Left, Right equal enemies of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 29, 2026)

It’s wild how people pretend “Left” and “Right” are mortal enemies. They’re not. They’re two bowls of the same authoritarian slop: theft and enslavement sold as “the greater good”...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Government should expect no privacy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 25, 2026)

Privacy is important. Not because you have anything to hide, but because it's no one's business. Otherwise, let's get rid of restroom doors, curtains, or anything else which might shield our activities from everyone else's eyes.

Companies that help government spy on the people are doing wrong. Digital ID. Flock cameras. Age verification. TSA scanners. Government's co-conspirators are not the good guys.

Not all surveillance is a bad thing, though.

You should know everything about anyone who holds a government office. At the same time, they shouldn’t be able to learn anything about you. As long as those offices are allowed to exist- and they shouldn't be- the standard should be that while you hold any government job, your life is an open book. Everything you do is subject to scrutiny and disclosure. No secrets at all, not even those you feel government is entitled to keep from the people. Because those don't exist. Privacy for government and none for the people is exactly backwards.

National security is no excuse. Public safety is no excuse. “For the children” is the most dishonest justification ever.

Author L. Neil Smith once wrote that keeping government secrets from the people is the only crime for which he would support capital punishment. I tend to agree, but we know government will never hold itself accountable.

If I’m forced to fund you, you don’t get to keep secrets from me. But the people have the right to keep everything from government.

Some people say the days of any expectation of privacy are over because government and its corporate partners already have the tools to watch everything you do. They are right. Don't expect to have any privacy. Someone, besides your intended recipient, is reading every text or email you send, evaluating everything you read, and watching everything you save on a phone or to your computer. They have technology which can see where you are inside your home- and possibly more. They have capabilities they won't tell the public about.

This is no reason to be paranoid. It's a reason why you, I, and everyone else should live so freely that we overwhelm the bad guys. Drown them in worthless data and rub your liberty in their nasty, nosy faces. Remember, too, this cuts both ways. They can't collect all the data about us without the same data being collected on them. If they collect it, we can find it and use it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Laws I don't like"

When I pointed out that cops cause crime, a statist complained and pretended he didn’t understand.

So I told him that cops enforce taxation and benefit from it.

I pointed out that cops enforce anti-gun rules, which empowers other criminals.

Crime is the act of violating rights, which cops do by their existence.

The statist objected, saying he prefers the state's definition of "crime"; acts which are "illegal".

The statist then said he interprets my definition of "crime" to mean "laws I don’t like”.

No. If that’s what I meant, that’s what I would have said. It would have been an entirely different conversation. 

Some counterfeit “laws” even cover things I would agree with being "against the law" if I were lacking in principles. It isn’t about what I like or dislike (that's how statists think); it's about what people have a right to do. and what they have no right to do 

Only a statist could be so wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

They're obviously so proud of it

I get amused by the statists (and Statanists) who refuse to read anything that might threaten their narrative... and then brag about it.

I have read a great many horrifying things that excuse and justify government, theft, coercion, etc. I couldn't always finish it, since some were really long and convoluted ways to keep making the same bad point over and over again, but I made an honest effort. 

I understood the argument when I was done, even though I obviously disagreed with the conclusion.

I could tell you the reasons why I disagree. If there was some truth to be found in there, I believe I would have accepted it. I have probably done so. I do agree that theft and murder can be quite pragmatic, even though they are evil. 

It's good to see how the enemy thinks and what he believes.

Statists either won't do that at all, or I don't encounter any who will.

They are content in their ignorance. It makes them proud. They want you to know just how comforting their ignorance is. And they'll comment and immediately block you so you'll know they "won" the debate.

Exposure to terrible people and their thoughts is painful, but until you know how they think, you're up against an unknown.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

"No true Scotsman" doesn't always apply

Sometimes, the "No true Scotsman" thing doesn't apply to a circumstance. Trying to make it fit doesn't work and is dishonest.

If someone calls themselves a libertarian, but they "Back the Blue", want more taxes to pay for more things, want government to mandate or prohibit more things, and reject the idea that they have no right to archate, they aren't libertarian, by definition. 

They are something else, so why wouldn't they embrace it?

Trying to use the "No true Scotsman" fallacy only works when it actually fits the situation. It can't be stretched beyond its limits to apply to something it doesn't apply to. Many of the fallacy guidelines work this way.

