Reformulated Aphorism #9: "We" Crap Made Good

When the UK government decided to give more land to agricultural laborers in Ireland. It seemed like a not-too-unfair-move in a land that had misappropriate land. I'm debated the issue of land redistribution and "right to roam" based on past land theft, such as William-the-Conqueror stuff. I think I agree with this aphorism, because I don't think that past grievances can be legislated away and remedied through statute, but through the courts and common law (still debatable for evolved-past-minarchism libertarian), or the good will of private individuals who have inherited or purchased past-stolen property:

We are all socialists now.
- William Vernor Harcourt, responding to the Labourers (Ireland) Allotment Bill of 1887

Time magazine pretty much misused this following reformulation, but the sentiment has proven itself out in the hearts of most Americans, until the Tea Party movement. And it was later attributed to Nixon:

We are all Keynesians now.
- Milton Friedman, quoted in article favoring Keynes

Ron Paul chimed in while selling freedom on the campaign trail. He paraphrased Nixon as saying:

... we’re all Keynesians now, which meant that even the Republicans accepted liberal economics. He says I’m waiting for the day when we can say we’re all Austrians now.
-Ron Paul, before supporters 2012

And to reformulate past reformulations, and to reflect the temper of our times, especially with the past few years of Tea Party uproar and the recent pro-2nd-amendment furor:

We are all libertarians now.
- CR Cobb

Reformulated Aphorism #10: Friends and Enemies

I've criticized our federal government repeatedly, and with malice, for pursuing a foreign policy illuminated by:

My enemy's enemy is my friend.
- Chinese/Arab proverb

And I silently applauded - or really smiled ear to ear - when I heard that the macrobreweries were distributing malt and/or barley to the microbreweries, because there was a shortage. It was probably self serving, because maintaining a beer percentage in the alcoholic-beverage segment was their most-likely goal. But I was delighted, no less.

Within the firearms "community" (really segment), there are many contentious arguments, usually highlighted by caliber and safety parsing. But there is a general espirit de corps, though there are some insular accuracy and hunting fundamentalists. And there is a growing understanding that for the gun culture to survive, us gray hairs (I've got one or two) need to embrace "Gun Culture 2.0" with their oft (at least I'm told) gaming origin. Of course, more comfortably for some, we need to embrace the next generation - yes, the children. And there has also been much talk about taking a friend shooting, to let that person demonstrate to themselves that shooting is fun and not scary (with safety protocols in place, etc.).

All of this lovey-dovey crap is signaling a desire for us to be inclusive of all members of the gun culture. So in that spirit, I have discovered a reformulation of the aphorism and proverb above:

My friend is my enemy's enemy.
- CR Cobb

Assiduus Bellum Pro Libertas 1.0: Constant War For Freedom

I oppose the term war like it is a pox upon us. The "War on Poverty" "War on Crime", J. Edgar Hoover's euphemism for his war on individuals, seemed to be the starting point. Then we had "War on Poverty" (instead of a "War in Vietnam"), "War on Drugs," "War on Gangs" (ignoring the previous "Gang Warfare" concept), "War on Cancer," ad nauseum.

Those wars, their earlier connection to a real war, and the empetus to concentrate power in single individuals with technocratic zeal gave us the continued use of the term: czar. 

During the latter stages of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to run the War Industries Board. This position was sometimes dubbed the "industry czar".
- Wikipedia article, "Czar (political term)"

I know that the term czar is out of vogue, but it was an apt term for a petite dictator charged with enforcing draconian statutes and armed with willing bureaucrats.

credit: Wikipedia

Of course, the irony can't be lost on any freedom-loving individual. In a natural-rights-based, constitutional republic, our government has consistently violated individual freedom with the threat of illegitimate force for collective good and false rights.

So why would I stoop to suggesting another war? Well, if anything is worth winning, then it is freedom. If we have to call the struggle a war to get a little attention, then so be it. And quite frankly, all those wars declared for supposed good were really wars on people violating no true laws or on individuals in the way of progression.

A War on Tyranny, even if it is only rhetorical, is a just war of the utmost moral good and importance. And to state the struggle in positive terms, and to highlight its perpetual status: Assiduus Bellum Pro Libertas.

U.S. Supreme Court Proved Illegitimacy of the Federal State

"In Bowers v. Devito, it was stated that 'there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.' Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)" 

 - from As King by Paranoid

Because the Supreme Court is hell bent on abiding by the precedents set forth in its own decisions, then it must abide by its paraphrasing of the bedrock of the limits on the federal state: "The Constitution ... tells the state to let people alone ..." The Supreme Court must get the federal state out of our individual lives and stop the infringement of the full breadth of our property rights.

“We want government to largely leave us alone, protect our personal security, but then to butt-out, leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.” - John Stossel

But again, since the Supreme Court ruled no duty of the state to protect us, then:

"Would you leave us the hell alone?" - Ted Nugent to Piers Morgan

"From a small 'L' libertarian standpoint, leave me alone ... That's what I want from you ... If you want to marry a sheep on the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, and you want me to be best man - as long as the sheep is consenting - I'm 100%. I'm there for you. I'll carry the flowers ... For the most part, I don't care what you do. But I do care about you leaving me alone ..." - Michael Bane

The true individualistic spirit that resides in all of us, and which is boiling to the surface in many of us under the incessant onslaught of collectivism and its endgame, deserves the material support of the last federal arbiter of constitutionalism.

