Reason or wild hallucinations?

I've heard plenty of good, rational reasons to dislike Trump coming from libertarians. Many times, since back in 2016 or before.

I've never heard one from a Democrat. Not once. Not online or from those I know personally.
From them, it's always some imagined danger; a nebulous fear like "he'll steal our democracy", or something really stupid like he'll start putting Americans in concentration camps because of race or some sexual criteria. Emotion based, not rational. Stuff that isn't going to happen because the people wouldn't tolerate it. (Unless the Democrats get their way and disarm everyone so that no one can resist.)

I think this is why they can support people like Harris (or Biden or Hillary Clinton).

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Added steps; reduced help

Taxing robots rather than people. Scott Adams thinks this is a great idea. He has promoted the idea on his livestream several times, suggesting that this is an alternative to income taxes.

The biggest flaw in this is something that government supremacists won't see as a flaw: it would continue to fund the state.

The second problem is, it's still really taxing people. Just taxing the people who own the robots. This is still unethical in the extreme.

Even if robots have jobs, and you steal a percentage of their productivity in the name of taxation to actually support the people of the country, this just adds an unnecessary layer to the process.

Instead of doing the stupid thing, have a robot work and send some of the profits of its productivity directly to someone or some program in need of funding. And do it voluntarily or not at all.

Don't reverse-launder the money by sending it to government, where much of the value will be diverted away from the thing it should be supporting. 

Funneling things through government bureaucratic layers of crookedness and inefficiency means those who need the help get much less of it.

Anything which props up government is part of the problem.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Their nature always shines through

Recently an excitable copsucker realized he was wrong and decided his best play at that point was to call me a "sovereign citizen". Just because I said cops have no "extra rights" and if they initiate force it is ethical to defend yourself from them. He really didn't like that- not one little bit!

He clutched at superstition and ethereal "permissions" to try to prop up his argument. He tried the "put yourself in their shoes" argument. No one was buying it. He knew he was shooting blanks as each of his justifications was dismissed by everyone in the discussion, so he pulled out the "sovereign citizen" thing and flung it at me. He tried desperately- by calling attention to what he'd called me-- to get others to chime in to agree. It didn't work like he hoped.

I congratulated him on his mind-reading abilities, then I pointed out the silliness of the very concept of "sovereign citizen". He doubled down, expressing his desire to see a video of me, as a sovereign citizen, being cuffed at a traffic stop. Then he ran away. Why are these people almost always so toxic and full of bloodlust? Typical statist.

By then I was laughing at him (on this side of the screen), and could have made fun of him. But I didn't. It wouldn't have accomplished anything positive. I'd made my point.

I'll be honest-- I can probably say things others can't because no one is listening to what I say. At least, most of the time they aren't.

I sometimes take advantage of that freedom. Good, bad, or crazy.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Collapse the wave function- peek inside the box

Joe Biden is Schrödinger’s “president”; both alive and dead until we collapse the wave function by looking in the coffin. Er, box.

Why won't they let anyone look?

Maybe it's because they already looked and don't like the result.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

What's happening and does it matter?

Does Joe Biden still hold the title of President? Is he even still alive?
Does it really matter?
Did it ever?

Swapping out figureheads matters less than most people want to believe it does.

The "Deep State" isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an observation of how things actually work.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Thoughts on the Trump shooting

Now that some time has passed, I have additional thoughts I'm willing to express about the assassination attempt on Trump

I'm against it.

Beyond that...

In extraordinary circumstances, assassination is both ethical and necessary. We are not there. Not with any politician currently on the radar. Not Trump, Biden, or even Hillary Clinton (although she's dangerously close).

It's literally part of the reason the Second Amendment exists-- to enable the people to have the upper hand-- the final word-- against government and politicians. It's why it protects literal weapons of war from government rules. It's why the arguments about government having all the nukes and fighter jets are silly and miss the point. Even a flintlock in the right hands can beat all their nukes, but modern weapons would be better for the task. 

In the end, politicians rely on the people tolerating them.

