Thursday, December 31, 2015

So long, 2015... and bite me

I'm tempted to say "Good riddance, and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out" to the year 2015. Not a good one for me by just about any measure. It will be a blot on my life forever.

But, 2016 will be better! Whatever I have control of, I will do better. Whatever the year throws at me I will try to handle better. I'm determined to NOT let the past get me down, and not let it defeat me.

Not even the event of November 17th.

A neighbor across the alley lost her 19 year-old daughter to a car wreck back about 5 or so years ago. She aged a lot afterwards. She rarely gets dressed, and is withdrawn, sad, and tragic. When my daughter was killed I made up my mind that wouldn't happen to me. It would be a horrible legacy for someone I love. And I think I have done fairly well.

For weeks afterward I wanted to stop every stranger I passed and tell them what happened. I didn't, but I wanted to. I mostly limited talking about it to this blog and Facebook. That was therapeutic and allowed me to get things off my chest without letting them take over my life. So, say what you will about Facebook (and I agree with the criticisms), it did serve a vital purpose in my mental health this past month and a half.

Anyway, I am determined that, to the extent I can control things, 2016 will be better.

And I hope yours is better for you, too. See ya next year.


Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Blaming others for your failure

Those who believe bad guys "out there" justify "borders" and cops here remind me of the puppeticians of Chicago and DC who blame their staggering murder rates on the freer regions (those with slightly less horrible anti-gun "laws") surrounding them.

There will always be somewhere else that you'll see as a threat when your carefully crafted scheme fails to deliver what you promised. Because governing is a lie, you will always fail.

Unless you have a "one world government", someone will be outside your (always illegitimate) jurisdiction and will have influence in your domain.

The solution isn't to more fully dominate and molest the people near you- it is to step away and stop governing and let people solve real problems (which are much more rare than the statist's imaginary ones) themselves.

Politicians are just bullies who create problems, then promise- and fail- to solve the problems they created.

Liberty works while bullies twerk.


Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Life’s never perfect, but still good

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 27, 2015)
For Cheyenne.

You already know this, of course, but you may not think about it very often: You never know what the next moment will bring. The worst days start exactly like the best days.

I was in the middle of writing last week’s column when I got the news that my 24-year-old daughter had been killed in a car wreck. Nothing can prepare you for something like that.

In the days to follow, in the midst of traveling and attending services, I realized Thanksgiving was approaching. Thankfulness, after this? Well, yes. I know I still have so many things to be thankful for. I have to admit to having a little trouble maintaining the thankfulness this year; it's competing with a profound sense of loss.

I'm thankful for the time I spent with my daughter. I'm thankful for my other two kids, and the rest of my family.

I'm thankful for how caring people can be. In words, and in actions, too. I was reminded, first hand, of the kindness of people, including strangers. And how willing people are to reach out to those in pain. So many people offered words of comfort and sympathy, and even financial help so I could travel to her service. I have been thankful for everything and the spirit in which it is offered. It's still a roller coaster. Life is never perfect, but there is always something good.

This has also shown yet again the futility of making up "laws"- and enforcing them- to supposedly protect us. Bad people won't obey; good people are harmed by having their liberty stolen using the bad people as excuses. You don't get safety in a police state. Never. It simply doesn't work that way.

Life is better lived in liberty than with the harmful illusion of safety. I wish my daughter had been able to live her life in the free society I envision and advocate, rather than the police state that is growing around us, but I'm also grateful there is as much freedom left as there is, and that she was able to enjoy some of it in her too-short life. I'm glad for every bit of liberty she grabbed when she had the opportunity.

So, yes, I am thankful. And I will continue to fight the liars who demand you give up essential liberty for the illusion of safety. For all our sons and daughters, but especially for the memory of my daughter, Cheyenne Rose.


Don't spit on your idea by turning it into a State

The Islamic State is something I hate and could never support.

But, not necessarily because it is Islamic- although I am not a fan of Islam.

The same would be true for a Christian State, a Jewish State, or an Atheist State.

I would oppose a Dog Lovers' State, a Football State, or a Coffee Drinkers' State.

