The Anti-Gun Bigots’ Silly Strawman

Anti-gun bigots have a “new” favorite strawman. They demand to know why the right to own and carry weapons (they’ll sometimes mischaracterize this as “Second Amendment rights”) is more important than the right to not be murdered.

The dishonesty– or ignorance– displayed by such a question is absolutely stunning.

You and I have the natural human right to own and to carry weapons. No one has the right to use those weapons to harm someone who isn’t currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another. There is no conflict, and at least some of those anti-gun bigots know it.

You also have no right to make up “laws” which violate anyone’s rights in any way. And since that’s what all the harmful “laws” do, those who support these “laws” are currently violating life, liberty, and property. Not smart.

You have no right to make up anti-gun “laws”. You can’t delegate a right you don’t have (because it can’t exist) to someone else. If you try to do either of those things YOU are the bad guy. Just as bad as the evil losers who inspire your calls to action.

Anti-gun bigots would have us live (and die) in a failed society where only the government goons and freelance thugs are adequately armed. That’s not civilized. It’s prison.

Burn their strawman to the ground and leave them exposed as the bad guys they are.

Open This Content

Why Culture Matters

What is Culture?

As individuals, people experience consciousness (identity, intelligence, soul, conscience), develop character (will, agency, behavioral patterns, habits), and demonstrate preferences of style (taste). Biological traits and tendencies both enable and limit perceptions and abilities, but all people have the ability (and unavoidable responsibility) to shape their character and develop to their potential.

By natural extension, groups of people also experience a sort of shared consciousness (shared identity, values, perceptions, language, epistemological orientation), develop a shared character (ethics, norms/rules, priorities, organizations, obligations, expectations, group dynamics, reputation), and express shared style preferences (aesthetics, dress and grooming, design, cuisine, music, humor, communication patterns, leisure activities, rhythm of life). Culture is an umbrella term for the shared identity, values, perceptions, perspectives, knowledge, beliefs, organizations, practices, and preferences of a group.

Culture is Fundamental

Culture is about much more than just style. Style is a very visible part of culture, but it is also comparably superficial and inconsequential. Style differences rarely cause significant conflict (except, perhaps between significantly shallow people). On the other hand, differences in things like ethics, rules, and behavioral patterns are at the heart of very serious conflicts, indeed. In fact, many conflicts that on the surface appear to be motivated by ethnic identity, political ideology, or religious affiliation are fundamentally cultural.

But understanding culture is not just about conflict; it’s also about the progress of civilizations and quality of life for people everywhere. Key adjustments in culture can have profound effects on group dynamics and future generations.

Cultural Advancement and Decline

The word “culture” comes from the latin cultura referring to the care, development, and protection required to develop something, as in “cultivation” and “agriculture”. The weeds and rocks have to go and the soil has to be prepared in order for precious seeds to be carefully planted and become a beautiful garden that bears fruit and is worth preserving.

In other words, a culture must be both conservative and progressive in order to develop. That is, its members must conserve positive elements while also abandoning negative ones and adopting additional positive ones. All cultures should embrace the best practices of other cultures while conserving and promoting their own.

Here are some examples of elements of high-performing cultures that have proven their value and are worth adopting: coherent philosophy, individual self-determination, reciprocity ethics and natural law, clear and noble grand narrative, private property norms, freedom of association, monogamy, incest avoidance, courtesy, hygiene, industriousness, low time preference, precise and high-minded language, appreciation of / participation in / contribution to sophisticated pursuits.

Cultural decline is marked by the abandonment of such elements and their replacement with corrupt and perverse ones.

Open This Content

Enough Enabling, Already!

Another evil loser killed a bunch of people. This time at a mall and Walmart in El Paso, Texas.

It infuriates me that anti-gun bigots keep making this type of event more likely.

He, or a comparable evil loser, would have free rein at the local mall and Walmart. Because both of those places post “No Guns” signs. The stupid behind this sort of “thinking” astounds me.

I see people ignore the signs and open carry while shopping in the local Walmart. People who are obviously not Blue Line Gang special flowers. Probably unintentionally– New Mexico is an open-carry state, after all. I’ve never seen the Walmart management throw anyone out for ignoring the “We don’t care if you die” signs. But they are there as an invitation to evil losers, regardless. They make the customers and employees much less safe by their presence. If I were rude and didn’t mind drawing attention to them I’d thank them for their service.

The local mall lost some of their “No Guns” signs over the past few years. You can actually walk in some entrances which don’t have the insults posted by them. But one entrance that I know of still has one by it. I don’t go there enough to have noticed whether people ignore that sign– but you know they do.