It's also a human right to defend yourself from those archating against you. Or making a credible threat to do so. That is what politicians and candidates are doing by their very existence.

It's still not usually smart, and may not be ethical, to try to assassinate anyone unless you have an actual Hitler-level threat in front of you, which I've never considered Trump to be. He's not unusually dangerous; he's the same as any other politician who may become president again. Which is bad enough.

But... shooting him could actually make him more dangerous by raising him to martyr status, Or removing him so that his supporters rally behind someone else and help that person become what TDS sufferers believed Trump was. That would be really stupid.

I also admit that my religious past made me instantly think of Revelations 13:3. I kept that to myself, until now.

Anyway... It's possible that the nearly successful attempt was just normal governmental incompetence, but it sure looks like something more was at work. Is it just a DEI problem? I doubt it. It looks like someone in government either helped plan the attack or was careful to not prevent it. That may be confirmation bias on my part.

The shooter (or shooters) bears full responsibility. But the media encouraged him to do it. If you doubt that, where have you been for the past 9 or so years. The media has been calling Trump "literally Hitler" and claiming he's an existential threat to America (and "our democracy") this whole time. Mentally unstable, or evil, people don't require much encouragement to act. He got more than he needed.

You or I will never know the whole truth about what happened. Even if the truth slips out, it will be a needle in a haystack of misinformation, and there will be false needles mixed in that are too big and shiny to ignore.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Assassination wrong, counterproductive

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 21, 2024)

Once again, some evil loser killed a person, but not the specific one he wished to kill. Donald Trump, his presumed primary target, survived with a minor injury. I am no fan of politicians or their institutions, but this isn't the way to change things for the better. Not even close!..read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Injustice for Trump… and for Hunter Biden

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2024)

Last week I pointed out the injustice of Donald Trump's conviction for violating nonsensical, arbitrary legislation. If such legislation even exists. This week it happened to someone else.

Once again someone prominent has been convicted of a victimless "crime" while those in Congress and other government positions continue to victimize Americans with their felonious regime.

Hunter Biden, the President's son, has been convicted of breaking a federal gun rule-- they wish we'd call it a "law"-- which the federal government is explicitly prohibited from making or enforcing. This is tied in with him breaking drug prohibition rules government has no authority to make up or enforce. This is what injustice looks like.

The jury involved in this verdict should be ashamed, as should the jury which convicted Trump. Trump should commit to pardoning Hunter Biden as soon as he's back in office.

I'm no fan of Hunter Biden; I think he is probably a horrible person. Still better than anyone who holds political office, but that's a very low bar. If you can't stand up for the rights of people you dislike, you are worthless in defense of liberty.

I know some people defend government's indefensible gun rules because they don't like guns. Some even try to make the case that these rules must be constitutional because courts have allowed them to stand. Not even close. Government has gotten away with enforcing them for nearly a century now, but they are no more constitutional than drug prohibition or space flight licensing. Less so, since neither drugs nor spacecraft are specifically called out as things government is forbidden to control. Guns are.

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. Government is not allowed to make up any rule which would interfere with the natural human right to own or carry weapons. Enforcing rules concerning who may or may not purchase weapons, based on self-incrimination on a government form, is a clear violation of rights.

Every one of us, except a few who hold public office, is part of the militia. It's impossible for this militia to be "well regulated"-- practiced until your skill with weapons is effective for the defense of yourself and your community-- when government gets away with making it a crime to do so. Every gun rule is a criminal act by government. Convicting someone of violating one of these counterfeit rules is anti-American. Even if you loathe the person.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Unearned status

There are two ways to elevate the status of a politician beyond anything they've earned: 

Make them a martyr or call them Hitler. These aren't mutually exclusive, either.

There are also multiple ways to make a politician into a martyr:

Assassination, or pity for the evil old dingbat whose brain stopped working due to factors other than explosive penetration.

Politicians love it when you elevate them beyond their true status as parasites.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Musing on politics

I disagree with Republicans at least half the time-- which is nearly identical to how often I disagree with Democrats. I only agree with either party when they are correct about something.