And even a Libertarian State, or a "Free State".

The problem lies in declaring a State.

Creating a State around your idea- even if it's otherwise harmless or good- negates the harmlessness and good. A State is automatically a bad thing; built upon aggression, coercion, and theft.

I get it: people want to say "This area, defined by these boundaries, is different from those areas beyond these boundaries. This area is better than those areas for lots of reasons". And, they may even be somewhat right. But as soon as your area meets the definition of a State it has lost the moral high ground. You have trashed your idea, no matter how great it might have been to begin with.


Monday, December 28, 2015

"For-your-own-good laws"

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I despise "for your own good laws".

They come either from those who mimic the angry, controlling father, or those who mimic the hovering, controlling mother. Controlling what other people do is a sickness.

I understand: some people are obsessed with controlling others. As long as they limit it to people in their personal circle- people who can say "No" and back it up if need be, then it's just an individual flaw.

But when this sickness is expressed in "law", backed up and enforced under threat of death, it becomes really damaging.

Statutory rape "laws" are one of these sorts of "laws". They are really no different from bans on large sodas. Or anti-gun "laws".

These "laws" come from the control-freak mindset that you can't make your own choices which could potentially harm you- or at least harm some people under some circumstances. Why can't you be allowed to make your own choices? Because you wouldn't make the "right choice"- the choice those who dream up the "law" insist you make. So you must be prevented- I mean "protected"- from making unapproved choices. This means someone else must be empowered to make your decisions for you- using the overbearing wisdom of the control freak. Anyone stepping out of line and daring to make their own decisions will be punished.

This is often hidden behind "someone would otherwise take advantage of you" by offering you a choice the controllers have determined you shouldn't make.

And, of course, those who support such "laws" will always justify their "laws" by making excuses of why those "protected" by such "laws" can't consent, can't be trusted with making their own decisions, or whatever, and some of their justifications may have a kernel of truth and may sound reasonable.

I even see many liberty lovers who mouth support for such "laws", particularly with regard to "statutory rape"/"age of consent", due to their fears of what might happen otherwise. Expressing doubt about the ethics of such "laws" can be met with raging hatred and threats of violent death.

But think about this: why would you let The State set and define the terms? One day an act is aggression, and the very next day- actually it could be the very next second- the identical act isn't? It's absurd, and will always be absurd. By letting the statist control freaks lay out the boundaries for thought and discussion you are handing them the keys to your self determination. You are pretending they occupy the high ground- but it's really a guard tower looking over your prison camp.

Once these "for your own good" opinions get made into a "law" all reason is gone. One-size-fits-all NEVER fits all.

As I say, if you believe there needs to be a rule covering some "for your own good" things, make the rule for those you are personally responsible for, and fight them for control. But stop at that and keep your filthy "laws" to yourself. I want no part of it.


Don't be backward

"Cultural elites", like politicians and celebrities, have interesting ideas of what makes someone "backward". If you value property rights, self defense, and other things vital for survival, they will look down on you and think of you as backward. They will call you names.

The "loyal opposition" to those "cultural elites" also always find things to fault about those who don't want their "help". Self ownership, thinking for yourself (thinking at all, probably)- and again- actual property rights, and self defense apart from their beloved "law" imposition goons are frowned upon.

But, to me, there is a clear backwardness to the brutal anti-survival, anti-civilized agenda of both sides*.

The things that are truly backward are things like prohibition, anti-gun/anti-self defense "laws", "taxes", property codes/zoning, anti-sex "laws", and permits. These hearken back to the old superstitious belief in "authority". Antiquated throwbacks which have no place in any decent civilization.

If a person wants to progress, to not be a Neanderthal (although this is probably insulting to the memory of Neanderthals) there is one path: Embrace and advocate Rightful Liberty. That's it. Anything less is obsolete.

*This is misleading, because they are not different "sides", but one and the same: the anti-liberty bigot statists.


Sunday, December 27, 2015

They can't be trusted with a gun

Of all those people you might argue can't be trusted with guns- drug addicts, "felons", hot-heads, cops- there is only one group I could never trust with a gun- or anything else: Those who are loyal to government. Any government.

