Liberty not subject to majority rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2026)

My experience, gained from years of talking with many people, suggests that when most people talk about freedom, they mean "the freedom to do as I please, and the freedom to prevent others from doing the same".

That’s one way to express your freedom, but it's not good enough for me.

It’s why I prefer to talk about liberty- freedom tempered with the responsibility to not violate others' equal and identical rights. It's how liberty works, and it's awesome!

The problem some people have is that those rights include things they wouldn't choose to do, and would prefer others didn't choose to do, either. This doesn't change the fact they have a right to do those things. No legislation or rule can change this reality. Your natural human rights aren't subject to majority opinion or political edict, even if you've been trained to believe otherwise.

We are all free to make mistakes; we don't have the right to violate others to prevent them from doing something we believe would be a mistake. Or something we find offensive.

In exercising their liberty, some people will do things which offend you. Many people want you to believe if they've been offended, they've been violated somehow. They haven't. Being offended isn't the same as having your life, liberty, or property violated, even though weak people who want to control others often use this ploy. Don't play along.

If I try to stop others from doing what they have a right to do because I don't like their choices, how can I complain when they do the same to me? I would be a hypocrite of the worst sort. No matter what you do, someone is going to be offended by it. Guaranteed.

The majority of people don’t like this constraint of respecting others' rights. They want to be reassured that they have the imaginary right to control others. Telling them they have no such right angers them. It’s probably why they continue to vote for politicians who encourage them to deny their responsibility and who feed their lust for control.

Be big enough to support liberty. Do as you please, as long as you aren't harming others, and let them have the same freedom. Don't seek to violate their rights just because the system currently allows it. Any system which allows rights to be violated is wrong. Once upon a time, the system allowed slavery, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Liberty is fun

Liberty should be fun. Liberty is fun!

My BBQ Gun post is a reminder of that. A reminder to have fun. It appears a few of you also thought it was fun.

If liberty were as miserable as statism, what would be the point? Statism is easier than liberty, so why make the effort if there's no benefit? If liberty doesn't make you happy?

"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having." - V

"Fun" is subjective. Most things I find fun don't seem to resonate with many people, and things others think are fun are often things I can't see myself making it through for more than a few minutes before I'm itching to escape. 

A few times, though, I've managed to survive situations long enough that I actually started having fun at things I never imagined I would enjoy. An art show populated by faeries and nights at karaoke are a couple of examples I can think of right off the top of my head. You never know until you try. Embrace discomfort and see what happens.

If your fun isn't something I'm interested in, that's my problem, not yours. You go have fun. You're always invited to join my fun if you're interested.

You'll regret the things you didn't do more than the things you did- or so I've been told. Take the chance and have fun with it.

I'm all for people doing what they enjoy, as long as they don't enjoy controlling or violating others. If they do, I hope they encounter someone whose idea of fun is watering the tree of liberty. It's best if it never gets to that point, but that line in the sand is important to keep clear.

It's easy to get discouraged by all the statism and Statanism surrounding us. Don't give them a win they didn't earn. Carve out your own fun. Have fun in spite of them. Have fun, in their faces, to spite them. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

BBQ Guns

I occasionally see videos where the topic is "BBQ Guns"- a gun you would wear, openly, to a gun-owner-friendly BBQ where that was the dress code- or even kind of the whole point.

I want to go to a BBQ like that! I've never been to one, but it sounds like a lot of fun. 

Anyway, the point is that you wear a really nice, or at least unusual/interesting, gun to show off a little.

I don't have any highly polished, gold-plated guns. I tend to find those boring, even if they look nice. But I do have a couple of ideas of what I'd wear in such a case.

My DL-15, shown above, is probably my top choice. It might not be anyone else's idea of a BBQ gun, but I really like it. And, judging by the reactions I get at the shooting range, it's interesting and unusual.

If I had to choose a backup, or if the invitation demanded a BBQ revolver, I'd wear my "Man With No Name" 1851 Navy.