I know someone who is addicted to TikTok and watches this "Preacher Man" (I don't think that's the name he uses) who claims to be a Christian preacher, but "preaches" while drunk, cusses like a sailor, gets angry and threatening (which gets him temporarily banned several times per week), and doesn't seem to know or follow the Bible or fit the definition of "Christian" in any way.

I have no problem with people preaching their own religion, whatever form it takes, but if the religion you preach doesn't seem to align at all with the one you're claiming to be preaching, you aren't what you say you are. "No true Scotsman" doesn't apply.

Sure, it's silly to say "No true Scotsman would wear parachute pants", because that doesn't follow at all. But to say "No true Scotsman would be an indigenous African who has no connection to Scotland (cultural or genetic), has never been there, doesn't speak the language, and doesn't even know Scotland exists" is pretty likely to be true, at least in the present. It's not a fallacy, but an observation.

Some people seem desperate to apply the "fallacy" label in this way, and it simply doesn't work.

No true rabbit is also a cat. No true airplane lacks wings or the potential to fly. And no true libertarian is for bigger, more intrusive government. Like it or not.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

The mean "uncle" was her only hope

Years ago, I had a young niece (by a short-lived marriage) who was never told “no”. She was about 3 to 4 years old at the time. 

One day, she saw me using my pocketknife, and she demanded it. I said she couldn’t have it. She started throwing a tantrum- as was her habit. 

I was immediately attacked by my wife and in-laws. I was scolded that I can’t let her see something and then not let her have it. 

I let it be known that’s not how I operate. 

I asked what was going to happen when she was older and saw a car she wanted. Was she going to think she was entitled to it and just take it? I said, "She’ll end up in prison or dead if you keep raising her this way".

My perfectly reasonable observation was not appreciated.

She was also much larger and stronger than other kids her own age, and because of how she was being raised, she would steal other kids' toys and snacks and bully them. She'd hit kids who didn't do what she wanted. She'd scream and scream at anyone who made her mad- and she was always mad! 

Then she'd cry because no one wanted to play with her. 

Adding to my reputation as the mean one, I would tell her that if she wanted kids to play with her, she would have to be nicer to them. Don't hit them, don't scream at them, and don't take their stuff. You might be shocked, but I got berated for that, too.

I sometimes wonder what happened to her. I fear I might have been her only hope at that point in her life, and I wasn't around very long.

I think of her when I see videos of entitled people committing crimes, and sometimes getting treated to a dose of self-defense. Raising a kid that way is not being kind to them. It's setting them up for failure- to be hurt or killed by an intended victim. Her family was working to doom her to that fate. I tried to plant some healthy seeds.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

It's all staged

Years ago, a friend of mine owned a video rental business. Remember those? It was a small operation in a tiny strip mall in the middle of nowhere, and was manned by one person: the owner. 

My friend, known by all as "Video Bob", eventually hired a mutual acquaintance to work there part-time. A couple of months later, the place got robbed, and the acquaintance, who was the one working at the time, was tied up, and the robbers got away with all the money in the register.

Only, things didn't quite add up. No one bought his story, which seemed more like the acquaintance was trying out versions of events to see which one people believed.

Our suspicion was that the robbery was staged, with the acquaintance in on it. As these things tend to do, the "official" investigation dragged on, and I moved away, so I don't know how things turned out.

But this made me think of how the state works. It's all staged.  The state causes a situation, plays the victim, lies about it, pursues its own bad "solution", and we are all robbed of our money, our privacy, and our future. 

Worse, the state investigates the situation and finds it did nothing wrong, then doubles down on the wrongdoing it was already engaged in.

It doesn't seem like anyone would still buy it, but most of them do. I think considering the implications is just too uncomfortable for most people.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Are statists getting dumber?

Recently, the quality of statist debate seems to have plummeted noticeably, while the quantity has increased a lot.

I'm not sure if statists are getting dumber, if the entire species is getting dumber, or if "the AlGorithm" is funneling the most pathetic examples in my direction. It does seem like something is going on, though.

I'm seeing it everywhere, on every topic: guns, war, taxes, politicians, "laws", cops, prohibition, and even mailboxes.

In the mailbox example, someone was trying to argue that something called "Just War Theory"* means you can't fortify your (frequently destroyed) mailbox because it might hurt the next vandal. That protecting your property is less important than respecting the well-being of the vandal.