However, I can't be the only one noticing that Democrats are usually guilty of doing the things they accuse Republicans of doing (admittedly, sometimes while Republicans are also doing it). And of accusing others of being what they themselves are.

While both parties are fascist socialists, the Democrats are the ones who seem to have more in common with historical Nazis. The tactics and rhetoric they use, in particular. Also, the weaponized mental illness they employ is a big problem for those who are susceptible to such things. And, the bad guys currently in power are always the greater threat than the bad guys who want that power.

It's why I usually just call them all "DemoCRAPublicans".

Public politics is nothing more than a sibling rivalry. Yes, it can turn deadly, and innocent people get caught in the crossfire. 

The reality is that the worst bad guys in power are those who comprise the Deep State. The unelected agents, bureaucrats, operatives, and the elected legacy politicians who seem to have held office since I was a kid. The elections sometimes put a different mask on the bad guys, but they never change much-- and their agenda only grows more evil with time.

It's sad that statists of any kind have such power in the world. But that doesn't mean I have to bow to their demands or fall for their lies. Do not comply. Do not fawn. Do not assist in your own enslavement.

You have the fundamental human right to run your own life without asking permission from political criminals. Act like it.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Thinking or just believing

Much of the wrongness in the world, including statism, is based on believing instead of thinking.

You’ve been told and "everybody knows"… something that's not true.

Another way to say it is Smarts vs. Emotion.

Just look around and you'll see it everywhere. 

I catch myself doing it, too.

My plan is to continually whittle away at this so that it gets to be less of what's in my mind over time.

I'm constantly pausing when I encounter, and I notice, things I "believe". Then I think about it. I'll check definitions of words to see if I'm thinking of a word wrong. I'll try to see what I may be missing. I'll check the logic of the belief and see if it adds up.  Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, I try to change what I believe so it aligns with what's real. This can be harder than you'd suppose.

This is how my views on many things have changed over the years. I "believe" less and I think more.

I've never experienced a case where this process falsified liberty in any way. Have you had the same experience, or a different one?

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

What do most government functions have in common?

Most government functions shouldn’t be done at all. By anyone.

The few that remain should be done by other groups, entities, or individuals-- voluntarily, without theft or coercion.

If the function requires theft-funding ("taxation") it must die.
If a function can't inspire enough people to fund or do it on a volunteer basis, it must die.
If a function can't be done without relying on government, it must die.

Use the economic means, not the political means.

If you can't do something without initiating force or violating property rights, you have no right to do it. And others have the right to defend themselves from having it done to them.

If that eliminates the opportunity for you to do what you want to do, or to see done what you want done, that's too bad. Find another way or move on. No one has the right to archate- to govern. If you do what you have no right to do, you're the problem.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Being fine with tyranny

If you’re not willing to defend yourself and your rights from government and its legislation, in whatever ethical way is necessary, you’re saying you’re fine with tyranny.

That's a valid choice. For many reasons. Just be honest about it, and don't criticize those who choose differently.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Government-required evil

People commit evil because government requires it. I'm not talking about those who work directly for government-- which is obviously wrong.

Gun shops run background checks and keep records of every sale, not because it’s necessary, but because government bullies them into it. It will put them out of business by revoking their "license" and cage the employees and owners if they don't do wrong by following the government rules. So they do, and I can't really blame them too much.

So many people feel they have no choice but to do government's dirty work against their customers, friends, neighbors, and family members. The threat of not doing so is too great.

Look how many violate life, liberty, and property because if they don't comply, they'll face the same fate as gun store owners/employees:
Car manufacturers and dealers, doctors and pharmacists, retail stores, social media sites, carpenters and construction, etc.

Any business deal should be between you and the customer, not between you and the customer at the whim of the state which makes the seller steal money in the form of taxes and fees from the customer, and makes the customer accept inferior products and services because government says so.

And when a business feels it is necessary to sell out its customers to the state, in whatever way it happens, that's even worse. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Politics IS violence

Politics is violence. Worse, politics is usually aggression.