If you were to pick a BBQ gun for yourself- either from your collection or from your want list- what would you choose?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Fear and aggression

Fearful people (and animals) are unpredictable and dangerous. They are prone to aggression. That's part of what makes statism so dangerous.

You can pretend there's no problem, but that doesn't change it.

You can try to protect the feelings of the fearful by avoiding the issue. Their dangerous fear is still there. Quiet, behind the curtains, influencing their every move.

You can try to calm their fears, but fearful people aren't likely to be rational enough to listen or watch. Even when the truth is a lot less frightening than what they imagine. Everything they experience is filtered through the lens of fear. They see and hear only what they want to see and hear.

They'll often want you to lie to protect their feelings and make them less afraid. They'll still sense you're lying, so don't bother.

You can try to show them how to handle what they fear- or just be an example. Teach them how to handle situations that they've been afraid of, if they are open to learning. This works on a few.

If you give in to your fear of what dangerous people might do, you're in danger of becoming afraid enough that you advocate for the same sort of things they are advocating for, to "protect" you from them. You've seen it happen in politics.

It's a twisted cycle. Don't participate.

Be dangerous only in that you will defend yourself when they force you to do so. Not by using the aggressive methods of statism and calling it "defense".

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

I don't trust these experts either

Every time Bitcoin starts tumbling and the “experts” go back to predicting its demise, I graciously offer a Bitcoin Disposal Service, so that they can anonymously rid themselves of the doomed crypto.

Funny thing is that no one ever takes advantage of the offer.

That tells me that either they don’t believe what they say, or they don’t have any Bitcoin anyway, so why would I listen to them reassuring themselves they didn't miss the boat? 

It’s kind of funny.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Curing Statism?

So, if fear is the foundation of statism, how can that be addressed?

How can you make people less afraid of being ungoverned? Less afraid of liberty?

How can you cure someone's irrational fears?

You can't reason most of them out of their fear. They won't listen and can't hear- their fear keeps them sheltered. If they do hear you, they'll assume you are lying. After all, that's what they do to advocate for their side; they project their own flaws on you.

Maybe you can show them. Exposure therapy. Demonstrate that you don't need to be governed. That people can cooperate and coordinate without being forced.
But showing them anything that goes against their biases is hard because statism acts like blinders, and liberty isn't generally in-your-face. And if it is, it scares them.

Neither of those paths address the root fears.

Summing up all their fears, they seem genuinely afraid of liberty and of what others might do with it. They won't understand that there's no such thing as "too much liberty" when even a little liberty in the hands of the other guy scares the pants off them.

Statism is liberphobia, where "-phobia" really does mean "an irrational fear", not just a strong dislike, as so many tend to misuse it today. (A related clinical term is eleutherophobia, but that clumsy word refers to a fear of freedom, and I prefer to talk of liberty.)

How can I fix it? Why fix it? I don't know about you, but I'm tired of them being a threat to my liberty. To your liberty! But is it even possible to fix something someone doesn't want fixed; that they would deny needs fixing?

Statists didn't become statists through thought and reason; thought and reason may not be the way to cure them. But, how to reach their feelings? Can feelings only be reached through irrationality? How would that work? Lowest common denominator media? Habituation? 

If I were inclined to use their own unethical methods against them (and pretend they planned a method), I would suggest weaponizing fear to turn the tables and make them more afraid of government than of liberty. No, that wouldn't be right, but it might happen anyway, and if that happens, it will be government doing it. 

About the only thing I can see working in the short term, until enough people get smarter, is to live parallel to them, defending yourself and others from them when you have to. And, of course, that will probably only make them more afraid. That is the opposite of my goal.

It's a conundrum.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Statism is terrorism

If my conjecture is correct, and fear is the foundation of all statism, then statism is terrorism.

Terrorism is defined by Dictionary.com as:

• the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
• a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government.
• intimidation or coercion by instilling fear.

Leaving out the arbitrary distinction of "unlawful" and the irrelevant definition ("the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism"), it fits.

Statism uses and promotes violence, specifically aggression; initiated force. 