No.

If someone chooses to vandalize private property, I really don't care if their actions cause them harm. Fortunately, that defender of vandalism was taken down by hordes of people taking the same position I take. This time.

It reminded me of an argument from years ago made by a (probably former) "libertarian" (probably a socialist now) who was arguing in favor of shoplifting because "who owns the box of mac and cheese?" The only relevant answer is "Not you, until you pay for it".

Advocating for theft, vandalism, disarming the people, and other acts of archation is what makes statism the most unethical ideology out there. It's a popular position, but they are getting worse at making their case. It seems like this should be good for liberty, but I don't see it paying off yet, which makes me think it may be our entire species in cognitive decline.

Time will tell. If statism is still as, or more, popular in a century or so, we'll have the definitive answer.

-

*"Just War Theory": "a moral and legal framework that balances the need to prevent unjust aggression with the ethical, restricted use of violence." So, rather than being about defense, it's mostly legalistic statist drivel to justify collective violence. Trying to apply it to the mailbox problem, where the only aggression (in the form of property damage) was coming from the vandal, was quite a stretch.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

If you're forced to pay, it's theft

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 22, 2026)

Taxation is theft. People are free to disagree because everyone is free to be wrong. You might debate what kind of theft it is; whether extortion, a ransom, or an armed robbery, but it's theft.

We used to know it...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Politics tend to produce stupid opinions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 18, 2026)

Everyone has opinions, usually on almost everything. Not all opinions are equally valid, though, and there are good reasons why this is true.

It doesn't bother me when people have opinions which differ from mine, as long as those opinions are based in reality and on facts. What bothers me is when people have different opinions based on superstition, lies, hallucinations, or some combination of all those.

People can look at the same facts and think some of those facts carry more weight than others, and this will cause them to form different opinions. I may disagree because I think other facts are the more important ones. Even when this is the case, I can at least understand why they've reached a different opinion. Opinions based on facts are valid, even when they differ.

People can also use different sets of facts, focusing on some and ignoring others. This doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, but some facts are less relevant than others. You can't debate the relative pros and cons of electric vehicles and petroleum-powered vehicles by pointing out how many of each are blue. Even if it's a fact, it's not relevant to the issue being discussed.

Once a debate becomes emotionally charged, this is the kind of fact people often try to use to prove their point and validate their opinions. I see it all the time when the rights of gun owners are being treated like second-class rights or privileges.

Often, people can't even agree on what the facts are. It seems like this would be easy to settle, but it isn't.

The worst opinions arise when people form their opinions based on things which simply aren't true and can be shown to be untrue. These don't even look like real opinions to me, but look like a display of confusion instead. The people with this sort of opinion are usually the ones most committed to their stance because facts won't sway them.

This is common in what passes for political opinions, especially on the internet. These are the people who are most likely to realize the argument isn't going their way, so they post an insult and block you before you can respond. They are more concerned with feeling right than being correct; with sticking to their opinion rather than with finding out what's true. This is why I am of the opinion that politics makes people stupid.

-

PS-
Coincidentally, this was posted the day after I submitted the above column:

link

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"I can't refute what you say, so I'll complain about the words you use!"

The other day, someone objected to my phrasing when I said cops (one in particular) are "dishonest yellow-bellied tail-tuckers". 

He couldn't refute the facts; he just didn't like the creative way I called them "lying cowards" (and he kept harping on the particular words I used) in a response to the post about the cop who shot a teenager in the back and killed him, then lied that the victim was "holding a gun" (it was a phone).

So, he compared me to Yosemite Sam.

In a follow-up comment, he tried taking a potshot at my "yellow flag" and said I was the real coward because I never "served my country" [sic].

Sometimes, I am heartened by the low quality of those who hate the things I say, but who, instead of trying to use reason, resort to assumptions and ad hominem. It's kind of awesome, actually.

People who will fight on behalf of a government are the same sort of people who can be brainwashed into flying airliners into buildings. Yeah, it's bravery, but a twisted, worthless sort of harmful bravery.

There are things that some people get very excited about that I find completely reprehensible. That gulf will never be bridged. But you can make a counterargument, or you can flail around looking silly. He chose the looking-silly path.

