Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Free-market roads concept possible

Free-market roads concept possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 28, 2013.  First of the neutered columns.)

Are you under the impression that free market roads would be impossible, or at least impossibly complicated?

Then I have good news for you.

There are many possible ways for roads to be provided in a free society, even assuming unfettered technology wouldn't make roads obsolete.

Business owners could voluntarily join forces to provide roads and bridges that service their area so that customers could reach them comfortably. Neighbors could band together voluntarily to service the roads they use to get where they need to go. Companies could spring up to provide roads for a fee on your car insurance, or in some similar way. There could be toll road companies that bill you monthly for your use of their roads. You don't think road use is currently free, do you?

You'll still pay to use the road, but there will be accountability. The advantages of that should be obvious.

Privately owned roads had better be good, since the owner could be liable for any damage to your person or property due to poor maintenance or other road hazards like snow, ice, or tumbleweeds. Restitution would be a powerful incentive. Still, potholes happen.

Cars in a free society would probably be better at avoiding or dealing with problems than those we now drive. Perhaps they will automatically avoid that pothole to prevent the impact completely. If this fails and your car is damaged anyway, the road's owner may be able to recover some portion of the restitution he pays you from the car's manufacturer because of this malfunction.

Perhaps cars would immediately contact a database to report a road hazard, and its exact coordinates, so that other drivers (or their cars) could be alerted to avoid it, and repair crews could be dispatched.

If someone refuses to pay, either for use of the road or for damages from flawed maintenance, arbitration could be sought.

There could still be patrols to make sure no one is driving dangerously, but they would never have authority above any other individual, and would be held accountable if they violate your rights; they and their employer would be personally liable for any abuse or harm you suffered at their hands.

I can't go into every possibility even I can think of in a column this short, and the solutions might be completely different, anyway. In a free society there wouldn't be a "one-size-fits-all" way to provide roads. Anyone would be free to experiment and compete with roads he found inadequate in some way. How might you do it, if you had the opportunity, without coercion?


The Bradley Manning verdict- irony in action

Let's engage in some far-out fantasy for a moment and pretend that there is such a thing as "treason" or such a person as a "traitor" in relation to a "country".

Yeah, I did warn you that this is fantasy.

In such an imaginary scenario, the only reason the government of the US existed was because of the Constitution.  The Constitution created it from nothing.

The Constitution was the government that those so inclined were loyal to.  Not the president, congress, Supreme Court, generals, "superior" officers, bureaucrats, or "laws".  Not even "the country".  Any orders or "laws" that violated the Constitution were "treason" and the person issuing those orders, a "traitor".

So, when a person took an oath to uphold, support, or defend the Constitution of The United States (as opposed to America), that person was swearing loyalty to the US.  Whether or not that is a good thing is a subject for another day.

So Bradley Manning took that oath, and is now being punished under the pretext that he violated it, for upholding it.  For being honorable enough to knowingly risk his life, liberty, and property by doing the right thing.  Because, by his actions he exposed the evil deeds of those who violated their identical oaths, but who were doing so in a way that others (their "superiors" and "patriotic Americans") wanted them to.  And for this he is being called the "traitor", when he is the only one, between him and his accusers and persecutors, to whom that word can't apply in any way.  The same goes for Edward Snowden.

Those calling for Manning's head on a platter are seriously confused.  They mistake the criminals who violated their oaths for the good guys "serving their country", and the guy who actually honored his unwise oath for the "traitor" deserving of harsh punishment.  The actual bad guys are being confused for the good guys by a purposely confused population of illiterates who can't think past their emotionalism.

Well, confused or just plain evil.  Just which it is will be exposed by their words or actions in the next few days.

And please don't forget.

Writing about the room while pretending the elephant isn't stinking up the place

There are some facts that it is almost impossible to ignore when speaking honestly about the religion of Statism.  For example: that their imaginary god is supported by theft and coercion- and is, in fact, nothing but theft and coercion when you dig right to the root of the matter.

Well, and that it is imaginary.  There is nothing behind the priests and worshipers.

And those are the facts I am not allowed to mention in my CNJ columns, at least for the time being.  Which makes for a much more difficult task.

So, I am trying to go at it from a different angle, which is taking a lot more thinking energy, and a lot more time, for the same amount of pay.  Funny what that does to the ol' motivation.

But I'm taking it one column at a time, and seeing where it goes from here.  I hope you are tagging along.

And please don't forget.

Monday, July 29, 2013

"Libertarian Money" blog

I was first made aware of "Libertarian Money" blog after its author left a comment on this blog.  And I immediately subscribed by "The Old Reader", have been reading it ever since, and am really impressed.

You would do well to also subscribe, but first read this excellent post to see what I'm talking about.

And please don't forget.


