Who understands what?

In my experience, nonbelievers understand the arguments made by believers better than believers understand those made by nonbelievers.

It’s why anarchists understand the arguments made by statists better than statists understand the arguments made by anarchists. Anarchists are more familiar with the arguments, pro and con, than the statists are.

One example: sometimes I sort of believe in the alien explanation for some UFOs. I can at least sympathize with the believers. But when I hear a nonbeliever shooting holes in the arguments in favor of "alien origin", it's clear they are familiar with and understand the arguments the believers make. They just don't buy them. 

But I don't get the same sense from the believers when they try to address the arguments made by the nonbelievers. It often doesn't seem like they understand the nonbelievers' arguments very well, and certainly not as well as their arguments are understood by the other side. Often, it seems like they aren't even familiar with the arguments made by the nonbelievers. 

And this is definitely what I see happening when statists- those who "believe in" governing others- try to address the arguments made by anarchists- those who don't believe in such behavior as an ethical thing. The statists don't even seem to know what they are talking about, but they certainly have a lot of confidence.

Be familiar with, and try to understand, the arguments made by those who disagree with you. Then you won't be relying on straw men or grasping at ad hominem attacks when you get frustrated by their stubbornness. You may not even get as frustrated.

 -
Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"See how it turns out"

You don’t need to wait to see how something turns out to know whether doing it is ethical or wrong.

You don't need to wait to see what effect tariffs have. Imposing them is unethical because they are a tax, and taxation is theft.

You don't need to wait to see if the next anti-gun rule reduces murder or suicide, because disarming people is wrong.

You don't need to wait to see if banning food dyes- or mandating vaccinations- improves "public health", because such edicts remove personal options concerning personal health decisions. This indicates you are someone else's property- a slave. Slavery is unethical.

You don't need to wait to see how ending drug prohibition would turn out. No one has the right to control what someone else consumes; doing so anyway "for their own good" is wrong. As is criminalizing defending yourself and your property from those under the influence of drugs.

When doing something you have no right to do, the only reason to say you need to "wait to see how it turns out" is because you are addicted to controlling things that are not yours to control. You are rejecting ethics in favor of pragmatism.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A One-Act Tragedy

A cop initiates an encounter with an armed individual who wasn't violating or threatening to violate anyone.

Cop: "I'll need you to hand over your gun for both our safety."

Innocent person: "I'll need you to do the same, for both our safety, since cops are statistically much more likely to kill an innocent person than I am. We are both safest if we each keep our own weapon."

The cop then shoots and murders the innocent person for non-compliance, thus proving the victim's point. He's right, but dead. 

Copsuckers: "He should have just obeyed! You have to obey, even if the officer is wrong! If the officer is wrong, stay alive and work it out in court later. He was just doing his job and the criminal made him fear for his safety!"

Liberty continues to die a little more each day.

    The End.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty matters

Liberty is important. It's critical. It's essential. It's non-negotiable.

It’s important enough to go through the pain of facing reality and rejecting things that stand in its way. Things such as your biases, government, laws, "authority", and even loyalty (when it’s misplaced).

Does liberty matter this much to you? It does to me, which is why I've questioned and examined each and every one of those items on that list at one time or another. I expect to keep questioning and examining these things- and more- in the coming years. Regardless of how things turn out.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A "jobs program" for losers

Legislation- "the law"- is welfare (a "jobs program") for losers who have no actual skills other than being a bully. 

It provides them with the opportunity to wear a badge and bully people in exchange for a paycheck funded by theft. They are using their victims' own stolen money against them. And they are allowed to murder anyone who resists their bullying.

Good people don't do this, nor do they excuse it.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The system is anti-liberty

Your liberty depends too much on the whims of the current rulers. 

Even if one ruler respects liberty, the system is designed to destroy it. Because the next ruler probably won't- few, if any, have ever understood or respected liberty. It's not in their interest to do so.

But, if one did- You might have liberty until the next ruler comes into power, and then you could lose it all. Then the next ruler after that might be better again. Or worse. It’s a terrible system.

If rulers were scared to violate liberty- and I mean scared to death to violate liberty in the smallest way- then, perhaps, tolerating rulers might not be the worst thing. But the system isn't designed to protect liberty, it is designed to protect those who violate it. Again, it's a bad system. One that's incompatible with human flourishing and liberty.

Those who support such a system don't understand or support liberty. That's why they tolerate government. They want everything to be subject to government permission. They can't even think outside that box.