And, if a cop thinks the reasonable response to seeing an armed individual (or someone he is scared might be armed) is to murder him, the cop has no business being out in public. Exercising your natural human rights isn't a capital offense. Unless you encounter a cop who is a lying coward, apparently.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

More evil losers making news

An evil loser in Louisiana decided to murder his kids. Eight of them. 

The usual idiots are blaming "guns!"

Smarter people blame the evil loser who chose to murder 8 kids.

People who've been made stupid by politics are calling this a "mass shooting" so they can pad their anti-gun narrative with whatever they can find and twist to fit. Just like gang-on-gang killings.

A few decades ago, there was a guy in Arkansas who decided the Christmas holiday was the ideal time to kill his entire family. I don't remember ever hearing his horrible crime called a "mass shooting", even though this evil loser also used a gun in many of the murders. I guess people are getting dumber or more dishonest- or more political.

This is mere days after an outspoken anti-gun bigot shot and murdered his wife and then removed himself from the roster of the living. I'm no longer surprised when an anti-gun bigot does something like this. It's completely on-brand.

Yet, I'm seeing the usual idiots screaming to ban guns because of the acts of these recent evil losers. It's predictable, pathetic, and counterproductive. Not to mention, banning (and regulating) guns is a criminal act.

It's not the guns. It has never been the guns. It's the evil losers who decide to murder others. They use whatever tools are available. If the anti-gun bigots managed to get guns banned, and all the guns magically disappeared so evil losers had no access to them, the murders would continue. They might even increase since guns do more to protect the innocent than to empower bad guys who often have a lifetime's training in hurting people.

No one calling to ban or restrict guns is doing this for your benefit. They are your mortal enemy, functionally the same as an evil loser who is coming to shoot you and your children.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Government protects thieves- trash protects trash

Killing a thief caught in the act is not a "murder", regardless of whether you think it was justified or not. Maybe, depending on the situation, it was too much in your opinion, but not "murder". I'm not speaking "legally", but ethically. So be careful, because unethical governments (but I repeat myself) take the side of the bad guys and punish the good guys.

If you're a prosecutor who charges such a victim with murder or attempted murder for daring to try to protect his property, you're the bad guy. Maybe even worse than the thieves.

All you're doing is rewarding thieves and making it safer to be thieves. You're encouraging thieves and potential thieves to steal more. This is the opposite of what you ought to be doing. Your worthless "job" is to protect the life, liberty, and property of those who are where they have a right to be, doing what they have a right to do. Not the thieves.

If there are to be "laws" covering such things (there shouldn't be, but there are), they should be similar to the "law" that charges a bank robber with murder if one of his thieving associates dies during the robbery. If a thief is killed while committing theft, the fault is his and his associates'. No one is forcing any of them to be thieves. It's a choice, and choices have consequences. Too bad, so sad.

If I'm on the jury (Ha ha!) for a defender being charged with murder in such a case, he's either walking free, or there will be a hung jury. I will never v*te to convict someone for shooting a thief. Not even if I personally dislike the defender or believe he could have chosen to not defend his property as effectively as he did.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip? 

If not, that’s OK.

Learn from modern parables: lessons in fake "news" stories

You can get mad about the tsunami of fake stories, or you can use them as modern parables to illustrate truths.

The (probably fake) story of the 9-year-old girl who shot an intruder in the leg would have a happier ending if not for government.

We can pretend for a moment it's a real event. If not, there's still a lesson in it.

Someone took to the comments to complain about a 9-year-old being left home alone with access to a gun. But if not for the gun, she'd be a tragic statistic, unless the story also included magic. 

I was left home alone (with easy access to guns) every day as a young teen onward, with my younger sisters. I was lucky that I never needed to protect myself or my sisters from criminals, but if I had needed to, I could have had a fighting chance. 

As unfortunate as it may be, it is sometimes necessary to leave kids home alone. Largely, thanks to government destroying the economy and inflating away the money, but that's another lesson.

As I've said in the past, don't "childproof" your guns; train your kids. That's the best way to prevent tragedies, such as bad guys getting in and victimizing your family.

This parable shows the differences in how people think. Those who believe the solution lies in government ("get better judges", "lock up bad guys", "keep kids away from guns", "don't let parents leave kids home alone", etc.), and those who know personal responsibility is always a better path because government has no obligation to save you, and has no real interest in doing so anyway.

This is just one example. Nearly every fake story I've run across has lessons to teach and exposes how different people think. They are educational and illuminating.