Sunday, July 28, 2013

Kent's Top Ten List of Dog Names

#10 - Rabies O'Piddler
#9 - The Flea RV
#8 - Stinky de Gasblaster
#7 - Destructinator
#6 - The AntiCat
#5 - Puddles McBitebite
#4 - Sir Fartsalot
#3 - Barack
#2 - Begger Lee Drooldripper

And the #1 name for any dog I might someday have- Bitey "The Barker" McPoopenpisser

(Cats, too)

And please don't forget.


Saturday, July 27, 2013

Complicating the simple

Consider this "puzzle":

Suppose we agree that everyone has a right to life, but that a person forfeits this right when he threatens the life of another — in that case it’s permissible to kill him.

Now consider three people, A, B, and C. A aims a gun at B, B aims a gun at C, and C aims a gun at A. When A takes aim, he’s threatening another person, so he loses his own right to life. Normally in that case C would be justified in killing him, since this defends B. But B is aiming at C, which means he forfeits his own right to life … which means that A can kill him, and that C can’t kill A.

There seems no way to resolve this under the rules we’ve laid out. “Each actor has a right to life if he or she lacks a right to life and lacks a right to life if he or she has a right to life,” wrote University of Tulsa law professor Russell Christopher, who offered the puzzle in 1998. He uses it to suggest that subjective factors such as motive, belief, and knowledge must be considered when making these judgments.
(Russell Christopher, “Self-Defense and Defense of Others,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Spring 1998)

But, it doesn't confuse me.  Because I don't think anyone can forfeit a right.  It's just that each of us has a right to defend himself (and his property), and that means that sometimes aggressors (and thieves/vandals) get killed.

When you consider a problem "under the rules we’ve laid out", but your rules are flawed, you will have difficulty resolving it, if you can resolve it at all.  Which is why liberty will never be found using the political method.  You are working under flawed "rules".

And please don't forget.


Thursday, July 25, 2013

Liberty Lines- July 25, 2013 (Updated publication date)

(Oops!  This was originally posted here on the 18th, but it got bumped from the paper until the 25th.  That means it appears in the special Border Town Days edition of the paper.  That might be a good thing.

Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico State Line Tribune, July 25, 2013)

Frederick Bastiat pointed out in 1850, in his book "The Law", that each of us has the individual right to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights predate any idea of law or government.

Because these rights exist, people discover Natural Law to protect them.

Once the laws have been discovered (not "written", as is every counterfeit "law") people often join together to form government, based upon the protection of life, liberty, and property, through those laws.

Anytime laws are written that do anything other than protect these individual rights, the laws have become perverted and harmful.

Anytime a government begins to pass and enforce these upside down and backwards "laws", the government has been corrupted; it has become a State.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in his 1935 book "Our Enemy, The State", once a society has rejected the social institution of government (which exists solely to assist in the protection of individual rights) for the inherently anti-social monstrosity of a State (which is based upon "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property for its own benefit), nothing can prevent its destruction.

The only thing that can be done at that point is to give the warning so that wise people can prepare.

Sadly, America is far down this path with the whole-hearted enthusiasm of most of its residents; supporting myriad "laws" that violate the nature of legitimate law and natural rights in more ways than it is possible to count. Look around and you will see property codes, taxes, prohibition, anti-gun "laws", requirements for licenses and permits, "national security"... the list could go on and on. Each and every one of these abominable counterfeit "laws" does the opposite of what legitimate government would do, and plays right into the hands of The State.

You've been warned. Prepare to ride it out and sit back and enjoy the show.


And please don't forget.


An offer you MUST refuse

My head spins.

I just saw on the news that "The White House" says Edward Snowden should be returned to the US where he can be given a "fair trial".  (Like Bernard von NotHaus?)

Let's skip right past the part where a building is speaking, and focus on the part where a criminal's spokespuppet is insisting that the person who pointed out the criminal acts of the criminal is the one who is to be given a "fair trial".  What Snowden did wasn't wrong, can't therefore be really "illegal", and for the criminal to be offering Snowden a "fair trial" is absurd.

I guess that next, burglars will be offering to sell back stolen goods for a "fair price", and rapists can give their victims a chance to give consent after the attack.  And if the victims refuse, then we can all throw stones at them.

If anyone should be offered a "fair trial" it is those whose evil acts were exposed by Snowden.  The thugs have it backwards yet again.

Then, I also saw John McCain emitting rancid verbal flatulence about how what Snowden had done was "a slap in the face of the USA".  Good!  The "USA" is the anti-America, and it's thugs, scam artists, crooks, and spies should face consequences for the acts of evil they have been committing with stolen "tax dollars".  A slap in the face is too good for them.

Yeah, I have a problem with anyone making an oath to a group of thugs to begin with, but some people have to start there.

And please don't forget.


Wednesday, July 24, 2013

What happens when liberty is violated?

In the past few days I have watched people pointing to the bankruptcy of Detroit as an indictment of "progressive" politics.

In response, I see others point to the "Deep South", and its lack of economic opportunity, as an indictment of "conservative" politics.