If you tell them that you don't like something, they automatically think you are saying it should be illegal and people should be punished for doing it. Even if you clearly say that's not what you're saying, it's as if they can't see those words. They hallucinate that you are advocating that liberty be violated. They literally can't think outside the statist box. And these are the people who are empowered to v*te to violate your liberty.

It's fascinating to watch happen in real time. It's frustrating to try to communicate with such people. Because you can't. They are immune.

These are the type of people who put their support behind a broken system and demand everyone play along. Liberty doesn't register with them. They just want their anti-liberty side to "win" for now. They are willing to hurt themselves to further that goal.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Supporting politicians a waste of time

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 23, 2025)

I want you to be free to do everything you have a right to do. That's what liberty is. Even if you'd do something I wouldn't do and don't like.

If I won’t respect your liberty, how can I demand you respect mine? ...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Principles more important than politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 19, 2025)

If you put your faith in any politician, sooner or later, you will be betrayed. Whether you admit you've been betrayed depends on how fervent your faith in this politician is.

The same goes for loyalty to a political party.

I remember the political party my parents belonged to when I first became aware of such things. I also remember when they changed parties because the party they had always belonged to had turned into something they could no longer support. They stuck to their principles. I've noticed most people change to follow the party rather than let it go when this happens.

Then there are those of us who don't belong to any political party because none are principled enough for us. Or they have the wrong principles entirely.

It's more important to stand for good principles than to be loyal to a party or to have faith in a politician.

I value the principle of liberty over all else. I am able to agree with any politician or party when they support, respect, and defend liberty and to oppose them in the same breath when they violate liberty. It's up to them to stay with me; not up to me to follow them when they charge down the wrong path.

It's important to be able to define your principles and to be able to explain and defend your definitions to others, since people will define things differently. Politicians and political parties blow with the wind; principles don't change-- you either stick to them or abandon them.

Politicians lack principles. They promise things (both good and bad) and then break those promises. They'll blame their opponents while appointing people-- people who have no intention of carrying out those promises-- to the positions responsible for keeping the promises. It seems many people are surprised when this happens, as it inevitably will. Or they'll be fooled into not seeing what's happening right in front of their eyes just so they can keep the faith.

If you aren't anchored in principles, you'll be easier to fool. You'll accept pragmatic compromises, even though any evil can be justified with pragmatism. Those who want you to compromise will get angry at you. They'll call you names and threaten you. Let them. As long as your principles are rooted in ethics and worthwhile morals, you are the one who is right. The flaw is with them.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

It's a net negative

Taxes paid are not added to society.
That money is taken from society and given to society’s primary enemy. Taxes fund government.

"Paying taxes" isn't helping.

It can't be entirely avoided, so I don't blame the victims. I only blame those who are proud of being "taxpayers", and those who want others to also pay, or pay more.

The only right, ethical level of taxation is zero. If you can't fund the projects you want under that condition, then your projects are harmful to society and to the individuals who comprise it.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

They "can typing"

Lately, my online experience has reminded me of the old cartoon posted above.

It goes like this:

• I'll make a statement.
• Some statist will disagree and demand I explain myself.
• I do.
• The statist doesn't like what I say and starts insulting me in other ways. Usually by calling me a "liberal" or "MAGA", depending on his filter on life. 
• I'll be accused of avoiding the question or changing the subject.
  
• The other statists pile on.

No reasons. No counter-arguments. No good points I missed. Just knee-jerk typing. Often, however they respond completely misses, misinterprets, or ignores what I said. It's chess with a pigeon, without the amusement of watching a pigeon strutting around on a chessboard. Instead, it's a statist strutting around on a keyboard. It's a spectacle of its own sort.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

4-19

Today is Patriots' Day. Not to be confused with Blowback Day on September 11.

Today should be a reminder of why government is your enemy. The Ancestral Enemy. Why routing one government to install another government is a foolish waste of lives and will not turn out well.

Use the occasion to give government all the respect it deserves.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

I had almost forgotten

Several years ago, I noticed a guy down the street had some wild onions growing in his yard. To him, it was "just a weed". 

I asked if I could dig up a few to transplant to my yard. I like having edible wild plants growing around the house. He was agreeable to it.

That first year, they barely survived a month before withering in the heat. 

The second year, I saw no sign of them. The neighbor sold that plot of property, and the new owners landscaped it into a lawn, so there were no more wild onions there for another try.