Whether the story is real or not doesn't change the value of the lessons that can be learned from it. Change how you think of the fake stories. You might as well learn from whatever source is available, especially since they aren't likely to go away. Right?

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Be defiant

Beyond mere non-compliance, there is defiance. Defiance is more "in your face" than non-compliance, and is more dangerous, but you can be smart about it.

Practice non-compliance until you get comfortable dipping into defiance. 

Storming a government building only works if there's a big enough crowd, and they don't simply go home to be hunted down later. It's the same with refusing to be taxed, refusing to have illegal gun rules imposed on you, and rejecting all licenses and permits. There's safety in numbers. 

If you go first, you'll be a martyr- and "normal people" will hate you. The media will lie about you, and most people will believe the lies.

For some people, it's worth the sacrifice. You'll have to decide that for yourself. As long as you aren't archating, I will respect your defiance. If you are archating, you're really no different than the government you claim to be defying, so don't be that way.

There's a tipping point at which defiance is less dangerous because of the number of people participating. It's not here yet. Until then, you can at least work toward reaching that tipping point.

"Attend" TOLFA and practice its lessons. Even reading something like that could be seen as defiance, but it will also inspire you to live your liberty more fully, which is definitely defiant. And inspirational.

Get your kids out of govschool. Don't preach liberty at them, but let them see you live it. Make it the default. Cause a generational shift to counter the generational shift that the Statanic opposition is bringing.

Participate in the gray and (ethical) black markets as often as possible. It's good economic sense.

Don't respect those who haven't earned it. Don't speak of them respectfully, but let your contempt shine through. If you're speaking to them, use your judgment. 

Defy counterfeit "laws" when you think it's important. Accept that there may be consequences, and only do this if you are willing to risk them. It's best to do this in areas where you know the terrain- figuratively and literally.

I wish you the best in your defiance. Everyone who defies political criminals effectively empowers liberty just a little bit more. I need more of that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Be non-compliant

Our friend Jim Davies, in response to a blog post, asked what non-compliance achieves and about ways of exercising it that I would recommend.

He points out that non-compliance enhances self-esteem. It does that for sure! 

It's also good practice for being responsible for yourself in other areas. Don't wait for someone to tell you what to do. You're an adult; figure it out. You know how to run your life better than some bureaucrat does.

Non-compliance isn't safe. It carries risks, as do most important acts. Acknowledging and accepting worthwhile risks boosts maturity.

Refusing to comply is like a muscle that humans need to exercise. It's a habit to form, so that it gets easier to do.

I'm no expert on non-compliance. You can probably find ways that fit your life better than anything I could recommend. But I do have some ideas.

When there's not a cop watching you at this moment, get in the habit of ignoring arbitrary rules. This may be one of the safer ways to develop the habit.

I personally think it's an act of non-compliance to refuse to participate in political drama. Things like listening to speeches, or v*ting to rule your neighbors. 

Along those lines, stop pretending politicians are anything other than criminals who have dumb opinions.

If there's a "mandate", like those of the Covid drama, ignore it. Don't agree to be anyone's guinea pig unless it's something you want to do for your own reasons- not just because you are ordered to participate. If you know something isn't good for you, don't do it. 

Act dumb or procrastinate if that's what you need to do. Often, if you procrastinate long enough, the problem evaporates- like most of the aforementioned Covid mandates.

My dad, who is a statist, is also great at doing what he wants and acting like he didn't know he was supposed to do something else. Or acting like he didn't know he was supposed to ask permission and get a permit for some project. I approve. "Forgetting" often works better than getting in their face and saying, "We don' need no steenkin' permits."

Personally, I ignore the census. 

Respect is earned, and politicians and their henchmen haven't earned it. Do the minimum to keep from being murdered by them, but don't act as though they are respectable.

Read stuff that government wouldn't like you to read. Not all of it will be right or smart, but you can figure that out for yourself- and it won't be worse than the government-approved stuff.

Be a prepper. Stockpile.

Your circumstances will offer you opportunities I can't even think of. You'll have to decide what risks you are willing to take. Or, if some things are really even a risk at all. But, non-compliance is probably a good habit to start getting into, in your own way.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

The government never stops growing

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 15, 2026)

Why does government continually grow in size and in power? If you look at a roster of things it meddled with a century ago compared to today, you'll notice today's list is much longer and more comprehensive...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

We can't afford U.S. government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 11, 2026)

I can't afford the government I'm saddled with now; I certainly can't afford extra government. Military strikes on other countries always result in more government at home, at a higher cost.