A blanket condemnation of political violence while still doing politics is a denial of reality. It's like calling for people to reject round circles or wet water. I understand why they have to say it, but really...

Politics is violence!

Its violence is usually camouflaged behind other words. Words like "democracy" or "laws". The threats are called something else, too. But politics is violence.

Yes, reject political violence by rejecting politics! Otherwise, you're just making ridiculous noise with your face or laying out a string of absurd words with your fingers.

Politics doesn't improve anyone's character. It doesn't make society better. It's a cancer.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Reboot your brain

If you allow events to enflame your passions, the critical-thinking part of your brain will shut off. It happened to me for the first 24 hours after "9/11". That experience has caused me to be extra cautious ever since.

It's why I often wait a while before commenting too deeply on events. Other than immediately pointing out the knee-jerk spasms that blame inanimate objects rather than evil losers.

If you're not careful you might do or say things you'll regret once the critical-thinking part of your brain comes back on line. You don't need that. But the state can and will use it to do things you wouldn't tolerate if you were thinking.

Neither TDS nor Trump fanboy-ing will serve you well if you care to think clearly. Politicians are a problem, not a solution. The political means won't solve anything, no matter which side employs it.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Amendments Convention a trap

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 14, 2024)

Roosevelt County has stepped into a trap. Convening a U.S. Amendments Convention would be a mistake.

The Bill of Rights already contains the most important Constitutional amendments and the federal government usually disobeys it...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The rifle didn't do this

It's not the rifle's fault. 

I'm already hearing new "questions" about long-range rifles. Maybe I've waited too long to get that bolt-action .308 with a good scope.

It sounds like the Secret Service agents (as well as other cop-types) were informed of the shooter's presence and location well before the first shots. But who knows what's real?

If you've spent 9 years calling someone "Hitler", I'm not going to believe your "shock" at the events. Nor do your calls for "no political violence" carry any weight.

I have other thoughts that would get me banned from most (or all) social media, would make anti-gun bigots AND Trump supporters angry, and probably wouldn't be productive anyway.

I will just re-emphasize: Politics makes people stupid and evil.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Let's make them all convicted felons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2024)

The precedent is set. As of May 30, 2024, every presidential administration can expect to be convicted of felonies by the next administration from the other party. Congressional members of the opposition party could be convicted, as well. They all commit felonies, most far more real and serious than the ones Donald Trump was convicted of.

Democratic former presidents and members of Congress should be convicted of felonies as soon as there's a Republican administration. Nor should the Democratic Party stop with Trump and those who represented him; there's low-hanging fruit in Congressional Republicans. This presents an opportunity to bring the federal government to a grinding halt.

Why do I say "convicted" rather than simply "charged"?

As has been pointed out by author Harvey A. Silverglate, we all commit an average of three felonies per day. This isn't because we're bad people, it's because legislation is out of control-- Congress and the President are to blame.

If an ambitious prosecutor decides to get you, you'll be gotten. As the Soviets said, "Show me the man and I'll find the crime." A carefully chosen venue, judge, hostile jury pool, and instructions from the judge to find the defendant guilty, however you have to do it, and a conviction is in the bag.

It's up to juries to put a stop to this, but most are unaware of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. If the defendant is accused of violating a law which has no victim (other than government), it is the responsibility of the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe the defendant did what he or she was charged with. Even if Hunter Biden lied on the form when he bought a gun. This is called jury nullification. Judges used to inform juries of this duty but stopped doing so when they began acting as agents of the state rather than of justice.

No one has a right to govern another, nor to impose a politician on anyone else. I think there should be consequences for attempting to govern other people, but I think those consequences should be based on real crimes where an individual's life, liberty, or property was harmed, not a victimless "crime" where the only thing harmed is something which can't be victimized: government.

If this precedent makes it too risky to enter politics, it would be a good change.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Making people stupid and evil

Politics makes people stupid and it causes them to justify evil.