Not just those who lower themselves to work for government and impose its policies and opinions, but even the "nice" guy down the street who supports government as long as "his guy" is in office. Or the guy who says you need to "respect the office", if not the person in the office. Or, even the guy who fears what might happen without government.

The democides are always carried out, and justified, by such cracked individuals.

I'm sure you've seen the old photos of monsters in uniform aiming to shoot some individual who they have on their knees by a ditch. Those photos crop up everywhere, and are horrifying. All those murders are committed by people loyal to government.

Loyalty to government- even to the idea of government- is one of the most dangerous moral shortcomings imaginable. It is the inspiration for so much evil.

I'm not saying it is the only evil- obviously there are people out there committing great evil who hate government. But when you compare the damage each ideology inspires, loyalty to government creates much more death and destruction than is done by the others.

I am not loyal to government. Not any of them. I spit on the very idea of government. I pity and look down upon those who excuse and try to justify government.

I am not saying I would support a "law" barring guns to those who are loyal to government (that would be looking to government to protect you from itself- a silly idea), but I am saying that such a person can't be trusted. Not with a gun, not with a pencil. No need to hunt them down. Just know who they are, and act accordingly.


Saturday, December 26, 2015

How would you want to be remembered?

Someday, our descendants will judge those who facilitate "executions" by knowingly providing deadly drugs to state employees for the purpose just as harshly as those who knowingly sold Zyklon B to the Nazis are now judged: as evil incarnate.

And those "medical professionals" who help in any way will not be immune, either.


Thursday, December 24, 2015

I'll embrace the label

Out of (possibly misplaced) consideration I let my second ex-wife know of Cheyenne's death. They were once close.

The details of how our marriage ended aren't important- neither of us was innocent. The past is the past, and I hold no grudge against her. I can't say the same for her, considering the response I got several years ago to a friendly "hi".

The response I got back this time had me shaking my head, wondering just exactly what her reality looks like.

She wound up saying some nice things about Cheyenne, but not before beginning the message by saying: "I never had another thing to say to you after i walked away. You truley [sic] have a problem and need help."

The funny thing is, I remember what happened in our marriage, how it ended, and I know what her life has been like since it ended. Talk about people in glass houses and their poorly aimed projectiles... Anyway...

At Cheyenne's memorial, her mom- my first ex-wife- made a point of telling me several times, with a smile, that I am crazy- without specifics. But, it's clear to me she still likes me as a person.

Our son has a quite different take on the matter of who is crazy. At least, from what he's said to me. I guess it depends on perspective.

But, neither ex mentioned what my perceived problem might be, or in what way I am crazy.

Sure, I should take such pronouncements with a grain of salt, and consider other factors. Still, it does nag at me.

On the other hand, looking around at the world and society these days, perhaps being told I "have a problem" and am "crazy" might be endorsements. Going along with what is going on might be "normal", but it can't possibly be right. If being right indicates a problem, or a sign of craziness, I'll be happy to wear that label. How about you?


Wednesday, December 23, 2015


When someone is utterly consumed with bigotry, it's nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with them. Especially where the object of their bigotry is concerned.

And almost no one is more bigoted than anti-liberty bigots- particularly anti-gun/anti-self defense bigots.

About all you can do is point out their bigotry for others to see, then move along.

They will lie and fling hate at you. It's their only weapon.

They are sad little people. Damaged people. And they don't know it.


Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Dragging others slows everyone

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 20, 2015... I was right in the middle of writing this one when I got the news about my daughter. As soon as I remembered what I had been doing, I just submitted it "as is" and never tried to finish it. I still don't know how heavily it was edited.)

Are there some things that can’t be accomplished without forcing people to go along?

Let’s say you are trying to hike back to civilization after your plane goes down in a remote area.

If your group is divided on the best way to survive, do those who want to walk out really want to be dragging along those who want to stay put?

Would that be good for either group; improve the odds of survival and allow you to get help faster? Or might this slow everyone down and take precious energy and resources from the chance for the survival of either group?

So why would anyone believe this is a good way to attempt a society?