Both sides are right, to a point, but both sides are wrong because they are missing the "Big Picture".  What's the common denominator?

The violation of individual liberty through the political method.

In other words, both cases are an indictment of Statism as a whole, not of a particular form of statism.  But that doesn't fit in with the obsolete and falsified "left vs right" paradigm.  So statists of either stripe will keep throwing rocks at their ideological twins while studiously ignoring the root of the problem.

Liberty would fix both places.  Stop letting the cowards set the agenda and frame the debate.


And please don't forget.


Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Purpose of laws is protection of life

Purpose of laws is protection of life

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 21, 2013)

Based upon my columns you might believe that libertarians oppose all laws. That isn't true at all. I am only opposed to "laws" that should never have been imposed in the first place, which therefore should never be enforced. Unfortunately, that just happens to be the vast majority of "laws" imposed and enforced today.

Freedom exists in reverse proportion to laws. Every law destroys a bit of freedom. Yet it is perfectly possible for liberty to be unaffected by law. A law against theft doesn't affect your liberty at all because you never had the right to steal. A law is only legitimate as long as it leaves liberty untouched.

The only purpose of the law- and by extension, government- was protection of life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness", including property rights. Any application of law that violates this- again, the vast majority of today's "law"- is a counterfeit substitute for real law and must be eliminated if the individuals who make up society are to ever again thrive.

But don't driver's licenses, for example, protect life and property somehow, even as they violate liberty? Hardly. Look at all the fatal accidents and vehicular property destruction caused by "licensed drivers". The safest drivers I have known were people who had managed to stay under the radar and drive without "official permission".

That license is a clear violation of liberty, especially as it gives The State an excuse to track you with another number, and because it provides another behavior modification weapon to be used against the people. How does the requirement for a driver's license protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness and property rights? It doesn't. It fails- hard. It is a net loss for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As is every other legal act imposed for our own good, for the common good, or for that current boogieman in the news: "national security".

Do I ever think a new law is a good idea? A "good law"?

Perhaps. If it ONLY exists to restrict the actions of government employees by limiting what they are allowed to do. A good law would hobble government employees and forbid them from violating you and me- in our persons or our property, or in our pursuit of happiness- and have the teeth to back up the threat. But the same results could be better achieved by eliminating the counterfeit "laws" that give them the false "authority" to violate us.

There hasn't been a good "new law" in hundreds of years. Maybe thousands.


"Stand your ground" or.. what, exactly?

I don't get the "controversy" surrounding "stand your ground" laws.  I can't even understand why anyone thought it necessary to make it "legal" to use deadly force against an imminent threat rather than running away "like a bitty little bug".

Basically I think it comes down to people who feel sorry for those who choose to attack others (or those who have a habit of acting in an aggressive and impulsive manner*), and those who don't.  Some feel that there is some "appropriate level of response" to being attacked-- a "proportional response", as they call it.  I give the defender a much wider latitude.

Sure, there is the potential that a bully could goad someone into approaching him in an aggressive way, and then shoot the person; claiming self defense.  Or, maybe they could just shoot someone dead and lie about the whole incident.  Nothing is to prevent the targeted victim of a scam like this from using deadly force in his own defense.  I'd rather 1,000 thugs "get away with" this than see even ONE defender be punished for defending themselves from an aggressor.

("But what about cops shooting those they stop?  Aren't they defending themselves legitimately?  Shouldn't they also get to stand their ground?"  They are defending themselves as legitimately as any other aggressor who shoots a person who resists and fights back.  Because in almost every single instance, the cop is the one who made the first aggressive move or threatened to do so.  I don't believe a bad guy gives up his right to self defense- I just hope he loses.)

Let arbitration or shunning sort it all out as well as possible after the fact.  Nothing is perfect, but that's as close as you are likely to get.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean chasing a fleeing bad guy down the street and shooting him in the back.  But in some cases... like if he is running off with some of your property, or you have reason to (credibly) believe he is running off for now, but knows where to find you or your loved-ones and plans to "finish this" later.  And I believe only the defender can accurately assess that threat.  But that has nothing to do with "standing your ground", while still being self defense.

I can't see any sense at all in "requiring" people to flee from a threat.  That only rewards the thugs, and demands that people act like cowards.  It's not a sustainable strategy for a civilization.  Or an individual.

*Now, "acting in an aggressive and impulsive manner" stops short, in most cases, of initiating force.  I get that.  However, if that is how you are in the habit of acting, you run a high risk of being misinterpreted and having a situation escalate out of your control at some point in your life.  It might be OK to act that way in some situations, or around certain individuals, but I don't see it as a good survival strategy in the long term.  But think for yourself and do what you want.

And please don't forget.


Saturday, July 20, 2013

I ain't white

All the media-driven "racial" strife made me look closely at myself, trying to find any evidence of white.  I failed.  At least on my skin.  My teeth are closer, and the sclera of my eyes, closer still... but my skin?  Not white at all.  I held a piece of white paper against my skin and it made my skin look very non-white.  In fact, I looked brown.  How can that be?