Its followers want to violently impose a State on people, if those people don't consent, and they will take advantage of largely irrational fears to make them believe it is necessary. This is intimidation to further its objectives. It is how they coerce the people to go along. By scaring them and threatening them with harsh consequences if they don't cooperate. Manipulation is coercion.

All government uses aggression and threats of aggression to keep the population in line. If it didn't, but was by unanimous consent, it wouldn't qualify as anything you'd call "government".

Statism is terrorism.

Do not be afraid. If you can't be terrified, you are immune to statism. It has no power over you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The 'rich' aren't the problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 3, 2026)

There's a lot of hostility toward "the rich". Especially billionaires. The hostility is misplaced.

The real divide is not "the rich" versus "everyone else". It is those who seek to rule, versus everyone they seek to rule...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

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”.  

When the Left rules, they’ll tax you into the ground to fund their pet projects, regulate your speech, your guns, your business, your very thoughts, and call it compassion.

When the Right has a turn, they’ll ramp up the surveillance, the wars, and the “law and order” boot on your neck, all while waving a flag and quoting scripture.

Same result: your money, your time, your choices- stolen by someone with power. Only the propaganda differs.

I can’t even blame one side more than the other. Both cults worship the State. Both believe they have the right to point guns at peaceful people in the name of governance. Both cheer when their team wins and will suddenly discover “tyranny” the moment the other team takes the reins. It’s the same disgusting ideology wearing different colors.  

Which is the greater threat right now? Both.

When Democrats are at the wheel, their brand of authoritarianism- green mandates, speech codes, endless redistribution- does the damage.

When Republicans seize it, their version- endless spending on “defense”, border theater to expand the police state, moral crusades backed by badges- takes its turn.

Americans keep losing.

I lost income during the pandemic because politicians of both teams proved they could shut down the economy on a whim, and most folks would comply and thank them. That lesson wasn’t lost on either side. They now know exactly how far they can push before people resist.  

The binary is a trap. It keeps libertarians, the actual liberty-lovers, arguing over which master is preferable instead of rejecting all masters. Left and Right are not opposites; they’re both whistling the tune of “we own you” in different keys.

I love people. I also know humans are flawed. Which is exactly why no one should ever be handed the power to rule the rest of us. There is no "right to govern". Until enough people wake up and stop cheering for their favorite brand of authoritarianism, we’ll keep trading one set of thieves and slavers for another.

The only sane position is to despise both teams equally and demand they keep their filthy hands off our lives, our property, and our liberty. Stop volunteering to be enslaved by "your team".

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Fear

I'm more and more convinced that fear is the foundation of statism. Not evil intentions, not ignorance, not greed. Fear.

I asked the question, "What justifies government?", and got a lot of input from Statists. I did my best to ask the question in a non-biased way, and even to ask unbiased (as possible) follow-up questions of those who answered flippantly. It’s hard because I’m obviously biased for liberty, and after I had the answers I sought, I let my bias shine.

A pattern emerged in those answers. 

Fear is the most common excuse I see used to justify government. It's what every justification I've encountered distills down to, even when they try to frame it otherwise. They are scared and feel safer under government.

Don't want the government taking its "laws" off of machine guns, even though you acknowledge all such rules are illegal under the Second Amendment, because you're afraid of criminals having machine guns? That's advocating statism because of fear. (The most dangerous criminals already have machine guns if they want them, and always will.)

Justify "borders" because you're scared of what migrants do or might do? That's advocating statism because of fear.

Over and over again, I watch the same thing.

Maybe you're afraid that poor people would die without government help. There it is: fear. 