Some fear doing everything by unanimous consent would mean nothing would get done. I think it means more would get done, and be done faster and better without the reluctant being dragged along.

Let's use national defense as an example. Let's imagine you aren't being taxed at all, nor are any of the products or services you use taxed in any way at any step. This means you could multiply your real wealth and spending power by many times. If you were just a few times richer, and could spend all that money any way you want, would you contribute to national defense? If not, then you don't value it enough to justify forcing others to share the cost. If so, then it is obvious it is valuable enough to be funded voluntarily.

The same goes for everything currently financed through the theft called "taxation". There are things currently funded by taxes I would gladly pay for- especially if I weren't being taxed so I could afford it. There are other things I don't want, but wouldn't stop you from funding. It's the difference between being civilized and being a society based on mutual violation. Plus, since it's cheaper and more efficient to accept donations than to pay swarms of agents to threaten people to pay up "or else", there's more money to go around.

If your idea has worth, you don't need to force participation. If you have to force participation, your idea is worthless.

Doing things collectively isn't necessarily bad. Only when it is not voluntary. I'm a fan of working together to accomplish things none of us can do alone. I'm not in favor of enslaving and robbing others to get what I want. Let everyone pay for what they want, not what they don't want, and pay for what they voluntarily choose to use.



Honesty may not be the best policy

Hold on to your butts...

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~ H.L. Mencken

But, I'm not normal.

I don't spit, I hoisted the black flag long ago, and my version of slitting throats is watching the v*ters elect Trump. Or Sanders. Or Clinton, part 2. Or Paul, Cruz, Rubio, or any other of the toxic vermin running for president. They are all socialistic scum- the very flower of collectivism.

V*ters will get the president they deserve- unfortunately, they force the stupid bugger on the rest of us.

Is it bad that I hope the worst candidate "wins"? And the worse the president, the better I think it may actually be in the long run?

History shows that every president will be worse than the one before. Yes, even the ones from what you see as some Golden Age- because if they didn't void everything that was done before they took office, they added to the problem.

Now I no longer care how bad a president is- I just do what I must to survive his rule. I wouldn't exactly say I'm enthusiastic for an apocalypse, but I do sometimes think "Let's just get this over with." Sometimes you have to walk toward the fire- and then through it- to survive. You will suffer damage, but that's life. Do the best you can in less-than-perfect circumstances.


Monday, December 21, 2015

The solstice slump?

A little "thank you" to beat the Christmas rush...

Life is sometimes difficult to muddle through. These past five weeks, for example. I am having the hardest time keeping up my resolve to go on. Writing, I mean.

Am I having any impact?
Is it worth the financial hardships?
Is there something better I could be doing with my time and talents? Is this a waste of my time?

And, no, I don't have the answers to those questions.

I am hoping this slump is temporary, and I believe writing in spite of the feeling is cheap therapy.

This blog has frequently helped me sort through my own thoughts and feelings- even in better times. It's just never been quite so heavy on the feelings end of it. Usually I am putting principles down in writing to see how they stand up and to make them easier for me to express in my own life. Recently, it has also been a place where I write down the feelings I am having as a way to keep them from overwhelming me.

For the past twelve years this has been an emotionally hard time of the year for me, anyway. This year it is exponentially worse. But, without the blog and you, it would have been so much harder it is unthinkable.

So, yet again, thank you. And let me know if my writing is faltering.


Sunday, December 20, 2015

Remember your place

To all my Democrat and Republican friends and family:

Are your lives really so empty and devoid of meaning that you feel you need a president? Someone to "run things" for you?

Personally, I think that's very sad.

I trust you to be able to run your own life, and after a little practice, being able to run it better than you think you can. I know you don't need a "representative" or Ruler or any of the "laws" they dream up.

So why waste time and worry choosing something you don't need? Your obsession over the crop of bullies, some of whom are completely idiotic, borders on the pathetic. I see trying to give yourself gangrene as about the same level of sanity as trying to choose a Ruler.

Those nasty vermin need you in order to carry out their plans; you don't need them to have a wonderful life.