Even my pasty pale legs are not white.  I'm not really sure what color they might be considered.  Should I protest that the color of my skin doesn't have a common name?

So, I am not white.

I suppose "Caucasian" might be a more technically correct term, but although I can find the Caucasus Mountains and "Caucasia" on a map (I'm not an idiot) I have never been to that region and feel no connection to it whatsoever.  Because of that, referring to myself as "Caucasian" always seemed like a lie.

Ah, but perhaps they are labeling "the culture" with the name of a color that has no basis in reality.  In that case, which "white culture" are they referring to?  There are many, and I don't really relate to any of them.  Or, are you simply referring to any culture that isn't "black culture"?  But that wouldn't work either, since there are not only "black" and "white", but a great many variations of culture even right around here.

I guess no one is talking about me at all when they go on TV and try to get "whites" and "blacks" angry at each other.  That's good.  It's one time that being "no one" is just fine.

And please don't forget.


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Admitting you messed up

Collectivism wasn't forced on most people. They were seduced into it. They don't want to admit that this happened, and they don't want to be forcibly freed from it now.  Even those who now see the collectivism, and see how it is hurting them, may not want to admit they screwed up.

I try to offer these people a way out that lets them save face.  As I see it, the ZAP is a great way out.  Just don't initiate force again, and you won't face any retribution from me.  (Well, if you have hurt one of my kids in the past I can't promise to not go insane and violate my principles, and I don't believe it would be right for me to do so ... but you have been warned.)

And please don't forget.


Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Trust me, you’re not that gullible

Trust me, you’re not that gullible  (link fixed, unless the paper sees fit to change it again)

(My weekly Clovis News Journal [and Portales News-Tribune] column for June 14, 2013.)

Are you surprised at the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on you? Yes, you. Personally. Not you, you say? Well- as long as you don't ever use a phone, a computer, or any other form of communication. You don't, right?

I hear some good, patriotic citizens claim that as long as you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried.

OK. Sounds good.

So please give me your phone number, your bank account numbers, all your passwords and PINs, your mother's maiden name, your Social Security tracking number, all your kids' personal information, and whatever else you think no one else knows. Then take your curtains down and leave your door unlocked 24 hours per day. No hiding in the bedroom or bathroom either, since you have nothing to hide.

And drop the "please" from the preceding paragraph.

It'll be OK. I don't steal, and I have no desire to run your life or harm you. I won't share your information with anyone who doesn't need access (for reasons I can't share with you). I have only your best interests at heart. Trust me.

You're not that gullible... are you?

It's not about secrecy; it's about privacy. It's not that your life is shameful; it's that it is no one else's business. Giving up your privacy destroys your liberty, and is not even in the interest of "national security"- it is in the interest of totalitarian surveillance and control. Old Soviet Union levels of control and tyranny. Or worse.

Any State that claims it needs this information in order to be secure is a government based upon extreme paranoia. It doesn't deserve your support or loyalty.

So what will you do, now that you know? Will you adjust your behavior, stop supporting these domestic enemies, and finally realize that you are responsible for governing yourself and that no one else can ever "represent" or protect you better than you can? Will you finally accept the liberty of self-ownership and reject the slavery and coercion of statism?

Or will you continue to make excuses for these crooks and deny the facts? Will you accept the "official story" and the empty assurances that your private information will stay private (beyond the offices of those spying on you, anyway) and will never be misused? Will you pretend nothing happened, or just turn on the TV and ignore unpleasant truth, believing it will go away?

Which course do you think future history will show you should have taken?


Who's against everything?

A few months ago, after I had commented on someone's Facebook post, one of his "friends" said I was "one of those people" that she called an "aginner"; someone who was simply "against everything".

Against everything? I can't even wrap my mind around that bizarre mischaracterization.

I am against aggression and theft in all their varied forms. Nothing else.

Of course, as I seem to remember, I was speaking out against aggression and/or theft committed in the name of The State.  Apparently that didn't sit well with her world-view, so she had to try to make it appear that I was just unreasonably against everything.  It showed me what she was against, and worse, what she was "for".

Not that people like her will ever listen, but it might be fun to just ask what, exactly, they are supposing I am against in the specific instance that gives them such a problem.  It might be very enlightening to see just exactly who the "aginner" really is.


And please don't forget.


Monday, July 15, 2013

"What do you want to be...?"

When I was a kid people would always ask me "What do you want to be when you grow up?"  I never had an answer to that question.  I don't even remember secretly having an answer I was embarrassed to tell others.  The answer just wasn't there.  I'm not sure I could relate to the question at all.

I also remember in elementary school hearing other kids saying which college they were going to attend, and asking me where I was going to go.  I had no answer to that, either.  I never understood why they were even thinking about it, and wondered why it mattered to them.  I remember thinking that they would probably change their minds several times before the day came.