Maybe you're afraid children would remain ignorant without govschooling.
Maybe you're scared that without government, children would be exploited, violated, and killed.
Maybe you're afraid the natural environment would be wiped out without government making up rules protecting it.
Maybe you're afraid that corporations- a government creation- would take over the world without government stopping them.
Maybe you're afraid criminals would run rampant without "laws", police, and a "justice system".
Maybe you're afraid people would drive dangerously without government traffic enforcement.
Maybe you're afraid there would be no roads to drive on at all; all we'd have are cow paths and potholes.
Maybe you're scared your culture will be eradicated without government propping it up in some way.
Maybe you're afraid radio signals would overlap, and the airwaves would be nothing but unintelligible gibberish without government allocating frequencies.
Maybe you're scared of drugs, and think that without prohibition, people would die of overdoses and contaminated drugs.
Maybe you're scared of being invaded and having foreign rulers replace the rulers you've grown accustomed to.
Maybe you're scared of having to figure out what time to set your clock to without government guidance.

I could go on like this forever. This doesn't begin to cover the answers I got, but there's a common root.

It's all fear, and it's all misplaced and misguided, since the worst-case scenario is almost guaranteed to happen, not prevented but actually facilitated by the entity statists look to for protection. 

And, if you address the fear, questioning the justification for government, you'll experience their anger.

Everyone feels fear. Not everyone gives in to it and sacrifices the world to their fears. Statists do.

Giving in to fear is cowardice. Even if it just means excusing government's existence.

Do not be afraid. It’s one of the most common messages in religions (even Statism).
You don’t need government. Fear makes you believe you do. Fear not. And reject that which is justified by fears.

-

Related: Statism is terrorism
        And Curing Statism?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The Statist "solution"

The foundational statist lie is that if you don't want government involved in everyone's life, you "don't care" about them.

One such example from one of statism's brightest:
"The libertarian solutions (all of them) come down to a simple one-liner, 'Just let the poor people die.'"

As opposed to the statist solutions (all of them), which come down to, "People are government's property; kill them if they resist".

Yeah, that's so much more caring. Right? LOL

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Repeating the repeats

If you've been reading my blog for a long time- or even just living in the world- you have probably noticed that the same things have to be explained over and over again. Once is never enough. People don't get any smarter.

When I was writing yesterday's blog post, I was thinking of how many times I have already explained that same thing. I'm not sure exactly, but it is probably several. But, people "out there" aren't getting it. 

That's not the only example, either. Nearly every post I write, dealing with some simple reality that shouldn't be hard to understand, is a re-statement of things I (or others) have said before, addressing bad thinking that has taken root and is still there despite all attempts to uproot it.

I know that almost no one "out there" in the world, percentage-wise, has been exposed to my blog, but I also know that if I can see and know something like that, many others do as well. I don't claim to be the only individual who can see these things. The opportunities are all around. Freely available.

I also know that when people say something dumb and demonstrably wrong, they often get pushback. I see it happen. They resist learning, though.

So, we repeat ourselves. Endlessly. And each time, it's as though no one has ever addressed the broken thinking before. Are these concepts not being explained well? Or have those who refuse to learn built defenses to protect their strange (often, political) beliefs, which results in the same result.

So, if you start reading this blog, or something else, and you get a feeling of deja vu, it's probably that you really have read something very similar before. We have to keep repeating ourselves for the slow kids in the back.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Born with it, or choosing a path

It's very strange and sad- to me- how few people can see the difference between the statements "Those [of that 'race'] are bad people" and "People who [commit this act] are bad people".

Why is that? 

In the first case, it's a collectivist blanket statement of people who have nothing relevant in common. They are being grouped by superficial criteria. You can't look at anyone in this category and know anything important about who they are as an individual. Part of that is because, although there are cultural differences that can correlate with "races", people aren't doomed to a particular culture just because others who look like them are part of that culture.

In the second case, people are choosing to act a certain way; to self-categorize themselves by how they behave. This is 100% a choice, and has nothing to do with traits that are inborn and unchangeable. You can know important things about them by noticing which group they chose to belong to; what they are willing to do to others in exchange for a paycheck. This is a culture that self-selects for membership, and if you don't fall in line with the behavior of this culture, you won't truly belong and will be kicked out and punished.

Yet, the people in the second category will tell you that seeing all of those who choose to belong to a group based on behavior is "like racism".  That if you condemn them for choosing to be on this path, you're like a racist

That is useful to those who choose to do bad things.

