Archive for the ‘immigration’ Category

Three topics big deal to libertarians

March 14, 2018

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 14, 2018)

There are three topics which come up frequently in libertarian writings: guns, drugs, and national borders. The reason is those three areas are where the people of America seem willing to let government do the most damage to Rightful Liberty, just to punish other people.

All three are hot buttons for almost everyone, with people on each side screaming at those on the other…read the rest

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit and Medium


Umbridges galore

February 19, 2018
Dolores Umbridge-
famous fictional pecksniff

There is no difference between those who use their distaste for some forms of consensual sex, drugs, or “immigrants” [sic]– and their drive to “protect the culture” or morals from those things by way of government or “laws“– and those who do the same thing with guns. None.

The “cost to society” excuse is a handy tool for both types of anti-liberty bigot to use against rights they don’t like.

It’s just a game of justifying being a control freak.

And I see it a lot. One type of statist wants to protect society from some liberties, while other statists want to protect society from the other liberties. Until there is no liberty left– and the moralizing bullies still will never be content. It’s never enough for them.

I realize they believe they are protecting fragile order from the chaos of people just “doing whatever they want, with no regard to consequences“. They’ll admit as much. The problem is “just doing whatever they want, with no regard to consequences” applies identically to the control freaks and anti-liberty bigots. They are what they rail against. Too much order is as deadly as too much chaos.

Liberty is never up to their approval. Thank goodness!

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Governments are a net negative

February 18, 2018

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 17, 2018)

A great many people are upset because President Trump is claimed to have observed that many places around the world are, shall we say, “less than ideal”. Of course, being Donald Trump, he is claimed to have used a colorful metaphor to describe those places. It is honest, but not polite.

His detractors see racism in this observation, which isn’t surprising since they are the same people who see racism around every rock and hear it in every word. I don’t see racism, but I do see denial.

The harsh truth is there are many places around the globe fitting this description. They can have a negative effect on the ethics and intelligence of those who live there.

Trump is, however, unlikely to admit what usually creates those conditions. It isn’t the people who live there. In almost every instance, the horrible conditions are primarily the fault of the governments the people in those places are burdened with; the states they live under.

Obviously, in some cases the residents chose the government, but normally they didn’t. Did you personally choose any of the governments– not just people who hold some government positions– which impose themselves on your life? I didn’t think so. How much blame do you want to accept for the actions of any of the governments around you? How much should you accept? Unless you support one or more of those governments or their policies, I don’t hold you personally responsible for the atrocities they commit, or the conditions which result.

This brings up another guilty party, largely responsible for the conditions mentioned..

In many cases a place is “less than ideal” because of acts committed by the U. S. government (usually through its military) against the people, society, infrastructure, and resources of the foreign land. It’s extremely dishonest to wreck up a place, then insult the victims over the mess you made of their home. And to then complain when the people leave and look for a new home is downright evil.

Of course, governments thrive on chaos, and refugees create chaos, so creating refugees is a win for government. No matter which side of the issue they pretend to be on.

This illustrates why governments shouldn’t have “immigration policies” to begin with, and shouldn’t be able to get away with going around the world killing people and breaking stuff. Governments are a net negative on the world. Don’t add to the misery and chaos by supporting any of them.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Reduce the misery

February 2, 2018

I believe in reducing unnecessary misery. That’s why I don’t want you violated even if I was violated in the same way in the past.

This is a HUGE stumbling block for so many people.

They were forced to get up painfully early to go to school under the pretense of “education”, so everyone else must suffer the same indignity.
They were robbed using the excuse of “Social Security”, so now it’s everyone else’s turn to be robbed for the same excuse.
They have lowered themselves to be licensed by The State to do various things humans have a right to do, so everyone else must do the same.
They (or their forebears) “immigrated legally” (or, more likely, before there was any such silly concept as “illegal immigration“) so everyone else should be forced to jump through the same hoops.

Seriously, if I thought that way I would say that because I lost my daughter, everyone else should be forced to suffer the same agony. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is.

Reduce the misery in the world; don’t perpetuate it. Don’t share it. Don’t demand it.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Cage fight!

January 29, 2018

The wider an area you wall off, the less sense it makes if your goal is protection from your enemies.

I don’t want to be trapped in an enclosure with the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Chuck Schumer, Joe Arpaio, or any other large-scale archator.

In fact, there are very few people I would want to be kept in the same box with.

House walls are a positive thing because it is fairly easy to be sure you’re not trapped inside with people you hate, and you can effectively keep those types of people out. If they get in you can throw them out or leave pretty easily.

The same goes for fences around private property. Fence off your yard, and control who you let in.

