Libertarian Commentary on the News #13-08D: Guns on campus, more

Home front – Alternatives to Self Defense???
Public Schools Installing ‘Panic Buttons’

WGCL-TV reports that these “panic buttons” will immediately place a call to 911 when pushed by school officials.“Once that happens, we send everybody we have to that school until wecan determine what the exact cause of the threat is,” Marietta Police Officer David Baldwin told WGCL.

Mama’s Note: Will be interesting to see how many innocents are shot by cops in the ensuing confusion – whether the call is real or the result of an accidental activation.

Nathan: Panic buttons, even without false alarms, are pretty worthless, because all too often no one can get to them.  Just read a story of an interview with University of Nevada student as a follow-up to that idiot Joe Salazar’s claim that women would panic and think that they were being raped and pop off at anyone on campus.  She was raped at gunpoint in a parking garage about 50 feet from a campus police station (closed for the night) with those “call boxes” (blue-light poles with the panic buttons) there in the garage.  She was attacked from behind by a hidden rapist who later raped three more women, killing the last one.  She had a CCW card in her wallet but not a weapon because they are banned on Nevada campuses (just as Salazar is trying to do in Colorado as related in the next story).  The rapist, of course, ignored the rule.

Mama’s Note: (regarding the panic buttons): Well, they fixed that, don’t you know! They’re going to wear the panic button around their necks. That ought take care of it…

Nathan: Of course: technology to the rescue.  Far better to carry a small derringer or even a dagger around your neck.

Mama’s Note: All you say is so true… and yet, I can’t help but think that women have far more choices than it might seem. Just why would any self respecting woman, willing and able to defend herself, actually allow herself to be disarmed that way? Why would they go to such a place to start with? As much as I hate the “gun free zone” idea, people must take responsibility for themselves and simply NOT GO THERE!!! Or if they do, they must go armed regardless of the “law.” We can cry about the “law” and the restrictions all we like, but until people take charge of their own lives and actually DO SOMETHING about it, it’s all noise.

Nathan: They allow if for the same reason men also allow themselves to be put into positions where they cannot defend a woman – or themselves.  And of course, the same reason that more and more men are predators who go out and rape and kill:  They have been taught to be dependent and to give up their strengths for the weakness of being permanent children if not outright slaves.  They have been taught a false morality that says “obeying the law” is more important than life or anything else, and they have not broken the conditioning that enforces that evil belief.  And because they believe that “obeying the law” is the number-one priority, most of those who break the law do so furtively and on their own.  I suspect that if, on one of the mega-state-u campuses there were a hundred or two hundred students who openly carried, all at the same time, all together, that the powers-that-be would NOT be able to go and individually charge them and arrest them.  It might be wise to wear V masks or something like that, but even the largest university could not deal with that – not a mass protest, but simply walking and going to class and study and library and student union and such wearing weapons openly.  Not one or five or ten people – those could be dealt with.  But a hundred or two hundred or five hundred might be the crack in the system.

Salazar has apologized for his comments
(Daily Caller) Democratic Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar apologized Monday for suggesting some women are so unjustifiably afraid of being raped that they are liable to start shooting wildly. Salazar, arguing in favor of disarming college students, said Friday on the Colorado House floor that women fearing rape may suddenly and haphazardly ”pop a round at somebody.”

Nathan: Salazar, whom I believe is part of the big political-gangster family from southern Colorado, knows better – he is not an idiot.  But he knows that he can persuade a lot of idiots to support his cause of outlawing effective self-defense on campuses.  Forty years ago, a LOT of us carried weapons openly on Colorado campuses, and rapes were a lot less frequent – to say nothing of other violent crime.  Meanwhile, do we see a change?

Police Advocating Resistance to Shooters
(Political Outcast) …U.S. Capitol Police… advocate taking out the shooter with “whatever means you can”:  ”You must be committed to the actions you will take, and your attack must be explosive and violent. You must do whatever it takes to survive and not worry about the consequences. You want to disable the offender with whatever means you can. This could involve throwing items or using objects to strike, stab or slash the subject.”  … USA Today reported that “police officials said they were not advocating arming teachers, students, office workers or others to prepare for such attacks.” DHS recently made a parody of itself by advising office workers to use a pair of scissors to confront a mass shooter, but again, only as a last resort, because scissors are very deadly, and you wouldn’t want any unnecessary carnage. Law enforcement agents across the country are actually calling this change in advice “extreme.”