You are more important than any of them. They aren't worthy to lick the soles of your shoes after you tour a chicken farm. Not one of them. Remember that and act like you really recognize it. They are all scum- and as long as you don't act like them, and don't fawn over them, you are not.

Remember your place- and remember theirs. They are parasites who can't survive without feeding on you- and as such aren't worthy to survive at all. You are so much above them you can't even see them from where you stand. Don't try to lower yourself to their level by giving them your v*te.


Saturday, December 19, 2015

Thoughts on impaired driving

Drunk driving, drugged driving, sleepy driving, distracted driving, or some other form of impaired driving. We are all guilty of at least one of those. Don't bother trying to deny it, you know it's true.

I remember a time I was at work and suddenly started feeling a little "off". Before I knew it I knew I had come down with the flu. I left work, but hadn't gotten far before I was soaked in sweat, had chills, had a pounding headache, and could hardly make sense of what I was seeing.

I was every bit as impaired as someone who had been drinking. I should not have been driving- I did make it home.

That's not the time to "arrest" a person- it is the time to help them. Just how to help will depend on the situation.

Is there a solution to impaired driving? Yeah, self-driving cars would fix that- but I am not willing to accept the technology if it gives State parasites and predators the ability to more easily take control of my car. I'm sure there are other solutions, too, even if I haven't thought of them.

I will never accept any "solution" which violates individual sovereignty or allows meddling by State employees. No matter how "necessary" it might be claimed to be. That includes "check points", cops prowling around looking for whom they might devour, or anything else anti-liberty bigots advocate.



Thursday, December 17, 2015

ZAP your kids

One of the best things you could give your kids for Christmas this year- if they don't already have it- is an understanding of the Zero Aggression Principle.

So, ZAP your kids.

How can you make the concept simple enough for kids (or the average statist) to understand?

Perhaps like this: "You shouldn't push or hit anyone who didn't start it. You shouldn't say you are going to hit them to make them do what you want. You shouldn't have someone else hit them for you. And you should keep your hands off their stuff."

I know that explanation misses some subtleties- saying they "shouldn't" instead of that they have no right to, for example- but as they get older you can adjust it to their level of understanding.

I know a few kids this gift of understanding would benefit a lot. And it would benefit those subjected to their presence just as much.

Oh, and if you think a little book might help them out, maybe Indy-Pindy is what you are looking for.


Wednesday, December 16, 2015

I can keep my mouth shut- sort of

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Sometimes I actually do keep my opinion to myself- as difficult to believe as that might be.

My first ex-wife*, Cheyenne's mom, really wants the guy who killed her to be "put away" for a very long time.

I don't.

I can't see how it benefits me or others in any way to put him in a cage and force others to pay for the facility, his upkeep, and for tax junkie guards to keep him caged. It simply multiplies the violations exponentially.

If a person is so dangerous they need to be caged, I think it would be better for them to be dead. But not by government "execution" (murder by state employee), and not as revenge, but by their next intended victim or someone coming to that person's defense. I have no problem at all with Darwinian selection weeding out aggressors.

But, I'm staying out of it for the most part. And certainly not encouraging her vengeance. This is one of those times I believe it is best to keep my mouth shut (she knew, but has probably forgotten my stance), even though it hurts.

*I have nothing against any of my exes- not even the one who seems to hate me- but am very fond of them.


Even a stopped clock... or a functioning one for that matter

I will- and have- agreed with people I really don't like, when they are right.

And I have disagreed with those I like when they are wrong.

It makes me feel a bit bad, sometimes.

But right is right and wrong is wrong.

I do tend to drop the issue when possible when I find myself disagreeing with friends, if they don't convince me right away that they are right. Because I have noticed that if I don't change and agree with them after the first couple of exchanges, it's not going to happen. And I assume they would be the same way.


Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Too many offended by free speech

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 13, 2015)

Once upon a time, people would hear someone say offensive things and life would go on.

Now, every word that offends someone gets brought before some authority. All too often, authority coddles the overly sensitive and punishes the speaker.

Freedom of speech has never been less popular.