Every year, I'd look where I had planted them, but they never made an appearance.

Until this Spring.

Now I have two small but healthy-looking clumps growing right where I'd planted them years ago. I'm going to encourage them and hope they spread a little.

Liberty works the same way.

You can plant it in someone you encounter, but there's no guarantee it will thrive. It may even appear to have died. In any case, you may not see any sign of it for several years. Don't give up hope. When you least expect it, it may sprout. And spread anew.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A casualty of the battle of the cults

Wow, I pissed off the MAGA cult this time! Not due to anything I actually wrote, but by a caption on an AI-generated picture. The caption on the picture that illustrates this post.

It's so much easier to react than to think. Or read.

Friends and relatives jumped on me over this, and yet it was obvious not one of them had bothered to read the post. They might have still gotten angry- cultlike behavior leads to anger- but they could have at least addressed the actual post rather than simply reacting to the caption.

I was called "stupid" and "immature" and told "it wasn't Trump who said that" (duh- I know!)

MAGA is just as much a cult as TDS. Both seem incapable of thinking or reading anything beyond the surface. I've realized this for as long as MAGA has existed, but it's like they really want to show me.

Politics makes people stupid. Politics is a battle of the cults. It makes the followers behave badly, and it fosters ignorance.

Stupid enough to wear a shirt honoring murderer Luigi Mangioni, like one of my daughter's work friends was doing the other day. The shirt tells me she's a Left-statist, has poor character, and isn't too bright. Just like those attacking me over a caption are telling me similarly embarrassing things about themselves.

I don't think anyone has been more balanced than I have been. I clearly say when Trump does something right; I clearly criticize him when he does something wrong. I'm accustomed to this triggering the cultists on both sides. If I don't get called a Leftist and MAGA in the same day it's a strange day, indeed. Something about this post really got noticed by the MAGA cult this time.

So what did I do, after replying that they really need to read the post that the picture goes along with, and it being obvious from subsequent comments that no one did? I posted another link to the blog post, along with the illustration. Along with a short paragraph chastizing those who comment without reading. As if that will change cult behavior whatsoever.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty a powerful right you own

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 16, 2025)

Last week, the news of the dire wolf's de-extinction was everywhere. It didn't take long until calmer voices pointed out that these are not really dire wolves, which weren't even wolves, just gray wolves genetically altered to have what someone believes were some dire wolf traits.

The kind of liberty most people offer is similar...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Starship failure essential to its progress

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 12, 2025)

SpaceX's Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket (or flying machine) ever built, lost control and exploded soon after launch last week. Rocket nerds jokingly call this a "rapid unscheduled disassembly"; a RUD. When inventing something as unprecedented as Starship, it's to be expected and shows limits are being pushed.

People who don't understand what's going on called this a "test failure". If there were no explosions, it wouldn't be a rocket test. No test is a failure when it teaches something.

At this point in the test campaign, every new Starship has so many changes from the previous ship flown that it's almost a different vehicle altogether. Plus, the test ships are built with potential flaws on purpose, to see what they can survive. For example, they've even left off some of the heat shield tiles, which are there to protect the ship from the heat of re-entry from orbit, to see if losing a few during launch would doom the ship. The key point is that it is a test ship and will remain so for at least a few years. Every flight will test how far the envelope can be pushed, and to make real progress, many of them won't make it back down in one piece. It's simply how this works.

This doesn't stop people who don't understand-- or want to try to make a bad political point-- from misrepresenting what happened.

I saw commenters on social media mocking SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, telling him he can't even keep his rockets from exploding, so he needs to focus on rocketry and stop dismantling the federal government through The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). These people are wrong on both counts. I can't take anyone seriously if they act as though government accountability and eliminating waste and fraud are bad things.

Either government is chopped or America dies. There's no other alternative.

I have my own criticisms of Elon Musk, but with Starship and DOGE, he's doing the right things. Only ignorance or politics would make someone think (or pretend to think) otherwise.

To change things for the better, you've got to be willing to break something. Maybe everything. Government needs more RUDs, just like Starship does. Maybe it's time to make the "E" in DOGE stand for "Elimination". This would be an improvement those who don't understand rocketry or government would scream about. Which means it's the right thing to do.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Politics causes the worst behavior

Politics causes people to vandalize cars.
Politics causes people to set fire to houses; to commit arson.
Politics causes people to protest in the Capitol Building.
Politics causes people to hate others.
Politics causes people to murder people.
Politics causes people to kidnap and cage people.
Politics causes people to defend those who do all the above.
Politics causes people to try to justify the inexcusable.

Yet, some people disagree with me that politics makes people stupid, and often evil, too.

The evidence is clear. There's no question, and never has been. Ignore reality if it makes you feel better, but reality doesn't care about feelings.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty is just "too negative" for slaves to accept

Did you realize telling someone who says it's government's one job to protect the rights of the people, that government's entire history has proven it utterly unwilling and incapable of doing so, is "too negative"?

Me neither.

But to statists, who are emotionally attached to a failed system, it is.

Government, mainly through the govshool version of history, has told them that without government, there will be nothing but chaos and death. So it must be true. Right? Government wouldn't lie to them to protect its own power, would it?

Pointing out that this doesn't have to be the case is "too negative". Showing people that they don't have to be slaves is "too negative". Telling people they have a choice and can choose liberty is "too negative". Trying to break through their Stockholm Syndrome is "too negative". They love Big Brother.

Lying to someone to protect their feelings, especially if they are in danger, isn't being nice. It seems a bit predatory.

Statists seem to think that if you say the government way of doing something is unethical, you're against any other way of doing that thing. No, I'm in favor of looking for a way to do everything that should be done without violating the life, liberty, or property of others. If an ethical solution makes everyone happy (other than archators), then that's what I want. Even if I'm not personally interested in participating.

It doesn't seem like it would be hard to understand that- unless someone has a vested interest in not understanding. Such as the vested interest someone who has their lips superglued to Trump's hiney (or any other politician's body part) might have.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The fewer the better

The fewer government employees, the better. Zero being the best number of them to have.

The next-best situation, if government is allowed to exist at all, is only one government "employee", even if it's a lone dictator.

What can a dictator do if he has no underlings- government employees- to impose his will on the people? You can't have a police state without police, nor can you have a military state without a military.

Would the lonely dictator be killed, or would he be ignored because he would be irrelevant? 

His Supreme Potentate, General Dick Tater, would be utterly powerless. If he did start to find a way to impose his will on others, he'd either end up with more people helping him for favors, money, or power (more government employees, which is always bad), or he'd be eliminated the minute he became a threat. 

One way leads back to where we keep ending up; the other to a potential for liberty

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A trashy pirate fleet

One super easy and accurate way to know a cop is not on the side of the public (or liberty) is if it drives a car with those stealth markings. 

That shows it is unambiguously part of a theft ring, targeting people who are simply trying to travel around doing their daily business. A pirate, but not the cool kind. Just the trashy kind.

About half of the local cop cars (and sheriff vehicles) are of this type. They aren't the good guys. Neither are those who support them and excuse their crimes.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

"You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy"- MAGA edition

A "conservative" in my sphere started talking about tariffs. He told me that you can avoid the higher prices by only buying American-made products. 

I pointed out that this isn't true.

I told him that if a foreign product goes up in price, it will give the American product room to raise its price as well. If the foreign product goes up by 25%, why wouldn't the American product's price go up by 20% - or by whatever amount keeps it just slightly below the competitor's price? Who wouldn't raise their prices if the competition has to? Tariffs are anticompetition.

He admitted that this may be true, but you can still avoid the higher prices by not buying anything. He said there wasn't anything he needed to buy that much, and he could do without it.

I said, in other words, "You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy"- MAGA edition.

When I quoted Communist Klaus as my only reply, he had no response at all. He was speechless and changed the subject.

This isn't hard to understand, and if you're not brainwashed by Keynesian fake economics you will be able to understand. Otherwise, you probably won't understand.

Appendix:
I openly disagree with Right-statists in this way all the time, because they are all around me, and they can take it. Occasionally, they even admit I'm right.
On the other hand, I don't usually say anything to the Left-statists around me when they are wrong, because they can't handle it. They are too fragile and lose their minds (and shut me out) when challenged on anything. There's no debate.
This is just my experience, based on a small sample size in the few geographical regions where I've lived. Maybe it means something; maybe it doesn't.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Nice doggy

I'm biased. If you have the chance to bring back an extinct animal, DO IT!

Maybe not if it's an extinct species of louse or flea, but if it's cool and impressive, yes, please! If it's potentially dangerous, that's even better.