To quote Political Outpost: Well, it sure is “extremely” stupid. Advising people to confront a mass murderer with a pair of scissors or a metal folding chair is ridiculous. You might as well confront the shooter with a piece of paper in hopes of “slashing” him with a paper cut and then pouring lemon juice on it (but only as a last resort). At least that would give you a chance of survival.

Nathan: It is not a change, then, just a way to keep them from losing ALL credibility, and to provide “alternatives” that the Tranzi-brainwashed can cling to.  Oleg Volk has several good photos to illustrate this point:  people who do not have the size and physical strength to defend themselves against evil monsters (like Biden and Salazar) and nutcases who are drunk or drugged to the eyelids DO have a simple way to defend themselves and others: the very item that Biden, Salazar, and the “messiah” and their minions in DHS, police forces, and Tranzi groups around the nation want to steal from them: firearms.  Little strength, easy to carry, easy to learn to use, and relatively inexpensive, guns save lives.

From the Oleg Volk blog.

Politics 2012 – Stupid government
U.S. Gov’t ‘Cancer’ Research: Tobacco Industry Helped Create Tea Party


Nathan: Desperate to be “relevant” I guess, or paying off grants “in-kind.”  The reasoning on this is just plain bizarre, but it is obvious it is a way of trying to demonize the tea party movement.

Tyranny – Unlawful search and seizure
13,753 Gov’t Requests for Google E-Mail Data in 2012, Most Without a Warrant


Nathan: How many ways do we have to find to show that the Bill of Rights is a dead letter?

Stupid government – private business
MA: New England fishermen protest federal regulations

(Fox News) “New England fishermen facing a dire future for their industry asked Congress in a letter Tuesday for immediate help surviving deep and impending cuts to their catch limits. The letter, signed by 173 fishermen in ports from Connecticut to Maine, came as the industry prepares for May 1 catch reductions that fishermen warn could finish off the fleet. A 77 percent cut in the catch limit for cod in the Gulf of Maine and a 61 percent decrease in the cod limit in Georges Bank, off southeastern New England, are the most significant in an array of 2013 catch reductions on bottom-dwelling groundfish.” [editor’s note: Hooray! For once, an industry asks, not for a subsidy, just a removal of an oppressive mandate! – SAT] (02/20/13)

Mama’s Note: A new trend?  (Asking for removal of a mandate, not a subsidy.)

Nathan: If it is, it is unlikely to be considered a good trend by government. Governments have been dictating more and more cutbacks in fisheries for years, always citing studies and such that are created by other government agencies – and which seem to be increasingly suspect.

The protests will get the results that most protests do (except those that are planned and coordinated as part of a justification for government actions): no results at all.  And will probably put all these fishermen on a no-fly-list and other fun lists.  For six hundred years, the Grand Banks, George’s Banks and other prime fisheries were essentially private fishing areas, kept so by the secrecy of the fishermen from the British Isles and Brittany who harvested them: year after year, century after century.  But when discovered and subjected to the law of the sea – that they were commons, it took a fairly short time to over fish them, and they’ve now gone through cycle after cycle of collapse and recovery.  This is the latest:  government has firm control and will give them to their buddies and supporters (cash, please).  Everyone else can die.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Libertarian Commentary on the News #13-08D: Guns on campus, more

  1. just waiting says:

    And do they leave it ruined or rebuild it? What do the rest do the guy who ruined it?

    I hate defending gov, but if it were not for the regs placed on fishing all those years ago, not only would there be no fishing industry in the NE today, there’d also be no fish. Yes, regs like stopping fishermen from fishing during spawning season and placing minimum size limits on certain species has saved entire species from extinction and enabled the fishing industry to exist today. Today’s fleet has to travel farther and stay out longer to catch fewer fish NOT because of gov regs, but because prior generations severely overfished the waters and the large schools of commercial fish of yesterday are but a fish story the old salts tell at the bar.