Evil, like government border control,
    ...or conflating government importation of people with "immigration".
Evil, like criminalizing defense of life, liberty, and property.
Evil, like caging (or murdering) people over things they sell, possess, or ingest.
Evil, like stealing property, including money, to support or fund government.
Evil, like tolerating a gang of unaccountable criminals, and even backing them when they clash with society.
Evil, like threatening people into paying a yearly ransom on their property and possessions, making them register and pay fees for things they own, and generally treating everyone as property of the state.

Evil.

Only stupidity could make people think evil is OK in those instances. Politics is one common way to generate the necessary level of stupidity required. Politics never makes anyone smarter or more ethical.

If you want to change society there are good ways to make the attempt, and there are political ways.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Killing the competition

Is it okay for a firefighter to shoot anyone he sees with a fire extinguisher? No.

Is it okay for a teacher to shoot anyone she sees reading a book outside of class? Don't be ridiculous!

Is it okay for an accountant to shoot anyone he sees doing math or using the calculator on his phone? Obviously not.

Not unless the individual was in the process of using those items to violate life, liberty, or property.

Then why would anyone believe it's okay for a cop to shoot anyone he sees simply carrying a weapon? It's not, and only a delusional copsucker would argue that it is. "Officer safety" is a poor excuse for cowardly murder.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support.

Letting "illegals" v*te...

First of all, ignoring illegitimate legislation that criminalizes crossing governments' made-up lines without permission doesn't make a person "illegal". Believing so is superstitious statism. All "immigration" control-- even if I would personally like it for some reason-- fits the bill. Calling people "illegals" identifies you as a statist who supports counterfeit "laws" and believes government "authority" trumps property rights.

Secondly, I don't think anyone should be allowed to v*te for anything that harms another person's life, liberty, or property. It's never ethical or legitimate.

But, if someone is going to be impacted by a v*te, and they feel the need to v*te in self-defense, I don't believe you should make up rules prohibiting them from doing so. Residency matters more than "citizenship" in this case. Unless you agree that the legislation will only apply to those who v*ted in favor of it, and everyone else is exempt (which would be the only reasonable approach). 

If this is a problem for you, then don't make up (or support) a system where v*tes can endanger anyone in any way. Don't allow any legislation/rules that violate natural human rights, no matter how many people v*te in favor of it. (That was supposedly the idea behind establishing America as a republic instead of as a democracy, but it didn't work.)

I think the whole thing is dumb, but if membership in the club is a requirement to v*te in the club's sham contests, then it is what it is. (But in that case, the rules only apply to the members, and no one else.) 

But making up a rule that everyone who's already ineligible to v*te is not eligible to v*te? You don't have to make up new rules to keep the old rules in force; you'd need to make up new rules to change the old rules. That's pretty simple and clear. Trying to bolster the old rules with new rules seems counterproductive and a waste of time.

But, I also don't quite get why-- considering the broken system we are subjected to-- one party, in particular, finds it so important that everyone who isn't eligible, according to the established rules, is allowed to v*te when it's obvious the party doesn't otherwise really care about life, liberty, property, or natural human rights of just about any kind. (Just like the opposition party.) Do they believe the new v*ters will be (or stay) loyal to them? It would be a foolish bet.

Maybe they just hope to destroy the system, but that would be the end of their power, too. Which is fine by me!

It's all so dumb and messed up beyond hope. This is just another example-- shining a light on all political sides-- that politics makes people stupid and causes them to justify evil.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Immunize yourself against global government

The best defense from a one-world government is to grow beyond belief in government. 

As long as you're willing to tolerate a little government, you can be tricked into supporting more. And more. You'll always be concerned only with "when it becomes too much".

Any political government is too much. 

No one has a right to govern another and such a "right" can't be created. It doesn't matter if it's a small-town mayor and his flunkies or a Supreme Council for the whole planet. Or a Galactic Empire.

Stop falling for The Most Dangerous Superstition and you'll increase your immunity to governments across the board. Including any attempt at a global government.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Room enough for both

Every time a new store opens in this little town, it's too rich for my blood. I'll go in to see the new place soon after it opens, and I'm usually impressed by what they sell, but everything is out of my price range.