There were a lot of things I wanted to experience, but nothing I wanted to do to the exclusion of everything else.  And, I suppose, without a clear picture of what I wanted to "become" I couldn't get interested in going to college to become something.  Even when I did go to college, I never "declared a major".

But it all came back to not having any answer to "What do you want to be when you grow up?"

Now I regret that to a certain degree, but I'm not sure what I could have changed.  Because I still "suffer from" the same ... lack, or absence.  It's probably a personal failure on my part, but I swear it feels like a genetic glitch- like I'm missing an organ from birth and no amount of wishing or pretending will make it spontaneously grow.  Perhaps if I had been a more motivated person, I could have forged on ahead as if I had an answer.  And sometimes I wish I had.

I will say that there were some things I wanted to do.  And each and every one of those things I was told was not possible because it was "illegal".  Of course, now I realize that "illegal" doesn't mean "impossible", or even "wrong", but at that young age all I thought was that I didn't want to be the bad guy breaking "laws" and going to jail just for doing what I selfishly wanted to do.  It's a difficult delusion to kick.

And please don't forget.


Sunday, July 14, 2013

Playing the Game

I understand why some people keep ignoring the imaginary nature of The State- they don't want to be shut out and made to feel invisible.

When everyone is wringing their hands over what "government" is doing, you don't get listened to when you point out that you can't fix the problems by doing more of the same, but only by walking away from the silliness.

But that isn't the solution that people want to hear.  It's too "simplistic" and doesn't involve exciting things like running for office, writing "your" congressvermin, or throwing your support behind a "law".

But it IS the only thing that will ever succeed.

And please don't forget.


Saturday, July 13, 2013

Zimmerman verdict

I'm not so sure I want anyone ever convicted of anything in "government" courts. I've come to the conclusion that every "not guilty" chips away at the delusion of legitimacy that supporters of that imaginary monstrosity known as The State cling to.

And really, if someone is guilty of something, restitution works better than a caging, which doesn't "work" at all or "help" anyone (other than tax addicts and the abominable "prison industry"). And restitution needs to be done privately, without the involvement of the aggressive thieves who call themselves "government".

I'm not saying restitution works perfectly, because it doesn't (nothing does or ever will).  But it is so far beyond "imprisonment" that there is no comparison.


And please don't forget.


Zimmerman/Martin in an alternate reality

This isn't exactly about the Zimmerman/Martin case, but just sorta a few thoughts inspired by it.

I have stated my opinions on the case in the past.

I am not saying all these thoughts mirror exactly the events on the night Zimmerman shot Martin, but some are still relevant to the opinions I have formed.

If I am in a place where I have permission to be, doing something my neighbors have encouraged me to do on their behalf, then it is not an initiation of force to follow or question someone whom I suspect does not have permission to be there.

There are good ways to approach a suspected trespasser, and there are confrontational ways to approach.  Which way is more likely to lead down a dangerous road?

There are also good ways to respond to being approached, and confrontational ways to respond.  Which way is smarter?

If someone does approach you due to his suspicion that you are up to no good, it doesn't help anything- and certainly not your position- to get a cocky attitude.  Even if the accuser is a cop or other enforcer type (the only "difference" being a false veil of "legitimacy" draped over one and not the other).

A cocky attitude is not a justification to initiate force.

If someone starts hitting you, I would not blame you for shooting that person.  Yes, it is self defense even if the other person is "unarmed" (whatever the meaning of that might be to you).

I seriously believe, had I been magically placed into the shoes (or, rather, the skin) of either Martin or Zimmerman right at the instant of "first contact", the result would not have been deadly.  But that is only a belief, not a proven fact.  However, I have been in situations that could have turned deadly had I not defused the other person.  So, there is that...


And please don't forget.


Thursday, July 11, 2013

Hanging Kokesh out to dry

To the anti-liberty bigots there is no difference between what Adam Kokesh did and smuggling regular capacity magazines into states that have declared them "illegal"*.  Or "carrying" when and where State thugs have said you aren't allowed to.  Or owning some type of gun that has been criminalized because of cosmetic features or safety equipment.  Or whatever the individual anti-liberty bigot's particular "hate" happens to be.  It might be politically incorrect drugs, freedom of association, the right to not be stolen from, freedom of travel, sex of some sort, or myriad other possibilities.

You'll never get the anti-liberty bigots to like you (or even stop hating you) by doing what they believe you should be doing, in the way they believe you should be doing it, unless you completely go over to their side and renounce liberty.  Why would you even try?

Nothing Kokesh did in this most recent case was wrong in any real way.  Anyone who takes any action that is noticed by thuggish State employees will be faulted by someone on the "liberty side".  Whether it's writing a blog or a newspaper column that doesn't worship the State, or violating some counterfeit "law", or engaging in acts of self defense or defense of property.  If it's noticed, it will be criticized as "foolish", "unnecessary", "untimely", or something.  Just because it isn't what the speaker believes should be done now.

