ coercion against individuals who are not members of their group.  A group can be purely voluntary and still be doing the wrong thing, but a coercive group is incapable of doing the right thing.


Some people will be bad...

Some people will be bad.  Some will steal.  Some will bully and attack.  Some will rape and some will murder.  It's just a fact.

So, how do you deal with this fact?

Do you allow some people extra power over everyone else in the hopes that they are not among those who will be bad, and in the hopes that by having power over everyone, they will be able to stop those who are bad?

Or do you try a better way?


Thursday, October 04, 2012

The truth is not "nice"

I was pointing out that Obamney 2.0 is no different from Obamney 1.0 by saying:

"If you are not happy about the turd sandwich you have been eating, flip it over and see if it tastes better. That's a bigger difference than the difference between Obamney 1.0 and Obamney 2.0." (I wish I could remember where I first read that because I love it!)

And I was told that if I can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.  Apparently the truth is not "nice".  Too bad.

Then I was "educated" about how much Obamney 2.0 "truly loves America and wants it to be the great country it once was".  How he is "change" and will "put our country back on track".  (Where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah...)

The other person in the conversation and I were told "we have to do what we can to get Obama [sic] out of office".  Why?  Replacing a crooked thug with a crooked thug doesn't accomplish anything.

Then, the most absurd claim of all:  "...he believes in the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the American people. With a foundation like that, I think he is heading in the right direction."

Ummmm... has the person not been paying attention to what Obamney 2.0 actually does? He might "believe in" those things, but only as a hyena "believes in" the baby gazelle he is eating.  Every action Obamney 2.0 took as governor violated the Constitution and the intent and spirit of the Delaration of Independence.  A tyrant who doesn't trust "the American people" with guns (and Obamney 2.0 is as venomously anti-gun as 1.0) doesn't "believe in" them.  If his direction is "right" then so is his opponent's.  But they are not heading in the right direction.  After all, they both imposed ObamneyCare on their victims.

She says "If I'm wrong about Romney [sic]..shoot me".  No.  I know for a fact that she would oppose Obamney 2.0 with everything she has if there were a "conservative" candidate running; the only reason she supports this parasite is because she believes it's either him or the current clown.  And she is so blinded by hatred for Obamney 1.0 that she'd be voting for a rotting groundhog (an improvement over the current candidates) if it were running as a Republican.

So, I will not shoot desperate Obamney 2.0 (or 1.0) supporters.  And I won't try to educate them directly.  But if they come to me, I will not be "nice" by lying to make them feel better about their delusions.


Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Protectors of "laws"- enemies of liberty

Cops- reavers- don't protect you from bad guys.  Their true purpose is to protect the "law" from you and me.  To keep the "law" from being broken.  Liberty breaks "laws".

No one obeys most "laws" anymore because the "law" is right; they obey (when they do) to keep from being killed.  The ones primarily doing the killing are those enforcing the "law": the reavers.

That makes them my enemy.

You are in no real danger from most "lawbreakers"- you are one yourself whether you accept it or not.  The danger is from the "law" and those enforcing it.

The guy smoking pot is no threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing the anti-marijuana "laws" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I have never smoked pot in my life.

The guy who crossed some imaginary line on a map is not a threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing "border control" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I was born in America and have never crossed a border.

The guy building machine guns in his garage is no threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing the anti-gun "laws" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I have never touched a gun in my life.

Those who work to protect "laws" from the liberty of my fellow human beings are the threat and are the enemy, and I will NEVER forget it.


In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". 

"Initiate", as in "start it". That's what "aggression" is.  Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. 

Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to harm an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence / aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force from self defensive violence. That is because the authoriturds believe that only they can properly use violence- against the rest of us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their offenses. The predators among us need to be reintroduced to fear. Violence in the form of self defense must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.

(From my archives.  Originally published April 12, 2007.  Updated.)

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Laws create excuse for meddling

Laws create excuse for meddling

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 31, 2012. Hmmm... Haven't they used this headline before?)