And that's perfectly fine.

I’m glad ritzy stores-- that I can’t afford to patronize-- exist. They make things nicer and more interesting. They are probably the only type of store potentially able to afford the rent in the plentiful empty buildings.

I’m glad thrift stores with dirty, cluttered shelves and cheap, negotiable prices exist too. They are as interesting as the ritzy places, but in a different way. 

Both fill a niche. Both are useful and valuable. Neither one threatens me by its existence. Keep giving it a shot.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

The best way to do harmful things?

Don't.

People spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to figure out the best ways to do things that shouldn't be done. At all. By anyone.

The best way to fund government.
The best way to teach children obedience.
The best way to "run" a society.
The best way to police.
The best way to protect democracy.

I can't stop them from wasting their time. I just wish I had a good way to prevent the harm they inflict with their crazy notions from impacting my life or the lives of those I care about.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

It can't be allowed to continue

Scott thinks he’s listing problems with technological progress while he lists reasons government can’t be allowed to continue.

It's not just him. I see this so often it's almost comical. 

People list reasons why people can't be trusted when what they are actually listing are reasons people can't be trusted with power over others. 

People list the problems with abolishing police when they are actually enumerating problems caused when government prohibits individuals from defending themselves and their property. 

People tell me why liberty can't work when they are really expressing why limited freedom under a government doesn't work. Liberty is all or nothing.

Scott Adams also likes to say there's no such thing as privacy-- he blames corporations as well as government without recognizing they are really one and the same. This is yet another reason government must be abolished for the survival of the species.

When he says insurance companies will be the ones who dictate what we will be allowed to own and do, he's actually pointing out that mandatory insurance, imposed and enforced by government, is how insurance companies will gain the power to impose government's preferences upon us. Another reason government can't continue is thus exposed.

If all the problems you see have a common element, maybe you're blaming the wrong things. Maybe it really is a fact that government is the problem, and you are wasting your time defending the indefensible and shifting the blame away from where it belongs.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

I will speak out as long as I'm able

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 7, 2024)

You are probably familiar with the poem, First They Came, by Martin Niemöller. The one which begins, "First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist." It goes on to list more groups "they" came for.

We are living in such a time again...read the rest...

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Politics will never increase liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2024)

If you are a good person who votes for Democratic or Republican candidates because you feel you must, even if you don't agree with the crazy positions the national party holds, I won't hold the party's flaws against you.

I also hope you don't confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarian people. They aren't the same thing at all.

Politics ruins everything it touches. The problem with political Libertarianism is that libertarianism and politics aren't compatible.

Politics is the use of "the political means"-- theft, fraud, coercion-- to force people to do what you want by controlling legislation and enforcement. Maximizing liberty by respecting all the rights of all the people all the time doesn't figure in anywhere. Instead of the political means, libertarianism encourages using "the economic means"-- voluntary interactions, trade, and free association-- to shape society.

A Libertarian Party trying to spread liberty with politics is like a Republican Party advocating an authoritarian police state or a Democratic Party keeping certain candidates out of debates or off the ballot; an embarrassment to its name and all it claims to stand for.

I understand feeling this is what you have to do because it's how others work for change. It won't work for libertarians because they have to disregard what they are to participate in politics. If they win by being un-libertarian, what was gained? It's hard to convince people you've got a good idea and a better way when you follow the same toxic path the others do.

I was once a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but it has been years since they nominated a presidential candidate I could support.

The tactic of nominating Republicans who'll hide their authoritarian positions during the campaign, or knee-jerk anti-Republicans who'll go overboard in the opposite direction as a reaction to previous candidates, doesn't advance liberty.

Libertarians have told the other parties for years that if they want us to vote for them, they are going to have to earn it rather than threaten us into it. They never seem terribly interested in earning libertarian support. The same goes double for the Libertarian Party.

I understand that under the current circumstances it appears libertarians would need to be un-libertarian to change society, but this isn't going to work.