I think you can see the reasons this false narrative is pushed. Why an inability to see the difference in the statements is encouraged by the supporters of the bad guys.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate. 

They'll do what's "best" for you, even if it kills you

They believe they know what's best for you, and they intend to impose it on you. Consent is irrelevant to them. That makes them archators.

Whether it's intentionally spreading a disease that makes people allergic to red meat, trying to criminalize self-defense, collecting all our data to use against us, or filling the streets with their weaponized drones, it's for "the common good".

And, yet, they'll lie and claim that those of us who don't want any of this garbage are imposing our wishes on others. On them. Oh, the poor babies!

No, this goes only one way.

Telling the control fetishists to leave us alone isn't us imposing our will on them. It's drawing a boundary and telling them we expect it to be respected. They can do whatever they want to each other, just leave us out of it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The Script

I've discovered that when responding to statists online, they follow a few rather rigid scripts. It could also be thought of as executing a program, but to think of it as a script seems more human.

This is one of the most common scripts:

Ignore the mountain of evidence all around.
Demand evidence.
Receive evidence.
Say "I'm not reading all that!"
Demand more specific evidence.
Receive more specific evidence.
Say, "That's an isolated case."
Demand different evidence.
Repeat.

Once they start following The Script, they've shown they are immune to reason and can be ignored. It's a waste of time to try to reason with them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

I have an unplanned vet visit coming up this afternoon.

Political winners: Those who don't participate

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 27, 2026)

Every time there's an election- a religious ritual for those who believe in the imaginary authority of the state- the cheers and tears begin as soon as the votes are tallied. The reaction depends on whether the individual voter ends up on the winning or losing side. Either outcome means the state has won at the expense of liberty...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

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. The story of Robin Hood has morphed into a socialist fairy tale of someone who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", but originally, he was a hero who recovered stolen property from tax collectors and returned it to their victims. Government and other socialists don't want this story told, for obvious reasons.

If you are taking someone's property- their money- under threat, when they'd rather keep it to use as they see fit, you are a thief. No document or political criminal's opinion makes it something it isn't. No bureaucrat can change an unethical act into something right and good. No matter what the money ends up being used for.

I don't want any money going to fund government agencies, programs, or projects. If something can't be funded without stealing money through taxation to pay for it, it needs to go away.

Yes, that too.

However, if you are forced to pay for something anyway, you have every right to use it with the others who are also forced to pay.

If the local mafia uses your stolen money to dig a well, posting armed guards to prevent you from getting water at the creek, you aren't wrong to get water from the well. Until you can remove the mafia.

Roads are another example.

Driving is a right, not a privilege like government tries to brainwash the population into believing. That argument simply doesn't hold up to critical thinking. Licenses are another tax; more theft.

Do you really believe Benjamin Franklin would have complied with any absurd rule to register his horse or buggy with the state and get a license to travel on a road his stolen money built and maintained? I don't think so, and I suspect he would have supported hanging anyone who tried to impose or enforce such a rule.

These are examples of the authoritarian government most people have been trained to accept. One tick at a time, we are being robbed and enslaved.

Taxation is theft; you can reason it out in your mind, and you know it in your bones. Don't get complacent about it or let anyone claim otherwise without being corrected.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Looking at the problem backwards

It's not that "Democrat run cities" are "soft on crime"; it's that they are hard on defense of life, liberty, and property. Really, just about all cities, states, and countries are. It's a universal feature of government. It's that whole "monopoly of violence" scam.

I saw another story recently where someone focused on the wrong thing. Again. As always.

“A man in New York City walks into a bakery with a large bag and cleans out the entire display case. The same witness ran into him half an hour earlier at Home Depot where he was stealing there too. Two stores. One morning. One bag. Zero consequences. This is what happens when you decriminalize theft in a Democrat run city.”

No.

This is what happens when you criminalize defense and the proper tools with which to carry it out.

It’s not a case of too little “law”, but of too much, and aimed at the wrong people.

Government coddles criminals because government is made up of criminals. It’s professional courtesy.