The current foolishness in the Middle East has already caused local fuel prices to spike, which will drive up the price of everything else.

I warned people during the first round of Covid "stimulus" handouts that it would cause higher prices. I was right. Are you doing so well you can afford to pay even more for everything you buy, just so the US federal government can strut around, cosplaying as a police force for the whole world? I'm not, and I can't. I'll bet there are more people in my position than not.

If you've fallen for the propaganda, you're probably angry at me now. Take that as a sign you need to engage in some quiet self-reflection.

The US government really wants you to believe Iran, or the next designated enemy, is the greatest threat to you and me, but it isn't. If they hated us for our freedom, they would be our best buddies now. The US government has been doing their job for them.

The US government, with its state and local affiliates, is a much greater threat to your life, liberty, and property than any foreign power in the past century. This includes the old Soviet Union. Which one takes a large percentage of your money before you even see it? Which one then takes more of your money every time you buy something, or demands it in ransom so you're allowed to keep what you already own? Which one makes and enforces arbitrary rules about the way you're allowed to live?

I'll give you a hint: it's not Iran's evil government.

Right now, I'm not extorted to prop up an Iranian government, but if the US government wins this fight, I will be. Just as we are robbed to fund other former enemies and historical allies. It's an unsustainable and criminal system.

If you want a government which goes around the world, intervening in everyone's business, making enemies who are willing to travel here to hurt Americans because of the meddlesome US government, and dictating how you live, then you pay for it without anyone else's help. I don't want it, I can't afford it, and I haven't been brainwashed enough to tolerate it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Robocops are frauds

I oppose archation.

Therefore, I oppose government.
Therefore, I oppose legislation (counterfeit “law”).
Therefore, I oppose the existence of "law enforcement" (police).
Therefore, I oppose traffic police.

If traffic cops are to exist anyway, even though they shouldn't, then they must not be allowed to make contact with anyone who cannot be clearly seen with the naked eye, driving dangerously. 

If the "offense" relies on technology such as radar, traffic cameras, or a breathalyzer to detect, it's not real. It's certainly not worth robbing or killing people over.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Governments only differ in unimportant ways

It's somewhat simple-minded to distinguish between various flavors of government. All of them are the same in all the ways that really matter- some are just worse than others.

All governments violate natural human rights and therefore forfeit their privilege to exist.

All governments are communist.
All are fascist.
All are authoritarian tyrannies. 
All governments are criminal operations.

Including the one you believe in.

The only distinguishing factor is how much power they each have.

The more powerful they are, the more they violate rights.
The more criminality they can get away with.
The more important it is to eradicate them from the fabric of the Universe.

A "limited government" would be the same, but would have a bit less power until it escaped its limits. Which it would. Government can not be limited. It will not allow us mere peasants, pointing to founding documents, to limit it. It knows what's best for us. And it means to govern us with whatever cruelty it takes to make us understand this.

Walk away. Stop complying. And then, when it insists we aren't "allowed" to do that, bring out the torches, pitchforks, and tar and feathers. Liberty is ours to claim... or reclaim. No government can change that fact.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Erupting with anticipation

I've had a rough couple of days. Well, really, the past couple of months have been a massively stressful mess. So, here's something happy. (Well, something that makes me happy, anyway.)

Uberti, the Italian reproduction gunmaker, is going to start making and selling a replica of the Volcanic pistol!

I've wanted one of these guns for decades- ever since I first saw one in a book on guns of the Old West. 

Malcolm Reynolds' pistol in Firefly (and the one in Serenity) reminded me of the Volcanic in some ways, and that made me want one even more. (Until someone starts making a working model of that gun.)

No one made Volcanic replicas (that I could find), and the originals were a wee bit out of my price range.

So, when I stumbled across a video announcing that Uberti will start selling a replica Volcanic "next year", I knew this was something I was going to start trying to save up for. I've seen speculation on the price, but I won't pay attention to that until it's actually offered for sale.

At least I have time to save up for it, since it's not for sale yet, and many times gun companies' time estimates are a little overly optimistic. So, maybe in the next few years, as long as everything goes well.