Even if you could make murder rare by banning or regulating guns and knives, it would still not be right to violate the fundamental right of every human to own and to carry whatever type of weapon we desire, wherever we may go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone.

Even if ending prohibition would result in a massive increase in the use of politically-incorrect drugs and result in more deaths, it is still the right thing to do because no one has the right or the legitimate authority to tell other people what they can or can not put into their own body.

Even if targeted taxation and regulation forces people to eat healthier diets and lose weight, that kind of social engineering will always be wrong to impose, for the same reason prohibition is always wrong.

Even if repealing every unconstitutional immigration-control measure resulted in hordes of immigrants moving into the area, it would still be the right thing to do since no government should attempt to dictate to property owners whom they are allowed to admit onto their own property, or tell people whom they are allowed to do business with.

Even if utterly ending welfare caused some children to go to bed hungry, it is still wrong- downright evil- to pretend to be "generous" with other people's money or property.

Even if getting rid of speed limits, seat belt "laws", traffic signals, and drunk driving [sic] "laws" caused more people to be killed or injured on the road, it would still be more ethical than sending out an army of enforcers to patrol the roads and interfere with the right to travel unmolested.

None of these liberty-killing measures has ever been necessary, and none of them actually achieve the desired result; instead, each exacerbates the fundamental problem it was supposed to address. The worst thing each of the above does is increase dependency and create excuses for more meddling when it inevitably fails to fix the problem it was supposed to address. If these tyrannical tactics were abandoned the worst-case scenario which is presented, and that the fear-mongers seem to hope for, would never come to pass. And nothing eliminates your responsibility if, in doing what you have a right to do, you harm some innocent person.

Even if liberty scares you or raises some risks it is still always the right thing to support. It is time to put on your grown-up pants, be responsible for yourself. and stop trying to run other people's lives.

Five Dollars to change the world

... Not change it a lot, you know.

If anyone would just like to send me $5 by Paypal so that I can avoid a $30 overdraft fee, I would appreciate it.


Update- It has been taken care of.  Thanks!


It ain't what it used to be...

It always amuses me when my mom says something like "democracy is the worst form of government, not counting all the others". She is deeply "patriotic" and believes she has an obligation to support the USA no matter what- while still protesting the things she sees as "non-Christian" that it does.  This shows me that she doesn't get it.

I also get amused at those who say "America is a republic, not a democracy". That may have been true in the beginning, but no more.

It stopped being a republic the first time the Constitution didn't stop a gun "law" from being passed and enforced- whether that was Wyatt Earp's doing or whoever. If not before.

It is now a democracy where the "majority" (even when they are a minority) can get anything imposed on the rest regardless of the laws that were supposed to protect the minority from the majority.

The only authentic laws are those which protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (including property) of the individual.  And they weren't even necessary.  All other "laws" are counterfeit.

No, there is nothing "good" about a democracy.  And, while the notion of a republic might have been well-intentioned, the reality sucks.

"Laws" can change.  It doesn't even take a majority to change them.  It only takes one congresscritter who can bribe other congresscritters.  It only takes one corrupt judge.  It only takes one power-mad president.  Sometimes, it only takes a small, loud group of whiny activists who have connections.  As long as "laws" that violate the liberty of someone else can be passed and enforced just because they are popular, you have a democracy.  You have tyranny.


Monday, October 01, 2012


Unlike a lot of people who think puppeticians are necessary and The State is a good way to employ them, I have no problem with those who "flip-flop".

To honestly change your mind just means you got more, better, or new information.  Sometimes that means your opinion on a matter will go through several stages before you finally end up simply fine-tuning it.

Concerning voting and the Constitution I have flip-flopped several times, and I may do it some more.  More information and new ideas come my way a lot.  I seem to have settled into a view that only gets minor adjustments now, rather than big flip-flops, but you get the idea.

Now, to change what you claim is your opinion, depending on who your audience is, is not "flip-flopping"; it is lying.  This is what most puppeticians do, rather than "flip-flopping".