It's your right to defend your property, or any property with which you've been entrusted. Or anyone else's property you witness being violated. Government "laws" violate this right in favor of criminals. 

It's not kindness or compassion. It's slavery. You are being enslaved by a coalition of freelance criminals, governing criminals, and their hired goons.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate, 

In Memoriam

I'm using this day to remember all who died- or were otherwise destroyed- fighting for liberty and against governments. 

Not those who died as pawns of a government.
Not those who gave their lives to further the interests of political criminals in a government military.
Even knowing that many of those imagined, because of statist brainwashing, that they were doing the right thing.

But rather those who stood up for liberty and human rights, doing what they had the right to do, acting only in defense, and were killed or destroyed by the criminals of the State as a result.

The State will label them "criminals", grouping them with freelance archators, and Statanists will nod along with this lie. But these are the true heroes of the human story. 

For Liberty!

-

This is blog post #8000!

 Thank you for reading.
Support this blog, 

Isn't that... Special

If everyone is special, no one is special.

Well, sort of.

Every individual has equal and identical rights. That's special enough. 

No one has "special" extra rights. And that's great. The world doesn't work if some have special rights above and beyond those everyone else has.

This is what stinks with the Leftist w0ke mindset. It's also what's wrong with Rightist copsuckers. 

They both want to pretend some people have extra rights; that they are special. The fact that no one has the right to archate isn't good enough for them, because it doesn't put the objects of their worship on a pedestal.

That's how you know they're wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
Bribes and kickbacks? 

If not, that’s OK.

"But the law says..."

Those who believe government and its laws keep them safe are the same sort of people who believe a car can’t crash into them at an intersection because they have the right of way. 

Because the law says so.

So they'll act on that belief even if they see that the other person isn't going to stop.

They'll believe that they don't need to take responsibility for themselves because that's what cops are for. Plus, government really doesn't like it if you prove you don't need their "help".

These are the type of people who are likely to claim they have a right to do something but are reluctant to act on it.
They are also those who imagine they have a "right" to your labor and property.

Smarter people know "laws" don't alter reality.

-

Thank you for reading.
Surprise me, 

Choose your own adventure

I saw someone saying that if you think things are bad now, just wait. They’re going to get worse. Much worse.

Maybe. Probably.

The smart way to approach it is to make it an adventure. You don't want "boring", do you? 

Well, the political criminals and other archators running things are working to make sure you live in "interesting times". They're working as hard as they can to impose a police state of surveillance and control, while at the same time letting their freelance soulmates run amok and violate you from the other side. It's a team effort, and you're designated to be the pawn.

You might as well find ways to enjoy it while it lasts.

It's not as though you have the option to avoid it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Money for preps? 

If not, that’s OK.

A specialized generalist?

 

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? It depends. 

I'd prefer brain surgeons to be specialists, but for most people, I think it's better to be a generalist. I can even see how it could be bad for a brain surgeon to be too specialized- to the point he misses something that would be obvious to someone else. If your only tool is a hammer, you'll see every problem as a nail. 

I usually prefer to keep my options open by not doing anything that traps me into one course. This blog was birthed by me breaking my own rule. I have paid a price for that, but not an insurmountable price. It is an educational realization.

However, keeping your options open can also backfire. My aversion to focusing too deeply on any one thing prevented me from getting a college degree. I could never declare a major because it felt like a trap. When I get interested in something, I focus on it until I know it well enough to satisfy me, then I'm ready to move on to something else. (I recommend you not do what I have done.)

Probably the best course is to focus deeply on one area that others find useful, then dabble a little in everything else that interests you. That seems like it would work even for brain surgeons. It might make you a well-rounded individual who also has the expertise in one area to support you through life.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Beware The Blob – its mission is creepy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 20, 2026)

If you give government an inch, it will take a mile. Or, in most countries, 1.60934 kilometers. Some people refer to this as "mission creep"- government's tendency to keep moving the goal posts and grabbing more power over more things; things government has no business having any involvement with...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

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.