Universities protecting their students from hearing- or seeing- things which upset them aren't helping the students. In fact, they aren't helping anyone, other than lawyers and psychiatrists. The bubble-wrapped students will not be prepared for the real world, unless the world is only for people unable to think or handle reality. If that's the case, beam me up now.

If you are skeptical about anything the control freaks want to promote, many of them want you silenced. Maybe that's not as ominous as it sounds, but I wouldn't count on it.

Skepticism over "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" ("Global Warming") being real-- caused by humans, causing more harm than good, unstoppable without going back to a pre-industrial society for everyone but the elites, and only fixable by laws-- will be shouted down. As will questioning whether it's okay for physically male students who "identify" as female to be showering with girls in the school shower.

If you speak truth to people who have carefully constructed a magical realm of fantasy and wishfulness in which to exist, you are a big meanie!

Saying anything these delicate flower people feel "triggers" their fears, or which they consider "micro-aggression" (the imaginative term showing they don't understand what aggression is), they will pull out all the stops to get you punished, perhaps fired, for daring to stray from the path they have dictated.

And yet, freedom of speech has also never been so popular.

If you are saying the "correct" things about the right people- things aimed at people with politically unpopular opinions whom you are trying to shame into silence- you'll have plenty supporters on campus and among the "social justice" flock. To them, nothing is too offensive to be said about their opponents and their beliefs.

The First Amendment only binds the hands of those who would make up "laws"; no one else. A person who isn't acting as government can ban any speech he doesn't want being spoken or written- on his own property.

Listen to others, or don't. If freedom of speech doesn't cover things which make you red in the face, there's no point to it. Who bothers to forbid popular speech?


Medical stuff

This morning I am going in for a "procedure". I hate medical stuff (even knowing it is sometimes necessary).

Oh, and if interested in helping with this stuff: GoFundMe


I've been "triggered"

For the first time in my life I am experiencing being "triggered". You know, the experience where mere words or ideas can make you upset.

My daughter's recent death is the cause.

When someone says "I was dying!" or references death in some other trivial way I want to scream. Or lash out.

But, I know the problem is inside myself. If I coddle this problem it will grow worse.

I would never dream of begging for "trigger warnings" or other such enabling nonsense because I want to get over it. At least as much as humanly possible. My reactions make me feel stupid, and I don't like feeling stupid.

It's disturbing to me how many people are perfectly comfortable wallowing in their "triggering", to the point of going public and asking everyone else to change to protect their delicate feelings.


Monday, December 14, 2015

Evaluate every rule

That admonition would probably upset a lot of people. But you still ought to do it.

Some rules are OK. They don't violate any aspect of Rightful Liberty.

But a lot of rules are really bad and harmful. Your default setting shouldn't ever be "obedience".

When confronted by any rule, evaluate it and decide whether the rule is legitimate, whether it respects or violates Rightful Liberty, whether the person imposing the rule actually has the right (not the "authority") to do so, and whether the benefits of obeying the rule outweigh the costs.

What you find may surprise you. Or not.


Sunday, December 13, 2015

"You would feel differently if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver..."

I've been overwhelmed with "feelings" since my daughter's death.

Sadness is one of those. But, unlike some people, anger hasn't been.

The closest I get to anger is something I would characterize as grim determination. I hope it doesn't come across as anger.

The State didn't kill my daughter- I've never claimed it did- but it damaged her liberty "for her own good" and still didn't protect her. But, what if it had protected her? Is it OK to trade quality of life for quantity? Not to me.

MADD wants stricter laws and nastier enforcement- and they've been getting their "legal" way for decades. It didn't work. It will never work as long as there is the tiniest vestige of liberty and property rights and privacy left. They will lie about that, and say they aren't anti-liberty.

What would it have taken for "laws" and enforcement to have saved Cheyenne? The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs would have to be much more draconian. Every person would need to be tracked and drug tested constantly. Cars would need to be rigged to not start if the driver was impaired in any way. Want to drive to work during allergy season? Tough luck. You'd need orders of magnitude more cops, watching every driver all the time. You'd need something beyond seat belts and air bags- not invented and installed voluntarily, but imposed by "law". Think how much higher taxes would need to be if government did these things, as opposed to the market providing some of the actual protection rather than the State stealing ever more control. I can't support that!