    100 years ago, before regs, the trawlers came in and fished all the codfish out the Grand Banks. When the subsistence fishermen like my gramps couldn’t catch enough fish to feed themselves, the had to move away or starve. He watched as the commercials and trawlers destroyed his very way of life, but without any regs there was no recourse. The commons were gone, ruined by an intruder, not those who lived around it and cared for it. There was nothing they could do, but those who lived around the commons suffered all the same.

    Remember back in the 70s? Bottlenose dolphin by the tens of thousands were being caught in commercial tunamen’s nets. Dolphin swim above tuna, its a fact of life. Their meat had no commercial value, so carcasses were thrown overboard. It was only gov regs that saw dolphin excluders required on tuna nets that dolphin are not nearly there or extinct today.

    Imagine what the West would look like if no one required the timber companies to replant. They’d have come in and clear cut and moved on. Only later would they have realized they need to replant for the future. But without regs, vast stretches of land would be barren, the topsoil blown away by the four winds. Forests would be prairies and wastelands.

    I’m a really big fan of small or no gov, but sometimes, just sometimes, they do something good. Fishing regs is one of those things.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      The whole point is that these regulations do NOT do anything good. Take a good look around you… the government itself is the greatest polluter, the entity responsible for the destruction of the forests, the wildfires, the serious loss of life and property in so many natural disasters… Government is the disease masquerading as it’s own cure.

      The fact that the government claims ownership of everything is the problem, not the solution. Without government “regs” and WITH private ownership, these things would not happen because the private owners would NOT find it to be in their own best interest at all. If the trees and the dolphins, etc. belong to “everybody,” and therefore essentially nobody, then anything goes. Government regulations don’t change that one iota.

      I do hope you read the “Tragedy of the Commons” article. What you are saying is exactly the socialist talking points that have been used to confuse people, allowing government “ownership” to destroy our land and economy all along.


      • just waiting says:

        Thank you for refering this to me. I did read it, and many of the links, it was all very educational.
        I DO NOT believe in gov or the regs they enact. I believe people should avoid commiting mala in se offenses, and that everything past Moses’ Top 10, what we call mala prohibita, is just a way of restricting human freedom and controlling the masses. I am opposed and do not generally recognize these restrictions.
        I merely cited the case of my grandfather because I remember the stories he used to tell. The locals sustainably fished the waters of his home for hundreds of years. It was the arrival in the 19teens of the steam trawlers that overfished the waters and destroyed his way of life. These were the parasites Hardin cited. My gramps choices were leave his home or starve. His tragedy of the commons was that of outside intrusion. Outsiders invaded his home and took his food. As Hardin cited, left to local control and management, commons can succeed. It is only with the appearance of outside forces that this management falters. Only when the waters couldn’t produce enough fish for the trip to be worth it did the overfishing subside and the stock get a chance to replenish itself. Later gov attempt at management failed as well, but as all the sources cited, how do you privitize the seas or the skies?
        None of the articles I read discussed defending the commons from these intruders to preserve one’s livelihood or way of life, something I am very curious about.


      • MamaLiberty says:

        None of the articles I read discussed defending the commons from these intruders to preserve one’s livelihood or way of life, something I am very curious about.

        Think about it for a few minutes perhaps… Government interference with free trade and private property has been with us for a very long time. The few have always had privileges granted by governments, to do as they will. Think of the slaughter of the buffalo in the west. This was done deliberately, even subsidized by the government of the time, for their own reasons.

        It is almost impossible to defend “the commons.” If every person has equal right to use it as he sees fit, then there is no defense. Someone must own it and have a vested interest in seeing it remain productive. When government “owns” it, there is no incentive to truly protect it or promote productivity because political expediency has little to do with productivity… as our current economy should illustrate grandly.