If politics is a game you enjoy, go ahead. Just realize- politics of any kind is doomed to never increase liberty in any meaningful way.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

“No weapons of any kind are permitted”

…is how you tell everyone you’re either an idiot or evil. Or both.

First off, “weapon” isn’t a thing, it’s how something is used. Everything, and I mean everything, is a potential weapon. That means you can’t ban weapons. You can only try to ban categories of tools you’re bigoted against. That's idiotic.

Second, bad guys intent on causing harm aren’t going to read or follow your stupid rule! You’re just demanding that everyone be helpless in the face of bad guys. That's siding with the criminals and it's just evil.

There WILL BE weapons present. You'll just be deciding who has the most effective ones. Nothing more.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

After the government worship service

I often go places and act as an alien observer. Mainly just because I'm not there with anyone and I might as well observe the people. See if I can learn anything.

That was the case yesterday morning when I got wrangled into taking my daughter and her boyfriend to a Fourth of July parade (not an Independence Day parade) in a nearby town; a town that an ancient relative used to call "Jenny Slipper". Most people call it Muleshoe.

There was no independence on display, but a whole lot of state worship. And cops making sure no one showed any independence. But, that's a separate topic.

Well, the cowboy doing rope tricks as he rode a flatbed down the street was possibly the most independent of them all. I don't remember if his flatbed was festooned with government symbology. If not, it was probably the exception.

As soon as the parade was over I got abandoned while the teens ran off to do their thing-- they wished to visit the vendors. I followed the crowd (yes, I am capable of doing that) to the courthouse, and picked a shady spot under one of the Siberian elms. These are inferior trees that got planted all over this region a century or so ago and sold to the residents as the superior Chinese elm. Oh well, it gave shade.

Chairs were set up by groups all around me, so I got to hear a lot of interesting and amusing conversations and stories-- one about how someone's cluelessness embarrassed her and inconvenienced a couple of groups of golfers. At least she found it funny now.

Another guy was telling all about his fitness routine, and how he wanted to increase his fitness so he would be capable in whatever circumstances arise. A worthy goal.

One woman was telling her friends about a man who had done her wrong. It didn't take too long listening to her before I completely empathized with the man.

Nearly everyone was eating food from the vendors. Some people were showing off their dogs. People were milling about and chatting.

One thing I didn't hear was any political talk. No one discussed presidents or congressvermin or Supreme Courtjesters. No one talked about elections within my hearing. I didn't hear a single person mention government in any way, even though we were sitting on "government property" [sic] in front of an imposing government building. So, even if the parade didn't celebrate independence, the people at least lived it a little bit.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Be independent of the political criminals among us

The very best thing about plagiarist zombie Joe Biden is that he has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that having a human occupy the presidency is unnecessary. This means the office itself is unnecessary. Since it's unnecessary, and has such a great potential to be harmful if "the wrong person" is put into the office, why keep it? 

Abolish the presidency.

Then, because this would upset the balance of power, get rid of all the lawgivers and Supreme Courtjesters to balance things out again.

You don't need any of them, and fooling "the public" into believing they do is one of the sleaziest scams ever perpetrated on the species.

You are enough. You can govern yourself just fine, and that's the only one any of us has a right to govern, anyway. Be independent. Happy (observed) Independence Day.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

No one has such a "right"

No one has the right to be a police officer. 

Not even of the nice Andy Taylor variety.

No more than anyone has the right to be a burglar, a rapist, or a serial killer. The "right" to archate doesn't exist and can't be created, not by a majority opinion, by a document, by acceptance, or by a perceived "need".

When actual natural rights conflict with someone's imaginary "right" to be a cop, the cop loses, even if he/she murders the other because of the superstitious belief in "officer safety"/

Don't like that? Don't be a cop.

(I am typing this with my eyes still dilated, so I can't actually proofread what I'm typing. Grammarly is looking for mistakes, too.)

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Defense against the DK

I really kind of hate recognizing the Dunning-Kruger Effect in others because it makes me aware I’m probably experiencing it in some way myself.