I am tired of all the second guessing and accusations of "government plant!" every time someone speaks out above the hushed murmur of the crowd.  Sure, some government moles are undoubtedly out there, but as long as you don't get caught up in a cult of personality, and don't violate the ZAP, it makes no difference to what you should be doing.  As long as a person is doing what they have an inalienable human right to be doing, even if it isn't what I am doing, I am not going to be joining in on the crucifixion.

"We" are not hanging together so I guess that means "we" are lining up to hang separately.

*And I am pleased to note Mike V. has NOT joined in the criticisms by making a false distinction over this.

And please don't forget.


Speculative pondering

Would Nazi Germany have been better if the Germans had just elected "the right guy" to replace Hitler?  Or, was the guy at "the top" not the whole problem?

Would NSA America really be better today if "we" elected "the right guy" to replace Obama?  Or, is the guy at "the top" irrelevant?

The entire ship is rotten to the core.  Switching figureheads won't make a difference.  It will still fall apart and sink.

Are you prepared?


And don't forget.


Wednesday, July 10, 2013

"Terrorism" depends on cowardice

"Terrorism" can only be used as an excuse for anything because of pervasive cowardice in certain quarters.  After all, only cowards want to dictate to everyone else based upon their own fears.

Government officials are cowards, so they try to make themselves feel better by shifting the blame  to those who scare them.  You don't have to admit you are a coward if you call the other guy a "terrorist" and pretend he possesses superhuman attributes that he uses for evil.

Of course, that just makes the cowards more obvious once you begin to notice them.

I never hear anyone talking about "terrorism" unless they are commenting on something said or done by the "powards" in DC.  Real people just don't worry about it.  Real people aren't that easily frightened.  At least on their own.  That's why the cowards with political power have to work so hard to overcome people's natural courage and replace it with cowardice.  And, in making that attempt, those cowards become the only real terrorists out there.

And please don't forget.


A bleg

I apologize for the begging, but I'm falling behind on some things I need to catch up on. If at all possible.

 I had some unexpected and unwelcome expenses rear their ugly heads recently, so if you've been considering donating or subscribing (links on the left) to help keep me writing, and to keep me writing without the constraints of trying to not offend a boss with what I write on my personal time, this would be a good time.

Writing is how I earn my money (when and if I earn it), and if not for the generous support of readers who have been helping me keep the bills paid, I would have already had to curtail the writing for something less fulfilling (and less controversial) but more lucrative. I won't "share" this bleg on facebook, twitter, or anywhere else but here, so if you know anyone who might want to contribute, send them the link.

 If you can't help out, then please don't! I never want anyone to feel bad for not contributing. Not ever!

If you can, and just don't want to, then I also don't want you to. Nor do I want you to give it a second thought. No problem.

 If you can, want to, and do- then I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Or, you could buy lots of my books and help me out while spreading the liberty meme.


Tuesday, July 09, 2013

One-size-fits-all system is immoral

One-size-fits-all system is immoral

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 7, 2013.)

Most libertarians would be perfectly happy to stand aside as you form any society your little heart desires. You could form a democracy, republic, theocracy, dictatorship, or even a nostalgic "Communist Utopia". Whatever melts your butter. It's none of my business how you organize your community, as long as it is consensual.

As long as you give the rest of us the same respect.

Therein lies the problem.

Most forms of government don't permit any competition, or even any real variety, in their vicinity, and the True Believers tend to believe it's OK to kill in order to prevent others from opting out or forming a parallel system.

They are even willing to risk everything they value and believe in just to prevent others from forming their own way of operating outside the one-size-fits-all system that is in fashion. Instead of "live and let live" they prefer "if you don't like it you have the same opportunity to vote to change the government that everyone else has". In case of success they'd be the outcasts in the minority, then.

Besides being ridiculous and socially suicidal, it completely misses the point. Since libertarians don't fall for the belief that it's right to force a minority to live under the rules of the majority- especially when those rules are understood to be immoral and unethical- then we know it would be wrong to do so even to impose what we know would be in everyone's best interest. The suggestion is like saying you must drink whiskey until you can manage to "vote" it into water. It's not going to happen like that.

Libertarians are at a distinct disadvantage in this game since we can't pretend it's OK to kill people if they won't agree to live by the Zero Aggression Principle, at least until they attack someone or the property of another. See the problem?

It's amusing that those who claim their system is "The Best" seem the most terrified of allowing anyone the freedom to experiment with alternative ways. It's as if they don't really believe their own propaganda and are afraid that a better way might actually be found, and that it might become popular enough to replace their system.

The good news for you is that if libertarians ever become the majority, they'll not interfere with you as long as you keep your hands to yourself and don't damage the private property of those outside your group. After all, we'll always need living reminders around so our kids can see the folly of statism with their own eyes.