Walls around cities are less optimal, even if you ignore property rights, because you are going to be inside with some people it makes no sense to share a controlled space with, but it would be doable to move to a different city if you found yourself locked in with your enemies.

But walls around a country? It’s absurd! Most of the people inside with you want to violate you, as do those who build and control the wall. You are trapping yourself with people who are just as bad as those you want to be protected from. Often, even worse.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

The Trump wall

January 27, 2018

No, not that one.

Trump is like a high wall with a narrow walkway along the top. On one side of the wall is irrational Trump worship, and on the other side is irrational Trump hate. You only stay rational by not falling off on either side.

It must be hard to walk along that path without falling off on one side or the other, even for liberty lovers, because so few manage it in this time of Trump. It makes me appreciate those who stay sane.

Trump has probably done good things, and he has done bad things. No one should be president, ever, but a president Trump isn’t an excuse to join the borderist insanity on one side OR the antifa/SJW madness on the other. Keep your head, stop acting like an idiot, and stay on the narrow path of reality on the top. And stop letting politicians occupy your brain so much.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Collective ownership

January 21, 2018

There is legitimate collective ownership, and there is illegitimate “collective ownership”.

The difference is consent. Not “implied consent”, which isn’t a real thing, but actual consent.

If I join together with some people and we all chip in to buy a plot of land, and understand explicitly how the land will be used (or choose to not be involved in that decision), then the land is collectively owned. Great! There is Unanimous Consent; this makes this collective ownership legitimate.

If I am told that because I live in a certain place, being born there, I have a share in the collective ownership of the whole region, including other people’s private property, but that no one can opt out of the rules imposed on the land without moving away, this is not legitimate collective ownership. If someone I don’t like, don’t trust, or don’t respect claims to have the “authority” to administer the land on my behalf, against my wishes, this is illegitimate. Nothing can make it legitimate without Unanimous Consent. This is a violation of property rights, not a way to express them.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Them furriners

January 14, 2018

Those who focus on, or obsess over, “immigrants” without making the distinction between people who archate and those who don’t, regardless of where they were born, are harming liberty. Badly!

And there are those who keep beating that drum and getting angry at those who don’t fall for it.

Breaking a counterfeit “law” isn’t wrong. “Immigration law” is counterfeit “law”.

Initiating force or violating property rights is wrong (in that no one has the right to do so) no matter who does it, and regardless of where the guilty party comes from. It is not better to have a Red, White, And Blue redneck neighbor violating you than some guy who came from Somalia violating you. The violation is the problem; anything else is a distraction. You have the human right to defend yourself from any archator, and no “law” can change that (although “laws” can punish you for doing so).

If you can’t get these points through your head, you just look like a bigot. You are helping the other anti-liberty bigots. You are making it impossible for others to reach out to educate those you hate (and yes, in spite of insincere words, it is hate). You are driving them into the arms of your enemy, and then pretending to be shocked at the results.

If you notice that socialistic handouts are a problem and you don’t want foreign-born people using them, END THEM instead of enabling them. End them completely and totally, and replace them with charity to be given to whoever you choose. Voluntarily. Don’t say “It can’t be done”- it’s no less likely than “closing the borders”, and if you don’t believe so, you are in denial.

If you love borders better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you and promise to protect you from “those people”. May your chains and walls set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you once pretended to be our allies.*

*Apologies to Samuel Adams

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

What kind of hole?

January 13, 2018

Yes, there really are “s#!thole countries”. Living under those conditions– created almost exclusively by States— can definitely have a negative effect on the ethics and intelligence of the population (but that has zero to do with the rights the people there have). Government has consequences.

Pointing this out is honest, but not very nice. And it isn’t racism. Denying it is statism, though.

I’ll have more to say about this in a few days. (Here)

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Cancerous Cartmanism

December 28, 2017

If you don’t have the right to do something, you can’t ever get the “authority” to do it.

If the right to do something doesn’t exist due to the nature of rights, you can’t have the right to do it.

If you as an individual have no right to do something, a bigger group of individuals can’t magically make the right pop into existence, and can’t turn that magical “right” into “authority” to imbue someone else with. It just can’t happen.

For example, you don’t (you can’t) have the right to outlaw plants and punish those who grow or possess them anyway, because that right can’t exist, so the “authority” to outlaw plants (and punish people over them) isn’t yours to claim or give away.

You don’t have the right to forbid other people to smoke or ingest plants (or punish them for doing so) because such a right can’t exist, so you can never have the “authority” to do so.

The same goes for banning weapons, “legalizing” theft (and otherwise violating the property rights of others), and generally imposing, supporting, or enforcing counterfeit “laws” of any sort.

If you try to do a thing you have no right to do, you are the bad guy. If you claim you have the “authority” to do something you have no right to do, then you are, if possible, an even worse bad guy.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit