No good reason to reject liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2026)

People find many reasons to reject liberty. Fear. Envy. Ignorance. Tradition. In fact, there are probably as many reasons to reject liberty as there are people on this planet...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

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.

I want everyone to be free to sell what they want to sell, and free to buy what they want to buy. All regulated, not by government rules, but by the hand of the market.

You may say, "But what about human trafficking?" Maybe you haven't noticed, but government isn't able to stop it. In fact, government seems more concerned with protecting the guilty than with protecting their victims. You can probably think of better ways to solve the problem yourself.

No one has a right to violate the rights of others- which selling people does. Everyone everywhere has the absolute human right to do whatever it takes to prevent someone's rights from being violated. Government doesn't like this fact and hopes you forget I reminded you.

Even in more mundane situations, I still trust the market.

Businesses don't want to harm their customers. That's no way to stay in business. When a new restaurant opens, people rush to stand in line to try it out. They don't worry that the restaurant will poison them, and it's not because of the licenses and permits the owners got from government. Government would love for you to believe this is what keeps you safe, but again, government works harder to protect dishonest businesses than to protect their victims.

If a business owner is greedy but can't use government to force you to trade with him or her, this greed is motivation to satisfy you; to draw you back to be their customer over and over again, and to tell others how well the business met your needs. Otherwise, their greed is wasted as they'll go out of business soon.

It's only when a crooked business owner has government connections that satisfying the customer loses its importance. You don't need happy customers if government forces people to trade with a particular business or industry. Either with a mandate or by licensing schemes which crush competition. When this happens, it's not a failure of the market, but a consequence of allowing government to interfere in the market- a situation known as "socialism" or "fascism".

Bad guys stick together and stand up for each other unless something causes a rift between them. In such cases, your welfare doesn't count, and it's already too late for you.

Trust the market; reject government control.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Maintaining" anarchy in the face of statists

A statist asked someone else this question:

"Explain how anarchy will be maintained and nobody will make governments, absent compulsion. Hint: You can't. And that's the crux for why anarchism is utopian thinking. It just magically assumes everyone will agree." (profanity edited out)

That's how statists, conditioned to think only inside the coercive government box, look at the world. It's tragic and sick. And there's that misguided "Utopian" claim again.

I've seen variations of this same question many times over the years, and I have addressed them when I encountered them. I guess it's time to address this here (if I haven't already).

Once you realize governments are simply criminal gangs, the question- and the solution- are easier to understand. The veil of legitimacy doesn't change their true nature even a little.

Anarchy doesn't need to be "maintained", at least not in the sense the statist insists. It can't be. It simply is. Already. Trying to "maintain" something in this sense means to govern it. If you try to govern anarchy, you're doing it wrong. "F'ing for virginity", as they say.

Bad people will always try to establish governments, just like bad people murder, rape, kidnap, steal, and trespass. Bad people do bad things, and they won't stop just because you point out that they have no right to do those things. You will have to stop them. It's your responsibility.

The solution is self-defense from ALL archators. With the specific evil of  "making" a government, you have to nip it in the bud before it grows too large to decisively defeat. This was our forbears' mistake, and it's too late to address the problem as they should have done. But there's still a way. Or two.

Theirs is a mistake that needs to be recorded and remembered, so it is never repeated. Crush any newborn government in its crib before it is strong enough to fight back and win. It's your responsibility, and responsibility is half of liberty.

Statists will complain. They'll try to recategorize self-defense as "compulsion" because they are liars. They want to be safe while violating society. That's not my problem.

Just like the person who complained to me that if I didn't allow her to control me, that meant I was controlling her by taking away her ability to control me. Nope. That's a lie, and I'm not buying it.

No one has a right to govern anyone but himself, and anyone who tries is a threat to life, liberty, and property, and fighting back- to the death- is a perfectly legitimate response to this type of criminal. It's also perfectly acceptable to join together with others, voluntarily, for defense- as long as there's no penalty for opting out and the defense is not funded through theft. 

Here's one of the best parts: not everyone has to agree. But those who don't agree to refrain from violating life, liberty, or property- using any justification- will know they are doing something the rest of us recognize they have no right to do, and that their targets have the right to fight back with whatever amount of force it takes. They are just like the freelance criminals of the government era. "Force" isn't the problem; "initiation of force" is. Establishing a government is an initiation of force; fighting back is defensive force.

The best thing about libertarianism, and by extension, anarchy, is that it doesn't rely on "everyone" agreeing. The bad guys have been told how we will respond if they try to violate us. It's their choice to either live in peace or try to cheat to get their way. Without a strong government protecting them from their victims, the ones who don't learn to get along will Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool. Their choice; their consequences.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Don't get distracted

Sometimes, it's easy to get distracted and make stupid mistakes. You lose focus for just a second, and suboptimal things happen.

Such as the event in the picture above.

Fortunately, some of those mistakes are merely irritating and inconvenient rather than disastrous. I've barely missed disasters* on occasion, so I can appreciate the merely unpleasant.

-

*There was this one time that involved a burning candle, a full powder horn, and a distracted brain...

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Minarchy

Minarchy is the idea that humans need, and can maintain, a minimal State. A "night watchman" state. But it rejects that "minimal" can mean "none". If there's more than zero, that amount can be minimized further, which means it is not "minimal".

Minarchists love to call anarchy "Utopian". That's rich coming from followers of the most Utopian idea ever!

Government will never allow itself to be limited. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Every attempt to limit government has failed.

The Constitution may have been the final proof of the futility of that desire. It failed, and those who don't want to admit it failed will blame you and me for its failure. As if we could somehow, by some time-traveling magic, stop a failure that occurred well over a hundred years before we were born. It failed almost before the ink was dry.

Don't accept the blame for something that isn't your fault.

Those who advocate for a "night watchman state" seem to be unaware of how states work.

To be an effective night watchman, that state needs to steal. It needs to spy. It needs to determine for you what rights you have, and which rights it is allowed to ignore. It needs the power to punish and to carry out revenge. For this, it demands a monopoly on force. Once it has these powers, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from growing out of control and seeking more power over more parts of your life.

Minarchy is statism-lite, but it is still statism. Maybe, in very early stages, it is "libertarian-leaning", but it loses this tilt almost immediately, becoming ever more statist as time goes on. Libertarians who then continue to argue in favor of minarchy lose all claims to libertarianism. Anyone pointing this out angers them and makes them lash out at the consistent libertarians- the anarchists.

As someone pointed out to me, "Any society capable of maintaining a minarchy doesn't need one."

What I don't understand in all such cases is, if you believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, why get so angry at having this pointed out?... unless you feel guilty and know you're wrong.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Envy

Why are some people so susceptible to envy? To the point where it becomes a poison.

I am happy for others when things go well for them. 

The friend who found $41,000 in a woodstove in his house? I was thrilled to hear that story as many times as he wanted to tell it. I felt good for him.

When someone gets their dream job, I'm genuinely happy for them.

Even when someone is excited about a new tattoo. I hate tattoos (when excessive), but I can be happy along with someone who is happy about getting yet another one.

When anyone gets a new car, a new house, a good relationship, another gun, or when their missing pet returns, I'm happier for having heard about it. Envy doesn't control me, even if I lack what they have.

It doesn't mean I wouldn't like to experience similar good things. But trying to rob someone else of their joy, or minimizing it to bring them down, doesn't make me any happier. I can't even imagine being like that.

The existence of billionaires doesn't hurt me.
Someone else's good luck doesn't cause me to have bad luck.
Someone else's happiness- as long as they don't get happy by violating the rights of others (and I have met those people)- doesn't take away from my own happiness.

I would never seek to use the political means to bring someone else down just because they have something I lack. That's the politics of envy.

Yet, this sometimes seems like the foundation of political government.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

"Bots"

I've discovered that when anyone feels like they are losing a debate to you, the trendy new ad hominem is to call you a "bot".

I guess when your logic and rational thinking skills appear to the other person to be superhuman, compared to their own ability, they just assume you're a computer.

It also seems to me that these people put the bar very low, so as to make themselves feel better.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Yes, machine guns, too.

If you're not in favor of getting rid of the government's illegal rules against machine guns, you: 

1. Don't really believe in the plain words of the Second Amendment.
2. Don't believe in the natural human right to own and carry arms, which exists regardless of the Second Amendment.
3. Allow your fears to determine what rights others exercise.
4. Favor letting political criminals determine what rights you have and are allowed to exercise.

It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.

I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.

It's disappointing. 

It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

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"...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

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.

It’s said a man needs a government like a fish needs a bicycle. I think it’s worse than that. The situation is more akin to telling the fish he can't survive without the bicycle, forcing him to buy one, tacking him to its seat to force him to ride it, and then demanding he thank you for the bike you've provided.

It’s crazy.

If that’s what you want, that’s your business, but don’t force it on the rest of us. It's bothersome, unnecessary, intrusive, and harmful to life, liberty, and property.

America's founders, who fought for the liberty of Americans, would be fighting again today. There's no way they'd tolerate what the US government, with its subordinate governments all across America, has become. The levels of taxation piled on top of taxation, and the meddling in every aspect of our lives. The constant control, intrusion, and surveillance. They'd find it intolerable; much worse than a mere 3% tax on tea.

The British government of King George was far less tyrannical and annoying than the US government has become today. An ordinary American during those days could have gone months- or longer- without noticing there was a government ruling his life. Now you can't go a day without having to comply with some arbitrary governmental annoyance.

Yet, I'm supposed to pretend that the people who see nothing fundamentally wrong with this, who only think they need to elect "better" people and enforce different rules, are the patriots? Nonsense!

Those who support this all-encompassing government and want it to have even more control are as functionally anti-American as any Iranian Ayatollah or old Soviet Premier. Or worse, because they don't realize it and would never admit it.

It's frightening that so many confuse the US government with America, and have chosen to support government instead of the principles America was founded upon. Principles their government is scrambling to make illegal.

Liberty is essential to America, and it's time to ditch the bothersome things which get in liberty's way.

For those who still crave a police state, there are plenty of options for you around the world. Liberty is harder to find, and it's time to stand up for it in America before it's lost forever.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Socialistic hate and envy is stupid

Socialists are dumb and/or dishonest. 

They are having seizures over Elon Musk saying he wants to reach a net-worth of $10,000,000,000,000. They pretend this means he wants a Scrooge McDuck vault full of gold.

That's not what "net worth" is.

That's how much the companies he owns are worth to us. The value he provides. His private property and bank accounts are a small part of the picture, and those don't even seem to concern him very much.

I like spaceships, Cybertrucks, and Starlink. If these socialists have their way, we'd have none of that. They are envious turds.

I have my issues with Musk, and I have detailed them many times, here and on "social" media. But I'm not so ignorant or dishonest that I make the socialists' mistake.

Their bigger mistake is that they want government to steal his money for itself. That would be an absolute waste. Every cent government gets and spends is wasted. I wouldn't want my worst enemy taxed, because government is worse than any individual. Any individual!

How much money does Elon Musk owe me? None.
How much does he owe the State? None.
I'm better off if he keeps his money out of the State's grubby claws. Even if I get zero direct benefit from his money. At least, in that case, it isn't funding The Ancestral Enemy.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Worse than useless

The latest wanna-be assassin demonstrated a truth I've been preaching all along. 

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers; they encourage them to run through and start shooting immediately. They don't care if the alarm is ringing and the lights are flashing as they start their rampage.

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers from having and using their weapons to harm the innocent; they stop the good people from being armed where their guns are essential.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Make a new argument, or be dismissed

Am I close-minded if I stop entertaining the arguments in favor of slavery? Even though there are no new ones being presented? (And haven't been for hundreds of years.)

I do believe I should keep an open mind about everything. But I’ve already heard all the arguments people make in favor of slavery. I’m not going to waste my time reconsidering the same old arguments as though I haven’t heard and dismissed them all before.

I’ve heard all the arguments in favor of government. Hundreds of times or more. Present a new one, and I’ll honestly consider it. Otherwise, no. It has been weighed, measured, and found deficient. Try again, with something new, or be dismissed.

You don’t need to keep evaluating the same old arguments as though they are new. I don't think that makes you close-minded; it's a better use of your finite time.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

"But that would be inconvenient!"

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." 

I can't tell you how many times the objections people have made to my advocacy of liberty boil down to "But that would inconvenience me!"

The other version is, "But I don't want to be bothered to do that!" when I point out that something is their responsibility, not government's. That's just another form of "inconvenience" mixed with a little cowardice.

Modern humans are scared of liberty and willing to sacrifice it so they won’t be inconvenienced. Slavery is comforting to them. It's easier. No responsibility. No effort. It’s sick and pathetic.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty and "safety" both have costs

Whenever anyone calls for "common sense gun regulation" to "keep people safe", then whips out the zinger that if you don't agree with them, you "don't care if children die", a thought starts forming in my head. This is my attempt to flesh it out.

When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)

Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.

I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.

There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.

There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.

Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.

It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules. 

It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.

Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Self-destruction by ambition

I suspect that every new "law" and every new form of surveillance crammed in our faces and under our beds ratchets us one step closer to the collapse of the current government. They are dooming their own scam and don't realize it.

Their own ambition is killing them.

They think they are gaining more control. They think they are making us more controllable. And, in the short term, they probably are. I don't think it can last as long as they imagine.

"Forever" stamps are unrealistically optimistic.

I would like to think enough people have matured beyond the infantile need to be governed and to want others governed on their behalf that the species can stop making this same old stupid mistake, but chances are, we'll have to go a few more rounds, sacrificing a few more generations to this false god, before enough people catch up and catch on.

Whatever comes, I still see every new surveillance tool and every added "law" as another nail in the coffin of the State.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

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.