I'm assuming the internals will be improved over the originals- the video may have hinted at that. It will also be chambered for modern .380 ACP ammo, rather than "rocket ball" ammo, which is a good thing. 

I am determined to get one of these. I've never decided to get a specific gun before it even came on the market. Until now. I also know that getting an early production model means more potential problems. I don't even care.

Now the question will be, 6" or 8" barrel? And will it fit the Malcolm Reynolds belt holster I got as a gift several years ago?

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Government's dictionary

Government constantly tries to co-opt liberty words

Words such as "marketplace", "rights". and even the word "liberty" itself!

Orwell predicted it. Or noticed it, since government has probably always done this.

If government can confuse you about what words mean and cause you to think they might mean the opposite of what they've meant before, then government can prevent you from thinking clearly. It can make some concepts literally unthinkable.

ObamaCare is the opposite of a health care "marketplace", even if that's the word they use to label it.

Rights are the opposite of privileges, even though government wants you to believe you only have the right to do what they approve of- which is what a privilege is.

And liberty does not mean "temporarily, with permission", like government uses the word in a military context.

Dishonest and deceptive to the core!

Do what you want and use words however you prefer, but if you buy- and use- the government definitions, you're not helping people understand liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

RIP Butterscotch

Butterscotch “Butters”

7-22-2012 to 4-9-2026

You were a good cat. I love you.

Not a perfect system...

This illustration could be my parents talking to me. We actually had this conversation- although it was decades ago. Most likely while I was in high school; before I'd heard of libertarians and when I probably thought anarchists were bushy-mustached bomb throwers.

But, that assumption about the system is wrong. Anyone who thinks this way is wrong. It’s the best system they can imagine or are willing to consider; not the best there is or could be. Not even close.

They are far from being alone in this belief. The vast majority of humans, regardless of the specific system they find themselves yoked with, share this delusion.

Only govschooling or some other intensive cult indoctrination could brainwash people to this point. 

Again, as happens so often, I wonder how I dodged that bullet.. or if I'd be better off believing the lies with the rest of them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Trust marketplace, not the government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 8, 2026)

I trust the market more than I trust government. It's easy since I don't trust government at all...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Full liberty makes our lives better

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 4, 2026)

My life is better when your liberty is fully respected. So I want you to live in liberty to its fullest.

Liberty is the freedom to do all you have a right to do; everything which doesn't violate someone else's life, liberty, or property. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility.

Thomas Jefferson observed, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." He went on to say, "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

None of these definitions includes the military's perverse use of the word "liberty" to mean "restricted action with permission and an expiration date". Those who crave control often employ this Orwellian tactic of using a word to mean its opposite.

I don't fear your liberty. Since liberty is the freedom to do everything you have a right to do, and nothing you have a right to do can violate me (or anyone else), I want you to exercise your rightful liberty every day of your life, all the time, without the fear of legislation enforcers and freelance creeps trying to stop or punish you. Then, I want the same for myself.

I wish more people felt as I do. The world would be a better place if that were the case.

If you are free to exercise your liberty, you'll probably be happier. You'll definitely be more mature and responsible. If not at first, soon. You'll learn. People can't learn to be responsible while being treated like children under the fist of an abusive parent.

If I were one of those people who wants to control others, who believes in the imaginary right to govern, I would feel differently. I could lie and say it's for your own good, for safety, or "for the children", but it would really be for my own ego or fear. I might not want you doing things you have a right to do, but which I wouldn't choose to do myself. Things which annoy me. I might believe it's OK to use government violence to stop you. It's not.

There's no legitimate excuse to obstruct another's liberty.

Liberty is your birthright as a human being. Embrace it and live it to make a better life for us all.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Maybe I can help

For those who think they've won some debate by saying "America is a continent!", maybe I can help.

America is a country- I would prefer the term "region", but it is what it is. America is the land and the people of that specific region. Once, it was also a culture; for some, it still may be. Few understand the foundation of that culture anymore, but imagine it was something cheaper that they prefer.

North America is a continent; a land mass- just like South America and Australia are different continents. America is located on the continent of North America, along with Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, and several others.

The US (or "USA") is a government, a criminal organization infesting the country of America on the continent of North America. The US is the greatest enemy America has ever faced. It is opposed to everything America once stood for. Either you love America, or you support the US; trying to straddle that fence is impossible.