I'm more than skeptical of the "de-extincted Dire Wolves". As far as I know, no one knows what Dire Wolves actually looked like, and they weren't closely related to Gray Wolves (and not even technically wolves), so I'm not seeing how they can figure that Gray Wolves are the closest living species to use in the gene manipulation. I think that's just the species they had handy, so they went with it.

I want to be wrong about this (I sure say that a lot!).

Whatever they are, the new wolves are still cool and interesting. 

I'm still waiting for the Woolly mammoth to be brought back. That's first in a long list of things I'd like to see roaming the earth again. And, yeah, that list includes some non-avian dinosaurs.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Politics compromises rational thought

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 9, 2025)

If you know someone's biases, you can fool them into believing almost anything as long as it aligns with those biases. Politicians are good at this because their victims self-select to listen to the politicians who appeal to their biases. People who are emotionally invested in a specific political ideology are particularly susceptible to influence.

They are primed to be manipulated...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Democracy no more than mob rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 5, 2025)

Has your democracy been lost yet? Has someone stolen it?

Silly questions for a silly era asked of silly people who worship mob rule as long as they are on the majority side. They have no problem ignoring the will of those who disagree with them; they only wring their hands when they end up on the losing side.

America was never supposed to be a democracy. It was set up as a republic, limited in scope by a constitution which defined exactly what government is allowed to do to the population, regardless of what the majority wants. This failed.

Republics, including those defined and limited by a constitution, turn into democracies because people, in overwhelming numbers, want to violate the rights of others and vote themselves goodies paid for with taxes. With no one in power willing to say, "Hey, you can't do that no matter how popular it is because the Constitution doesn't permit it", things go haywire. You end up with a de facto democracy.

Democracies turn into authoritarian tyrannies since the push is to regulate what people are allowed to do a little more with each passing year.

Now we find ourselves in a situation where there isn't any part of our lives that isn't subject to arbitrary and absurd government rules which a majority of voters, or their elected representatives, thought were a good idea. 

Those rules were not good ideas. They were tyranny wrapped in democracy and shoved down our throats because we are outnumbered. As long as people believe they have to keep voting for "their side" no matter how badly it behaves, it will get worse.

Democracy is mob rule. It is "might (through superior numbers) makes 'right'". It means you are prohibited from exercising your rights if the majority of voters and their elected political criminals choose to ignore your rights.

Democracy is a lie. The choices you are allowed to choose between are selected by people who want to rule you and seize your property. Losing democracy wouldn't be the worst thing. It only matters what, if anything, replaces it.

You have a right to govern yourself, as an individual. You have no right to govern even one other person, nor can you elect someone to do something you have no right to do. Doing things you have no right to do is the wrong choice and puts everyone in peril. Choose to do right instead.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Yes, they v*ted for this

Those who v*ted for Trump are not bothered by the things their opposition believes they should be bothered by.

It's wishful thinking and probably a lot of projection.

The anti-Trumpers are trying hard to push the narrative that there's regret over v*ting for Trump, but I haven't seen it. I suspect all those who they find to express regret are fake. Well, I'm sure there are a few out there, but I think they are rare and are the dumbest of the dumb.

Even the one in my family who lost her nice cushy govjob hasn't turned. This is what they v*ted for, and they knew there would be some pain. Plus, they knew Harris was a disaster, and they knew what Trump was like. They'd seen both in action for years- there were no mysteries either way.

Those looking for regretful Trump v*ters are the same people who watched Biden rotting in real time for well over four years and said he was fine; "sharp as a tack". Very few are willing even now to admit they were wrong or lying.

I don't support politicians, but I'm not shocked by what is happening. And, if I had supported the things Trump had said he would do (or try to do), I wouldn't be angry with him now. It seems odd to believe (or hope) otherwise.

Politicians always believe the answer is More Government- and that's literally never the solution to anything. Not when that government is "Right", "Left", or any other flavor. But if More Government is what they want, as long as it leans somewhat in their general direction, the supporters aren't going to regret v*ting for it. They'll always say the other outcome would have been worse.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

How to make everything worse

Government “solutions” invariably make things worse. Statists will spend a lot of time saying this isn’t true, because… well, mumble-mumble something.

Any real solution requires government to back off; to give up power and control. To be less meddlesome and intrusive. This goes against every instinct statists have. It kills them to even contemplate such horrors.

They believe everything can be solved with extra coercion, theft, authoritarianism, mass murder, and other things government is particularly good at doing. Just listen to them for a couple of minutes and you'll know it's true!