And to reformulate an old phrase that has been previously reformulated:

We are all libertarians now.

Air-Rifle Shooting: Great Use of Presidents Day

The night before last, my son asked if he could go to Papa & Nana's farm and shoot his BB gun. So after tutoring sessions for him and his sister, and a little light shopping for spring clothes on Presidents Day, we packed up the three kids, my mom, and all our air-rifle stuff for a short afternoon of shooting.

My son has a Red Ryder that Santa brought him, so we were shooting at targets, cans, and bottles at fifteen feet. He was having a pretty good time, but I really wanted to see what I could hit farther out. I didn't want to stop the fun in order to retrieve materials to place additional paper targets, so I headed out with some empty 8-ounce water bottles. I quickly found my target stands - some dead weed stalks that were strong enough to drop the bottles on.

From 25 yards I was able to consistently hit the bottles with a loud "thwack" and dramatic cartwheeling - at least when the crosswind died down. I don't know if that is impressive or on par for a 25-year-old Daisy Powerline 880, but I sure had fun shooting those little water bottles.

And those little thin-walled 8-ounce water bottles really jump around when hit by a BB launched from my son's Red Ryder at short range. Great fun all around.

If You're Looking for an Opportunity, Then You're Looking for People.

Joseph Priestley, networked for science

 

[B]reakout opportunities are what transform your career. Opportunities do not float like clouds. They are firmly attached to individuals. If you’re looking for an opportunity, you’re really looking for people. If you’re evaluating an opportunity, you’re really evaluating people. If you’re trying to marshal resources to go after an opportunity, you’re really trying to enlist the support and involvement of other people. A company doesn’t offer you a job, people do. Opportunities flow through congregations of people. Those with good ideas and information tend to hang out with one another. You will get ahead if you can tap the circles that dish the best opportunities. In fact, it’s how people have gotten ahead for centuries.

-Reid Hoffman, in LinkedIn post "Connect to Human Networks To Find Breakout Opportunities"

Every word of that is worth reading again.

A Federal Reserve Note is a Microloan

My Reasoning for Black Listing Anti-Gun Organizations

Some companies discriminate against gunmakers, distributors, retailers, and firearm shoppers and owners. This is a problem that I have witnessed for decades. While I was living out west, there was a gun dealer that sold primarily black rifles - before black rifles were popular. The local branch of a national bank declined to open a checking account for the company. They settled out of court, and the gun dealer signed a nondisclosure agreement. I almost switched banks, but the bank was convenient.

But since Obama won his first election, the political environment has definitely changed. There were harbingers of a renewed politically correct move against the firearms industry within the last year. I vaguely remember that several months ago after Aurora and before Sandy Hook, Bank of America closed the account of a stock manufacturer, because the bank manager handling the account said that BoA did not approve of what the company sold. But now there is a wave of companies forming new internal policies or discoverying old internal policies that restrict the companies involvement in the free-trade of arms.

I've slowly been accumulating info about such companies. I'm doing so because I've read that some lists, such as the NRA's, are possibly inaccurate, outdated, and incomplete. Also, I wanted more detailed information of the extent of the discrimination against the free market of private arms and the proof for the accusations.

I respect the right of private companies to choose who they do business with - that is their right. But I do have a problem with government entities and corporations discriminating against the private-arms community. And I feel that is it my duty to direct my business away from companies that discriminate against those who are exercising their rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.

Oly Arms Stops Sales to NY Government Orgs

Another strong response to the NY SAFE Act.

Olympic Arms, maker of ARs and pistols - including some interesting looking pistol-caliber carbines - announced that it will no longer sell or provide services to the NYS government, law-enforcement agencies, and police or other first responders in that state.

In a press release posted on Facebook by President Brian Schuetz, Olympic Arms is following in the footsteps of LaRue Tactical. But Olympic Arms is taking its response one step further. LaRue had stated that they would limit sales to NY LEO to what is available to non-LEO civilians in NY.



Now we just need to see one of the big gun companies follow suit.

Who Has A Monopoly of the Use of Force?

I often hear the quip that "Government has a monopoly of the use of force." Is that true? Really?

Government might have a laundry list of justifications for using force, but other people use force all the time: criminals, citizens defending themselves and others against criminals (and occasionally the government), and private police.

And to be more precise, the aphorism is from Max Weber's Politics as Vocation. He wrote that it was the state that "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." And here's a gem: "private force (as in private security) can be used too, as long as it has legitimacy derived from the state." - Wikipedia.

That sounds nice, but if you believe in rights, then the legitimate use of force does not rest with the state, but in the hands of the individual - for self defense or in the defense of another. No agent of a government has the right to use force to enforce the state's order.

Even if government has created a pile of statutes that violate natural, common, and constitutional law, government has not yet created an illegal monopoly of violence - yet. Good for us.