Self-incrimination in front of averted eyes

I can warn people every day of my life that cops are thugscum, but my words will usually make no difference to anyone.  Only cops can prove me right by their actions. And they do.  Daily, in spades.

So why are so many people still in denial?  I think it's because they are desperate to have heroes. They want someone to be their protector.  They manage to talk themselves into believing that everyone murdered, robbed, kidnapped, and caged by cops somehow deserved it.

They grew up being brainwashed that "The policeman is your friend" and it is hard to shake that programming even in the face of overwhelming, deadly, evidence to the contrary.

Cops have become their own worst enemy- they just haven't realized it yet.  And considering that a low IQ (along with a total lack of ethics, and aggressive psychological disorders) is now a requirement for the "job", I doubt they ever will.


Monday, July 08, 2013

Consequences: natural and artificial

Actions have consequences.  No one should be in denial of that fact.  You step off the edge of a cliff and you will discover the consequences of living on a planetary surface under the influence of gravity while being a non-flying mammal.

There are natural consequences and artificial ones.

Saying that jail is a "natural" consequence of drug use is a lie. It is an artificial consequence made real by evil actions committed by sick people. The natural consequences of drug abuse (note: not use) can be horrific.  But there is no justifiable reason to heap artificial consequences on top of the natural ones.  

You don't "help" a person by caging them, stealing their money and other property, by making them lose their job, and by alienating them and their family.  Only a truly sick individual would see that as "helping" them.

An honest drug warrior would acknowledge that it is all about punishment.  But that is also evil.  You can't be a decent human being while punishing people for harming themselves.  And don't forget, almost ALL the negative consequences of drug use have nothing whatsoever to do with the drugs, but everything to do with prohibition.  Drug users (and abusers) who manage to avoid detection by the authoriturds generally live productive lives due to the absence of the life-destroying artificial consequences.  And even if they do destroy themselves, that is their right.

If someone's actions harm another person or their property, then it makes zero difference if they are "on drugs" or not.  Stop pretending otherwise.


Sunday, July 07, 2013

What are little wars made of? Not sugar and spice...

War is crime.  It is murder, kidnapping, theft, destruction of property, trespassing, and every other evil act all rolled into one neat package.  That means the solution to it- the way to prevent it from happening- is the same: a universally armed populace.

Designating one family member as being responsible for defense of all is a poor tactic.  Even if every family member is supposedly supporting the armed defender, you are weaker than if everyone is taking actual, physical responsibility.  You must make sure every family member is ready and equipped for defense.

The best way to keep from being harmed by the bad guys is to prevent them from attacking in the first place.  Don't be a sheep.

You don't prevent them from attacking by becoming the bully, or by goading them into a fight, or by becoming what you claim to be preventing.  And taunting them is just asking for trouble.

Telling your neighbor what he is allowed to own, or do on his own property, and backing up your demands with force or the threat of force, is an act of aggression.  Invading his property to make sure he is complying with your meddlesome edicts qualifies you for a bullet to the head.

Really want "national security"?  Then get rid of all anti-gun "laws" and disband the military.  Anything else is just looking for trouble.

This began with every intention of making it a CNJ column.  It quickly became obvious there could be no way to neuter it enough to get it past the gate.  So, here it is in all its glory.


Saturday, July 06, 2013

Government is childishness

I notice my young daughter is skilled in the art of bait and switch.  "Let's go outside" becomes "Let's go to the playground" as soon as we are outside, which then becomes "No, I meant the other playground" (which is farther away) as soon as we head across the street.  Even the farther playground can become a waystation for McDonald's or something... if I let it.

Dealing with her bait and switch tactics makes me laugh.  But some people's bait and switch is no laughing matter.

"Let us take care of you in your old age" became "Let us take care of your medical bills when you can't pay them" which became "It's illegal to work without our tracking number and permission".  Sure, there were a lot more steps than that.

It's the same with "immigration", guns, drugs, "taxation", regulation, licensing, and everything else people have allowed the perverted molesters of State to get away with having some say in.

In everything that government-employed bureaucrats and other thugs do, they employ the old bait and switch routine.  Get you to accept the first step, and then keep changing the goal and taking advantage of your momentum.

Which goes to show that all "government" is stuck in 5-year old behavior of some sort. Whether it's communism, bait and switch, or being afraid of imaginary monsters.  Sometimes you just wanna grab those supposed "adults" by the collar and warn them to grow up.


Thursday, July 04, 2013

Fourth of July

Independence Day is dead. Long live The Fourth of July.

It used to bother me that people never called the day "Independence Day".  But I finally realized they were right all along. I was wrong. It isn't Independence Day.  Not anymore.

Now it's all about dependence.  Dependence upon military worship- called "patriotism".  Dependence upon what the "laws" allow you to do to celebrate the watered down version of the holiday.  It's all about worshiping the greatest enemy that America ever faced- The State.  The way "The 4th" is celebrated now is spitting in the face of the original reason for the holiday.