Government is never satisfied; it never has enough control. It won't give up control or take "no" for a final answer. If it loses in court (which it controls), it acts as though it didn't. Often, it doubles down on its illegal activities. This is because there are no immediate, painful consequences for its defiant criminality.

It lies, and many people still believe it.

"This new tax will only apply to billionaires"- until it doesn't. Then it will apply to you. "It's only a 3% tax"- until they increase it. Now they are even plotting to tax money you didn't make, but could have made if you'd sold something you didn't sell. They call it an "unrealized capital gains tax", but it's the theft of your hopes for a better future.

"This law bans the purchase" of an imaginary category of firearms ("assault weapons"), but "it doesn't affect the ones you already own". Until next year, when they decide this wasn't enough, and now you're a "criminal" for things the Constitution says government has no say over.

"It's a crime to drive drunk". Until they change the law and say it's now illegal to drive "impaired". Before you know it, it's a crime to think of something that might be intoxicating when you are within one-hundred feet of a car.

Government is your enemy. It's not the only enemy you have, but it is the worst one.

Other criminals rarely affect your entire life. An embezzler won't usually also blackmail you, steal your car, molest your cousin, say which job you are allowed to work, and demand an annual ransom on your house. Government is the all-encompassing criminal enterprise. There's no part of your life it doesn't claim control over. Go on: name one part of your life which remains unaffected by government. You can't, unless you're being dishonest with yourself.

It will only get worse until enough of us have had enough. I don't know how that day will look or when it will occur, but it will come. It always does. Government contains the seeds of its own demise, because its entire existence is focused on taking more.

Liberty is your birthright. Live like it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Rejecting the Tribe has a cost

My feeling has always been that dumb people follow the crowd.

But…

I can see that there’s a utility, maybe even a wisdom, in not standing out.

When the vast majority of those around you believe in politics, fawn over a certain genre of entertainment, or otherwise stay inside the pre-approved set of acceptable interests and beliefs, they don't seem happy with you if you're wandering outside the lines. 

The fewer of their rituals you participate in, the more suspicious of you they become.

If, for example, "everyone" in society has a self-mutilation fetish- piercings and tattoos- then maybe it is safer to join in. To be part of the tribe and show it.

That’s not me; it's never been me, and I can’t do that. I recognize there's a cost to it, though.

I’m admitting I can see why people do those socially "acceptable" things. Or even why some people would play along when they don't feel it in the depths of their being. It's not even necessarily wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

What do "laws" prove?

In a discussion about the effect of self-driving cars on cops and their DWI grift, someone said, "Self driving cars are a fantasy. They do not have the ability. They can assist but cannot drive themselves."

Now, this is objectively not true. Someone else pointed out. "I've seen them driving around downtown, sans human driver."

The Luddite's response. "They are not reliable. Several have ran over pedestrians and they have been the cause of accidents"

I pointed out, "Humans are even less reliable, unfortunately."

So, he responded, "If that is true then why is it required for a person to be at the wheel and paying attention while the vehicle is driving itself?"

My response, which should have ended the debate: "Because laws are archaic and stupid."

That "laws" require something dumb isn't an argument. It proves nothing. It doesn't make the case that statists believe it makes. Most legislation is years behind the curve. And even if it weren't, it would still be stupid (and evil).

Look, I would FEEL unsafe in a self-driving car. I really want to be in control, even though I don't like piloting vehicles very much. But, intellectually, I know they are already safer than human drivers. It doesn't matter whether I want that to be true or not. Mine is an irrational reaction based only on my feelings, not on reality.
Like my disdain for air travel (even without the TSA and security theater making it worse). Feelings aren't reality.

The weak link in traffic safety is the human behind the wheel- and it always has been. Drunk or sober.

The Luddite brought up several more objections, but every single problem he mentioned is also true for human drivers. Probably to a greater degree! Every single one. And, you know he knows it- he just doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars. 

Here's the thing he's ignoring: Self-driving cars will continue to improve in their ability to safely handle real-world conditions and surprises. Humans, not so much.