        Far too many people seem to insist that there are only two possible conditions; either government “regulation” and control, or dog eat dog, bestial chaos. The idea that there are many other and peaceful alternatives is cast aside too often as “impractical,” and “unrealistic.” I happen to know there are free market, non aggressive answers to most problems. I see it play out that way each day all around me. Unfortunately, most folks don’t recognize that this is exactly how they live most of their lives. They’ve been sold a bill of goods to believe that at least “some” government control is necessary and good. But you can’t be a little bit “controlled,” any more than you can be a little bit dead.


    • pelletfarmer says:

      “While I’m all for less regulation, I have to disagree about the fishing restrictions.”

      Stop with the euphemisms. What you’re really saying is that you believe it’s alright for some people to determine what other people may or may not do, forcefully…as long as you agree with the intended consequences and are willing to suffer the unintended consequences.

      Call it what you will, but this is “thuggery” or “slavery.” What you believe about fish or timber have nothing to do with how I should live my life. So stop beating around the bush and just fill in the blank: “I believe others should be forced to do as I wish because _______________ .”

      Then read this:


      • just waiting says:

        Wow, no one has ever called me a socialist before. But putting words in my mouth and telling me what to say? I always thought that was the mark of the totalitarian.
        I don’t recall having implied or written that I want to determine what anyone does. To suggest so is offensive. I imply dominion over no one. I was merely relating the story of my grandfather and how in his case his livelihood was destroyed by outsiders who overfished, and that regs were what prevented the species of fish he fished for from being wiped out.
        And I did read your link. Thank you, it was a very interesting piece. But since I don’t know you and imply no dominion over your life or your actions, there’s just me and you, there is no third thing. I’d love to discuss that concept with you further though, I think we could have a great discussion, if Mama could hook us up by email.


    • stpeter says:

      There are in fact voluntary, free-market solutions to overfishing. PERC has done good research and reporting on this topic:


  2. just waiting says:

    While I’m all for less regulation, I have to disagree about the fishing restrictions.

    100 years ago, my grandad fished these same waters. As soon as he was big enough to row a boat, about 7 or 8, he started fishing. Life was simple, catch fish and you eat, don’t and you’re hungry. He was only taught to read so he could read the Bible, which he had memorized by the time he passed.

    By the time he was a young man, and as the population grew, all the closer in waters had been fished out. He and his fellow fishermen had to row further and further to find fewer and fewer fish. By the time he was 20, there were no fish left to be caught in water that he could row to. He had to move to the city.

    Just like out west there are timber restrictions and guidelines to ensure there will always be trees growing, back east there are fishing restrictions so there might always be fish. Cut down all the trees and your lands look like Haiti. Catch all the fish, and there’s none left to reproduce the next generation.

    Lift fishing restrictions, and there’ll be no commercial fishery in 5 years. Then these same captains you praise today will be back in DC, asking for the subsidies they didn’t ask for today.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      There have been “fishing restrictions” and all the rest for a very long time. Can you tell me that these restrictions have served the purpose you state? Are there more or less fish now? Somehow, it doesn’t seem to be working very well.

      The answer to the shortages and ecological disasters caused by government is not more government. No more than the answer to the “gun free killing zone” is a larger “no guns” sign and more laws against murder.

      Private ownership, and responsibility for the land and the means of production, the real free market, is the only answer for these problems.
      Tragedy of the Commons
      Imagine a commons, owned by none, and surrounded by privately owned plots of land. On each privately owned plot resides a herdsman with his herd. Each herdsman has a choice of letting his herd graze on his own piece of land or on the commons. When the herd grazes, it depletes the land and thus cannot be allowed to overgraze lest the land be ruined. Since each herdsman owns his own piece of land, he has the incentive to maintain and cultivate it, and thus wishes to prevent his herd from overgrazing and ruining it. But what of the commons? If he allows his herd to graze and deplete the commons, his own piece of land is left pristine. Thus, he accrues the benefits of grazing his herd, with none of the costs. Further, each herdsman knows that every other herdsman has the same incentive, to graze their herd on the commons over their own land, and therein lies the tragedy according to Hardin, for in that rational yet self interested analysis of each herdsmen ensues a mad dash to use up the commons before anyone else can, thereby ruining it.


  3. Bear says:

    Panic Buttons:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s