I'm against "capital punishment" but it seems that the honest way to celebrate Independence Day, a real Independence Day, would be to tar and feather, or hang- depending on the damage the individual has done- a few anti-liberty bigot politicians.  Each and every year.  That would be appropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.  It would serve as a warning that the death of independence will not go unpunished.

But that's just wishful thinking.  So instead I will honor independence in my own mind while I ignore everyone around me celebrating The Fourth of July.

And I'll fly my own flag, thank you very much...

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Spreading cowardice

What causes cowardice?

I think it is a suspicion that you can't handle a situation.  Maybe due to lots of past failure.  Or because you have been discouraged- or prevented- from testing your wings. 

"Government" seems to be designed to prevent people from gaining the necessary experience which would lead to confidence.  Or to bravery. 

And without cowards "government" would wither away and die.  It (well, those who call themselves members of that coercive, thieving gang) breeds what it needs. 

I plan to work towards countering the brainwashing.


Tuesday, July 02, 2013

You can't give away what you don't possess

You can't give away what you don't possess

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 31, 2013)

Can you give me an actual living, breathing, Tyrannosaurus rex? No. Why not? Because you don't have one to give. You can't give away something you don't possess- especially if it doesn't exist.

So how can you pretend to give government employees the authority to do things on your behalf which you never had the authority to do on your own? Things such as to forbid guns in some circumstances, some methods of carry, or to certain people. Or to kick in doors to get drugs. Or to require licenses for driving or conducting business. Or to take a percentage of everyone's property.

The truth is, you can't give that authority because you never possessed it; no one did- it never even existed. In every case it's completely wrong to do those things since no one has the authority to violate the fundamental rights, under Natural Law, of their fellow humans. When someone chooses to do those things anyway they become an enemy to other individuals, and by extension, to society. Even to civilization.

Theft, aggression, and every other violation of individual sovereignty need to be seen as the destructive forces they are, and they need to be universally rejected, not delegated to some authority.

As one example of this truth, police don't have any "special authority"- or at least they were never intended to. Just as you hire someone to haul your trash to the landfill, even though you are perfectly capable of doing so yourself but would rather not be bothered with the mundane task, police were to be paid to do full-time what everyone had the authority to do anyway: stop theft and aggression.

If only society would return to this principle, and individuals would take responsibility for themselves again instead of leaning on the crutch, it would solve a lot of problems.

As it is, police are now believed to have special authority; authority that never existed and therefore can not be delegated to them by you or anyone. This imaginary "special authority" creates an "us vs. them" gulf that will only keep growing wider and more dangerous until it is stopped cold, and reversed.

Police are only one small facet of the problem. Any "law" that pretends to give any government employee more authority than any random person on the street is not a legitimate law. In fact, as their boss, you have more real authority than the job can ever confer upon them. Never let the uppity servants order the masters around, and never tolerate their violation of anyone's liberty.

That is within your rightful authority.


Keeping your promises to a murderer

Let's say your best friend swears you to secrecy before he will tell you something juicy.  Then, after you swore to keep his secret, he tells you he raped and murdered a young girl.  Who in their right mind would believe the promise to keep the secret was more important than an attempt at justice?  Or to inform others of the danger he poses?  Who would be angry with you for breaking your oath to the murderous rapist?

And why is the Edward Snowden case any different?


Monday, July 01, 2013

Again with the cowards

The guy whose fear opened my eyes to the cowardice surrounding me wasn't really one of those "powards".  He lacked any real power.  But he was grateful for the powards who had made up, and enforced, the rules that gave him the fragile illusion of "safety".  The illusion that he had accidentally glimpsed a crack in.

You could see the fear in his eyes as he spoke of the GUN he had almost encountered.

These cowards will never feel "safe enough".  They would really like for everyone else to be as afraid as they are.  Those who aren't shine the light of pity on the fearful.  They expose the shortcoming.  The cowards don't want to feel bad about themselves, so they would like to reduce everyone else to a quivering puddle so they'll have no one exposing them for the pathetic people they truly are.

So they advocate, pass, support, and enforce all manner of pointless and counterproductive "laws" that can never really even make them feel safe, while seeking to harm- yes, HARM- those who aren't as cowardly.  Their rules actually make them much less safe by empowering the real bad guys.  Which makes me wonder if the cowards actually get a thrill out of being fearful.

Of course, these "laws" could also be explained by the fact that the people who advocate, pass, support, and enforce them are just plain evil.  So you are seeing the results of evil and/or cowardice.

There are things I am afraid of.  Heights.  Aggressive large dogs.  Probably something else, too.  The difference is that I am not such a coward that I want to level the world to remove all heights, ban people from washing windows on skyscrapers, or make big dogs "illegal".  I know my fears are my problem and it isn't your obligation to coddle me.

Maybe this is why I feel such contempt for cowards.  I have fears; I deal with them without violating you.  Why won't they do the same?  I think it's high time I insist they do.