I don't want legislation (or rules) to either mandate or forbid self-driving cars. I want the State kept out of our vehicles entirely. Government interference is the real danger.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty or money?

Will liberty get you through times without money better than money will get you through times without liberty?

I honestly don't know.

My personal preference would be to have total liberty, regardless of the money situation. A little money along with it would clearly be even better.

Having more money can also do a lot to increase your liberty- to a point.

Plus, it should be obvious that the more liberty you have, the easier it is to make money and to find ways to navigate around the need for money. 

A major function of government is to keep you poor and dependent so that you don't have the energy to devote to exercising liberty. That's why taxation really exists. Statists lie about this, but it's true.

-

Thank you for reading.
Speaking of money... 

Can you imagine it?

People think things can't change- can't end- because they can't imagine it. 

I used to be this way. I once thought the Soviet Union was eternal. It had existed all my life, and I had no reason to think it wouldn't continue to exist long after I was gone.

Then, just like that, it was gone. I learned from that experience. Others don't.

My parents are prime examples.

They simply can't imagine things changing. 

To them, a college degree will always be essential for any non-janitorial job. Any exception shown to them is "well, that's just one instance, and it's probably not even true". Even though there are plenty of examples in the family. Both people with well-paying jobs without a college degree, and people with college degrees having no job at all (or a low-paying job that's "beneath them").

They believe the US dollar will always be worth earning and saving. Even though it has already lost nearly all its trade value. When I've said that at some point, it will no longer be worth it to work for any job that pays in dollars, they said I was wrong, and that you'll always have to take dollars, because what else would you do? 

At least I was finally able to talk them into diversifying into a couple of other options. Maybe they did see the writing on the wall.

They can't imagine the US government becoming so tyrannical that the people have to start openly defending themselves from it and its employees. They still believe cops are the good guys, even though they know of more examples of the "few bad apples" than the "good" cops. Their desire to believe otherwise is so strong!

They believe America will always be a superpower and the dominant military force on the planet. Tangentially, they believe the Israeli government (they confuse it for the country) is "America's" best ally (again, confusing a government for the country and population), ignoring history for what they wish to be true. 

Eventually, the USA will be gone, just like the USSR. I hope America survives the end of the USA, but it may not.

Take nothing for granted. Plan ahead for the unthinkable. Bad guys are planning and plotting; do the same in self-defense.

At their age (or even at mine), there's no guarantee they'll live to see these changes. But the changes are coming. If they aren't here already.

All statists suffer this mindset. They can't imagine life without their god, so they think their god will always reign supreme. That's not guaranteed, though. In fact, the opposite is guaranteed; no one knows the timeframe, though.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Wait... who's "terminally online"?

Besides using the ad hominem of "bot", detractors will often say their object of attention is "terminally online". 

They'll say directly that any opinion you hold that differs from their acceptable opinion is the result of you being "terminally online". 

It's too bad for this claim when those opinions predate the internet, sometimes by decades.

It's also strange when the people grasping for this insult then think you've "run away" from the discussion when it took you "too long" to respond... because you weren't online.

But, when you're a statist, you've got to grasp at any straws you can create, since logic and reason aren't working in your favor.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Angering the minarchists

The people who seem to hate me the most aren't the standard diehard statists, but those who call themselves "libertarian" and hold me up as an example of what a libertarian shouldn't be. Or isn't.

Then, they'll try to insult me by calling me an "anarchist".

They're shooting blanks.

If their idea of "libertarian" means keeping a minimal state around ("minarchy"; the wildest Utopian notion ever) so it can violate life, liberty, and property they don't personally like, count me out. 

They don't really trust liberty, but fear some aspects of it, which they want government to control (violate) for them. They want to distinguish themselves from anyone who isn't saddled with their hangups. So they'll insist libertarians can't be anarchists and anarchists aren't libertarian. Many of them will say that if you're not on board with the Libertarian Party, you're not a libertarian.

Just like the awful person I know who once told people who asked about me, "I don't believe like him", I'm glad they've distanced themselves from me. They're doing me a favor. Thank you!

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.