Leaving things alone goes against everything they believe and everything they want. No matter what they say to try to get you on their team.

So they advocate for "taxes", "tariffs", war, "law and order", legislation, borders, policies, interference, rules, rules, and more rules. Along with these barbarities, Left-statists also call for human trafficking, domestic terrorism, vandalism, and murder because they are trying hard to be worse than the rest (and right now, they may be succeeding).

People who understand and value liberty are caught in the middle. The statists can't be bothered to leave us alone.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Choosing your target

I may be wrong, but I have noticed a pattern that seems to delineate the big difference between the political "Right" and the political "Left":
The "Left" is self-destructive, and the "Right" prefers to destroy others.

The "Left" focuses their hate inward; the "Right" focuses it outward. But it's still hate.

Of course, there's some overlap, some exceptions, and some interpretation involved, I'm just saying it looks that way in general. To me.

Often, the Left's self-destructiveness harms others (how could it not?), and often, the Right's penchant for destroying others ricochets and hurts them (again, what would anyone expect?).

Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil, too.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A house divided

Living in a country infested with politics is like living in a house with people who hate each other. Even if you're not part of their drama, the others will make sure you're as unhappy as they can make you. You will be in danger.

It's an act of defiance to not play along- if you have the personality to give you that option.
If you have, or can develop, that personality it's an act of self-preservation, too. 

If they won't listen to you and start destroying each other, your primary responsibility is to make sure you come through it. The world will need you and people like you when the smoke clears.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Under the influence... of politics

I often say politics makes people stupid, and usually a little evil, too. It's not a joke. For politicians, politics makes them evil; regular people are made stupid.

Politics is an intoxicant. In the long term, it poisons the mind as surely as alcohol or other drugs.

There have been people I liked, but who I didn't want to be around when they were drunk or drugged.
Politics is exactly the same. It can turn a decent person into a mean drunk. Into an abuser.

You can often tell by looking when a person is under the influence of a chemical intoxicant.
You can also usually tell by looking if a person is under the influence of politics.

Long-term chemical abuse leaves signs on the face and body.
So does long-term politics abuse. Both are addictive and can destroy you from the inside out.

You're not an addict if you're warning people of the dangers of alcohol or other drugs.
You're not being political when warning people of the dangers of politics.

Believing in political "authority" is just a facet of being under the influence. To molest people for being under the influence while you are under the influence of something just as destructive makes you a bad guy. Cops are hypocrites in more ways than one.

It's your choice to make. You have the right to put chemicals in your body, even if it kills you. If you kill or harm others, including while under the influence, you owe restitution you may not be able to pay.
If, while under the influence of politics, you harm or kill others, you owe restitution. Government may protect you, being a purely political monstrosity that seeks to exempt its abusers from consequences. But you are still in debt. The Universe won't forget or forgive. Whether the people do remains to be seen, but don't bank on it.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Is it really a right?

I've noticed that when a lot of people mention "rights", they are just telling you how they want to violate you.

"____ rights are human rights". Well, OK, but in that case, there doesn't need to be a modifier. All humans alive have equal and identical rights. If what you're really demanding is an imaginary "right" to do things to other people that you have no right to do, an "extra right" beyond those shared by all, you can jump right off a cliff. And it does seem like this is what they are usually demanding.

Someone asked how to explain the concept that "food is a human right". It isn't, not the way they want it to be. 

Here is how food is a human right: You have the right to grow, harvest, hunt, and prepare your own food. Any government rules that get in the way of this are illegitimate. That includes "hunting licenses" and barring people from foraging and hunting for food on "public" (unowned) land. It includes property codes that demand you grow a grass lawn instead of edible vegetables. It includes property codes that ban you from raising livestock. It includes any rule that prevents you from (or licenses) engaging in trade so you can buy food. Government is the primary criminal preventing access to food.

Here is how food is NOT a human right: You don't have the right to go to a store and demand they give you the specific kind of food you'd prefer, nor to rob someone and use their money to buy food. It's the same as forcing someone to work in the fields and grow crops for you. 

You may not get exactly the kind of food you like. You may be eating "weeds" and sparrows rather than Twinkies and Big Macs. But that's as far as the right to food gets you.

You do have the right to ask for food or money with which to buy food. Again, it may not be exactly what you wanted to eat, but as long as it is food, your right is respected.