If anyone ever decides to go on a murder spree, they aren’t going to change their mind because guns are “forbidden” on the property. They’d just be able to murder uninterrupted for longer than they would if someone was shooting back. And all metal detectors at the door would do is cause the evil losers to come in shooting… while the useless alarms blare.

Anti-gun “laws”– “gun control [sic] laws”– KILL. Enough is enough.

Open This Content

Ethical Consistency, Does it Really Matter?

We see or hear it all the time. Whether we’re on social media or having a conversation with a friend or family member, you may hear or read something like this, your redneck coworker may say, “We just need to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass!” Meanwhile, your progressive, career college student cousin may say something like, “We need someone like Bernie in the white house so we can finally get universal health care!”

More often than not these examples are due to the lack of something I consider invaluable as a Voluntaryist… ethical consistently.

To the best of my understanding, the lack of ethical consistency in today’s culture has led, and continues to lead people toward further social, economic, and foreign policy disasters. For this reason, I wanted to go over the concept of ethical consistency as I see it, the definition of the term, and some examples of how it’s applied in real world scenarios.

Consistency—the absence of contradictions—has sometimes been called the hallmark of ethics. Ethics is supposed to provide us with a guide for moral living, and to do so it must be rational, and to be rational it must be free of contradictions. If a person said, “Open the window but don’t open the window,” we would be at a loss as to what to do; the command is contradictory and thus irrational. In the same way, if our ethical principles and practices lack consistency, we, as rational people, will find ourselves at a loss as to what we ought to do and divided about how we ought to live. Ethics require consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.

Consistency and Ethics, from the center of applied ethics at Santa Clara University.

I’ve observed that, especially in the realm of political opinion, being ethically consistent seems to be a real challenge. And as I wrote earlier, this leads to a lot of confusion, controversy, and conflict.

In order to further explain, I’ve provided five scenarios along with an explanation of how ethical consistency applies.

Scenario #1
-Murder is considered illegal or unethical.
-Accidentally killing civilians with drone strikes is collateral damage and therefore justified.

In this example, it should be fairly obvious that killing is inherently unethical, whether intentionally or by accident, however some people believe there is an exception to this universally accepted rule when it comes to war…or so they’ve convinced themselves. In a way, I can’t blame them. They’ve spent a lifetime inundated with nationalism, from reciting the pledge of allegiance in public school every morning to social media and network news filling them with pride for country and military worship.

And that’s the problem. The programming has been incredibly successful, so successful some people have lost their ability to discern between murder and accidentally killing innocent people.

Scenario #2
-Robbing someone of the cash in their wallet is considered illegal or unethical.
-Taking money from someone through the act of taxation is justified.

Think back to when were a child, do you remember when one of your siblings or playmates took your favorite toy from you? I’m not sure I can remember that far back either, but if you have children, nieces or nephews, you’ve witnessed this drama firsthand.

The recognition of personal property is innate in human beings, we know what is ours.

As we mature, we begin to understand the benefits of sharing, whether it’s the desire to connect with others or more selfish reasons. For example, some may share their candy with classmates in order to be seen as likeable and some may do so in order to garner social status and the benefits involved with being popular.

Although we’ve come to find sharing as a virtuous thing to do, we choose so voluntarily. We choose to donate money, our time, or make charitable donations of items because we receive some type of psychological reward.

In the case of the mugger stealing the cash in your wallet, we know this is inherently unethical. In the case of taking someone’s money via taxes, we know that this act is also inherently unethical. Why? Because, unlike charitable donations, the money is being taken from you. Some may say that they’re happy to pay taxes and that’s great! You make your charitable donations to the state and I’ll spend my money supporting alternatives to such coercive systems.

Scenario #3
-A group of neighbors come to your house and forcefully abducted you for smoking a plant in your living room is considered illegal or unethical.
-The police come to your house and forcefully abducting you for smoking a plant in your living room is justified.

Do you own yourself? Is your body, your self considered personal property? Are you responsible for actions taken? Do you have a sense of personal agency?

I would answer ‘yes’ to each of those questions, therefore my body and my actions are mine. If I were to eat a fatty steak and wash it down with a double Old Fashioned, does that affect anyone else? Of course not, but if I were to get in my car intoxicated and hit someone else, that would be violating their person, their self.

Whether it’s eating a steak while drinking bourbon, smoking weed, or doing meth, it’s my body. As long as I do so without affecting anyone, it’s my decision alone.

The act of being abducted by your neighbors simply because they made a “No Weed” rule between them is inherently immoral. The same thing applies to being abducted by the police. In addition to your neighbors, strangers helped make the rules restricting the rights of others to do what they choose with their bodies. The police enforce these rules, although they call them laws instead. Whether rule or law, a person’s self ownership precedes both.