Govschool and other schools modeled after govschgool are the reason most people are unable to understand distinctions such as these.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

A signal, but of what?

Most virtue signaling involves signaling values that don't seem virtuous at all.

So, to me, most virtue signaling is counterproductive. It accomplishes the opposite of what was intended. 

But, I'm thinking this may be because if it's something I agree with, I don't consider it "virtue signaling", but just being a decent person. I assume those I disagree with see their side the same way.

Humans are weird, and politics makes people stupid.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Occasionally, bad cops do the right thing

I’m not always against cops.

If a cop is doing something that everyone everywhere has a natural human right to do, then I have no grounds for opposing them.

When I oppose them, it’s because they are doing something no one has the right to do, and they imagine the uniform and badge create the "right" out of thin air, just for them.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of things cops do, as part of the “job”, are in the second category. That’s when, if I’m to have worthwhile principles, I must oppose them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Out with one crook, in with another?

I'm glad the disgusting anti-gun bigot Pam Bondi lost her "job" as the Top Crooked Lawyer in America, but I don't trust Trump (or any other political criminal) to pick a better person for that position.

Having principles is incompatible with an elite government "job" (maybe with any government "job"). A commitment to stop violating the natural human right to be armed at all times requires strong principles that don't bend to pressure from the crooked cowards who make and enforce rules. They are a powerful pressure group.

Wanna bet the next TCLA will be even worse?

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Vicious cycle of Statism

I don't get pleasure seeing someone on the side of the road being subjected to an armed robbery by a cop.

It brings me no joy to hear of an entrepreneur being taxed.

It doesn't make me happy to know of someone being arrested or imprisoned for violating some counterfeit "law".

I dislike seeing anyone being governed. Even if I think they deserve it for advocating for others to be governed or violating others in some other way. There are better ways of dealing with any problem.

Until more people feel as I do, it will be impossible to throw off the yoke of political government. It's a "Do unto others because it is done unto me" situation, which gets us nowhere worth going.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Fish don't need bicycles, or government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 1, 2026)

I don’t like things which are bothersome, unnecessary, and intrusive. It's even worse when those same things are harmful and are forced into our lives.

Like government is...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Don't trade liberty for dystopian world

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 25, 2026)

It feels like the world, and America specifically, is becoming an authoritarian dystopia. More rules, harsher punishment, more surveillance; all leading to less liberty.

What disturbs me the most is how many people seem to think this is fine. Or actively demand it because they fear or hate other people or what other people might do. Government is always willing to violate your rights and will oblige when asked to do so.

Too many people will trade liberty for a false promise of safety- a hope for something government power can never provide.

As long as they believe "other people" are getting it worse than they are, they're fine with the police state being built around them. They seem genuinely shocked when it is inevitably used against them and their rights.

Enforcers- police- act as though they have rights above and beyond those possessed by "ordinary people". Their delusion is reinforced by a lack of accountability. This is how you know America is a police state, not a free country.

Those who are politically connected and powerful regularly commit the most awful crimes with no consequences, while people the state considers expendable are killed by enforcers for not obeying conflicting orders fast enough. In the unlikely event consequences do come for the "elite", it's too little, too late, and a slap on the wrist compared to what would happen if you or I were in the same situation.

So, little by little, the dystopia grows. The police state gets worse. People who wish to be ruled deny it's a police state, but this doesn't change the facts.

Although libertarians are frequently accused of being utopian, we are the most grounded realists there are. We don't believe human nature permits some to rule over others. We realize that only the worst people are drawn down that path. I don't believe respecting liberty will result in Utopia, but it will make dystopia more difficult to maintain.

Most Utopias seem nightmarish to me, anyway. Pro-government people want to be protected, taken care of, and entertained. I want the liberty to do these things for myself, in ways that fit my values best. If your Utopia is someone else's authoritarian dystopia and violates anyone's rights in any way, you have no right to impose it on them. Not even if you're scared.

Utopia isn't an option; I wouldn't want it if it were. But I don't need your "safe" dystopia.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Disguised Evil

Evil hides in plain sight. It wears a disguise and rarely looks like you'd expect evil to look.

The greatest evil often looks a lot less like Voldemort and more like Dolores Umbridge. It’s bureaucratic, legalistic, "common sense", and smiles a sickly sweet smile at you as it gleefully plots your destruction.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.