A right doesn't obligate anyone to do anything or give you anything. It doesn't entitle someone to anyone else's labor or property. It obligates them to not violate this right, just as you are obligated to not violate their equal and identical right. It's really not that hard, and most people who don't seem to understand don't want to understand or they would understand.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty: Mortal enemy of government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 2, 2025)

It isn't "political" to keep government-- its employees, agencies, and rules-- out of our lives. Politics imposes those things on others. Liberty isn't political, but violating liberty is.

If you want to be governed, I'll respect your right to act like you have no rights. If you want someone else to be governed, you're on the side of slavery and tyranny. You're doing something no one has a right to do, which is a better definition of crime than "breaking laws"...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

True libertarians not on the Trump Train

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 26, 2025)

I'm disappointed with how many former libertarians are now fans of big government just because Donald Trump is the president. Some have abandoned all pretense of supporting liberty.

If this is all it takes to make someone turn their back on liberty, were they libertarian to begin with? To me, it matters what you do, not what you say you are.

This includes some highly influential "libertarian" social media accounts which now seem to be nothing more than Republicans using "libertarian" in the name.

Some are even spending their time and energy to insult those who haven't tossed principles aside and jumped on the Trump Train. The insults fall flat, but they try.

"Libertarian" has a specific meaning; it means you reject the initiation of force, property rights violations, and fraud as ways of dealing with others; those are things no one has a right to do. Never, under any circumstances. It means you recognize that without liberty, humans are enslaved to some degree. How much slavery is acceptable to you? The correct answer is always "none".

It doesn't mean you hate those in power because the power is being used to violate rights, until you suddenly love those in power when they violate others in a different way.

I get caught in the middle because I neither suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome nor am I a Trump fan. He's just a politician like any other, who happens to be doing some good things no one else has been willing to consider, while doing some bad things which are not better in some way simply because he's the one doing them. He's neither a messiah nor a devil.

If you aren't able to acknowledge the good things someone does while condemning the bad they do, you're not thinking it through. It's the same if all you do is condemn them. Either way, you're jumping on a bandwagon. It's the easier path.

No one should have the power to govern others. It's never a legitimate power. As long as the majority believes in the most dangerous superstition-- political authority-- there will be people taking advantage of their belief and grabbing the reins of power. Everyone who wields this power will get some things right and get other things wrong. These days it's like a superpower to be able to see both sides. It's a superpower that is within your reach. Use this power well.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Battle scars

I have scars. Some of those scars are from surgeries. Others are from living life. I prefer those I didn't get from scalpels.

I have a scar on my shoulder from a scuffle with an armadillo I had chased down. I have a long scar on my wrist from a cat who suddenly decided she needed to be on the other side of the house immediately and lept from my lap. I had scars from animal bites, but most have faded.

I have many scars on my left hand- because the knife was always in my right hand.
I have scars from getting injured while doing worthwhile things, like building stuff, exploring, and having fun. 

I don't try to hide my scars, not that most would notice them anyway.

These are my battle scars; signs I didn't just sit in a padded room dreaming of what I could be doing instead.

I also have psychological scars, but we won't talk about those.

If I drove a Tesla Cybertruck (or a lesser, pointless Tesla), I wouldn't have it refinished if it got scratched by members of the Mental Illness Drama Club acting out their issues and delusions. 

I would leave the scratched in swastikas, insults, and lines. If it got dents from being rammed with a scooter or kicked, they can stay. If it got set on fire but not destroyed, I would repair just enough to get it functional again, but I'd leave the scars. They are earned.

Those scars would be battle scars in the battle between the Far Left and literally everyone else. They would testify against those who believe it's OK to damage other people's property because the corporate media gave them their marching orders. NPCs carrying out their programming because they can't do otherwise. They are losers of the most useless sort.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Defending scoundrels

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Once again, it is being hammered into my brain that defending liberty means defending scoundrels and people I don’t like, who are doing things I don't like, but that violate no one's life, liberty, or property.

Then there are those who are violating others, and demand I defend their "right" to do so. That's not going to happen.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

An eventful weekend

Yesterday was my dad's 84th birthday so my son and I took him to the shooting range to try out his new handgun. He has hand-strength issues and I've been trying to help him find something he can actually use. Still not sure we've got it solved, but we had a good time. 

I shot less ammo than I had planned due to working with him; that just means there's less that I need to replace. Gotta keep the stockpile growing.

Today would have been my daughter Cheyenne's 34th birthday (the tenth anniversary of the last birthday she had), so I'm having less of a good time with that.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.