The friend I’ve mentioned before who “doesn’t need a gun” because she has had medical training and will use her keys for defense if attacked is one person who makes me uncomfortable for this reason. I see this effect in her all the time on so many different topics.

She knows so much that there’s really nothing she can learn from others. But most of what she knows isn't based in reality. Not even close. She doesn't know what, or how much, she doesn't know. She is the textbook example of the DK Effect in nearly every domain she talks about.

At least she makes me think. And, of course, I will never suggest she is experiencing the DK Effect since if she learned about it, I would be an ex-friend. It's just educational for me to observe it in action.

Then I wonder, if she can be so obviously wrong on what she’s confident she knows, how might I be wrong about things I know; about a need to initiate force and theft and thus a need to govern others? 

I do understand the arguments made by those who want to carve out a need for political “authority”, I just don’t buy them. And I’ve tried to see it from the other side. Hard. But maybe I'm wrong. If I'm an example of Dunning-Kruger I wouldn't know.

I do have a sense of what I don't know and how much I don't know (it's a lot). Maybe that's a bit of a defense against the DK. Or maybe I just hope it is.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Choosing to live in a dystopia

Often, when you point out the absurdity of living with political government, some genius will inform you that "Utopia isn't an option" as a way to justify their acceptance of government's atrocities.

It's kind of a dumb argument. 

The only ones I've ever seen trying to impose a Utopia are those who believe their brand of government is the one which will bring it about.

It won't.

I've never seen a liberty advocate pretending that liberty will bring Utopia. But it's a convenient straw man for statists to try to use against the idea of removing the power of their religion from society-- they already carry it around in their pocket.

Utopia isn’t an option, but dystopia is always optional. 

Government is a way to pick that option.

Choosing to try to govern each other is choosing a path to dystopia.

Liberty and government are mutually exclusive-- the more of one you have, the less you'll have of the other. You might not like what everyone chooses to do with their liberty, but it will never be a dystopia-- for that you'll need government restricting and strangling liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Keep independence part of holiday

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 30, 2024)

Do you celebrate Independence Day or do you celebrate the Fourth of July instead?

It’s the difference between celebrating insurrection, secession, and the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government in the cause of independence, or demonstrating your loyalty to an even more tyrannical government and its military...read the rest...

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Extra rights for some don't exist

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 26, 2024)

If a police officer has the right to do something-- anything-- so do you. If you don't have the right to do it, then no one does. Not police officers, CIA agents, bureaucrats, or presidents. A job or a position can't create extra rights; there's no such thing as an extra right.

This is hard for many people to accept because those who benefit from the fantasy of extra rights work hard to brainwash the public into believing it.

The only reason those jobs exist is to hire someone to do things most people would rather not do for themselves. Yet the existence of the job doesn't remove your right to do the things you hire others to do. It can't.

Pretending otherwise is as silly as believing once you hire some kid to mow your lawn you have no right to mow it yourself anymore. And that his parents can throw you in a cage if you dare to do so.

There's no guarantee those servants are competent or can do it better than you could. Or that those jobs should be done at all.

What those jobs do create is illegitimate power over you and your life, liberty, and property. It's the same kind of power a mugger in a shadowy doorway has over you if he gets the drop on you. Having power doesn't make the power legitimate or make the actions right.

It's good I don't have the power to impose rules on my neighbors forbidding them from doing things I don't want them to do, but which violate no one's life, liberty, or property. It's also a good thing I don't have the power to kick in my neighbor's door to stop them from doing something which is prohibited by these rules I or my club dream up. This power is always abused when exercised, whether by a lone individual or by a collective such as society.

Or by an antisocial collective like a government or a mob.

Majority opinion can't change rights into wrongs or wrongs into rights. It can't legitimize invalid power or the attempt to protect and exercise such power. This is why democracy is nothing to fetishize or promote.

It's not safe to confront those addled with the notion of extra rights or illegitimate power. It's also not necessary. Once you see them for what they are, they become trivial to your life.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.