Scenario #4
-A group of people mandating your children attend church is considered unethical.
-The state mandating your children attend school is justified.

My explanation of scenario number three applies here as well. However, in this case it’s not your person, it’s your child’s person.

What separates adults from children is the adults sense of personal agency and responsibility. Since children lack this understanding, their parents, other immediate family members, or other types of surrogate caregivers have the responsibility of taking care of them.

Now this part is going to sound insensitive and simplistic, but hear me out. Your child is your possession. Until they also have a sense of personal agency and responsibility, you are as responsible for them as you are for yourself. Therefore, you have the final say when it comes to their person.

By mandate or law, forcing a child to attend anything without the consent of the parent is inherently unethical.

Open This Content

Prefer Consequences to Revenge

If your idea of a good time is to vandalize someone’s home, I have no sympathy for you no matter what consequences result.

Last year a relative’s home near Clovis was burglarized and cleaned out. Through the ruthless determination of his granddaughter, all his belongings were discovered on the property of the burglar (or an accomplice) and recovered.

Now, someone has decided it was a good idea to try to destroy his whole house. The house he built with his own hands more than half a century ago.

If you think this makes me angry, you’d be on the right track.

When a person makes the choice to violate life, liberty, or property they’ve lost their humanity in my eyes. Their reasons or justifications never matter.

I understand spur-of-the-moment bad decisions, but to make a conscious decision to violate someone? That’s where I draw the line.

No, it doesn’t mean I want to see the law used against them. In fact, the law does more to protect bad guys from consequences than it does to protect their victims.

Nor am I calling for punishment, which I oppose as revenge. I prefer social consequences. Real justice. Including — specifically — shunning.

There are people out there who know these and other criminals who make a habit of victimizing residents of the community. I doubt either they or the violators they know are literate enough to read newspapers or anything else, though. Maybe someone can read this to them.

If you know someone who habitually violates others, and you choose to continue associating with them, you are as guilty as they are. Violators should be left to die alone in the elements, naked and starving. There’s no excuse to sell them food, water, fuel, clothing, shelter, or medical care once you are aware of their choice to violate.

If you continue to trade products and services with them you are spitting in the faces of all their victims; past, present, and future.

I’d rather see their pictures, addresses, and crimes posted on social media or on public flyers. Let everyone know who they are and what they do. “Innocent until proven guilty” is only the standard for government courts. If you know the truth, share it.

Consequences of this sort would do more to promote civilization than all the laws you could ever write and enforce. Violators survive only because otherwise good people help them, even if it’s accidental. Stop enabling them to live to violate again.

Open This Content

Don’t Fall For The Borderists’ Dishonest Trap

I recently encountered a question asked by a borderist. He wants to trick you into falling for his trap. I’ll spare him the embarrassment of mentioning his name.

Here’s the dishonest setup followed by the dishonest question:

“The question that no open-borders advocate has ever answered is, How many illegals should be allowed into the United States?”

He’s a liar.

The question is phrased dishonestly so as to manipulate his audience.

have answered a similar question. Many times. I’ve seen several people answer such a question in excellent ways. It’s just that the correct and honest answer to a more honest version of the question doesn’t serve his agenda so he’ll never acknowledge it, no matter who answers.

But I’ll answer the “question” again.

I’m not an “open borders advocate”, I’m simply against government “borders” and for property rights. Those two things are completely at odds with one another, and the borderists should know it. They just pretend they can have it both ways. All I know is I’m opposed to his position of maximum statism. But call my position “open borders” if it makes you happy.

Second, there can be no such thing as an “illegal” if you are referring to people deemed so because they ignored unconstitutional and unethical statist “laws” against crossing an imaginary line. Just like there’s no such thing as an “illegal gun” regardless of the unethical and unconstitutional “laws” the anti-gun bigots have made up. Counterfeit “laws” are without foundation no matter what they pretend to address. Again, he’s using a lie to trap you into answering the wrong question.

Third, “should be allowed”? “Should” in this context is a word calculated to trip you up. No one “should” be dictating numbers of visitors to other people’s property. And government “borders”? Who has the “authority” to “allow” or forbid people to cross these imaginary lines? The criminal gang known as government? Make another joke. The only ones with the right to allow or forbid entry onto their private property are the property owners making this decision for their own property. Period. Government doesn’t qualify.

This is why I can’t take borderists seriously. Not even when they are reasonably principled on other issues. They can’t even ask an honest question where government “borders” are concerned but have to pile lies on top of lies to get the narrative they hunger for. Borderists simply aren’t credible, and they’ve done it to themselves.

Open This Content