All my life as a pro-liberty writer, people have lectured me that I would feel differently if I had ever had a loved one killed by a drunk/drugged driver. Well, they are partly right. I feel sadder about life, but I still don't want to trade liberty for a false "safety". Nor do I support those who live to strip away liberty in the name of the "common good". They are still anti-liberty vermin.


Saturday, December 12, 2015

Reality check

I have some bad news for some of you. You will not want to hear it.

Some of you believe "borders", police, a government military, and other governmental things of that sort are necessary to create and maintain liberty- or, as you probably misstate it: "freedom".

If that's the case, then liberty is an impossibility. You can't get something by embracing its opposite.

In such an event it would be time to stop even pretending to be advocating liberty; it would be time to just decide which kind of tyranny is more to your liking, and v*te appropriately.


Thursday, December 10, 2015

All politicians are EVIL

All politicians are evil. It's just how they are- just like dogs are mammals, rocks are mineral, and gold conducts electricity. It is a defining characteristic.

They are evil no matter how nice they seem. No matter if they are saying what you want to hear. No matter if they sound reasonable.

They still seek authority and power and control. They seek to enslave you on behalf of someone else, enslave others on your behalf, live by theft, make up counterfeit rules and hire goons to enforce them.

You can worship selected politicians if you want to, but they are still evil. By definition.

As for me, I'll continue to see them as they are. None are worth your respect. None are worth any attention beyond what you'd give a rabid stray under your porch. Debating the relative worth of any one of them is a really silly, pointless waste of time. One I have been guilty of in the past- and a trap I may fall into in the future.

But, for now, I proclaim the truth: no one can represent me but myself, and no one has any "authority" over anyone but himself.


Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Good can't win?

How did this happen?

People have been fooled into believing only negative traits help survival. Liars, aggressors, thieves, etc. can survive, but people of principle? People who refuse to sink to the level of the bad guys? They are doooomed!

I think this delusion is caused by TV, books, and movies, where people in fictional situations can only be saved by fictional solutions.

If you act like the bad guys, what makes you believe you haven't become one of them? A difference which makes no difference isn't a difference.

The necessity of embracing the evil qualities to overcome adversity is no more realistic than the necessity to have a magic wand. But, I guess since evil is real and magic isn't, more people have fallen for that particular lie. It sounds "reasonable". Right?


Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Nature of government no shocker

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 6, 2015)

I’m not a political libertarian. I don’t believe it’s possible to change government in any helpful way with political action, including voting. Political libertarians believe they can change government by becoming government. If this works, let’s all rush to join the Islamic State and the KKK so we can change them from the inside, too.

Swim in a cesspool and see if you change it more than it changes you. I don’t believe you can clean a cesspool by adding a bucket of fresh water, either. Especially if you have to pollute that water to make it “fit in better” before you add it.

Government is corruption, theft, and aggression. Whether it is a city council, state legislators, or a national government. Being shocked when a government acts true to its nature seems as odd as being shocked when red ants sting.

Constitutions can't prevent governments from being true to their nature any more than posting a note beside an anthill can change the nature of the ants. The ants might notice the shadow it casts, and may change course to avoid the note. But they will still be red ants, behaving like red ants. They will still sting.

Maybe the situation would have been different had the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, come with a penalty clause to discourage violations, with swift, sure punishment for government employees. If you allow government employees to interpret the Constitution and hand out the punishment for breaking it, you are handing the fox keys to the hen house. You're back to where you didn't want to be. Any punishment would have to be immediate; beyond the control or reach of any government employee. Government calls this "insurrection" or "revolution".

This isn't to say government never changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are always small shifts toward something less horrible in limited areas, while the general direction is toward more control and snooping. It's the nature of government, and can't be altered.

Is it "defeatism" to accept reality? No. It is a call to change how you view government, and how you respond when its nature is exposed. Don't be shocked or saddened. It's expected. Remember this when anyone suggests raising "taxes" (money government is permitted to steal), or says "there oughta be a law". How do you really believe that will work out? It's not defeatist to live with reality; it's self-defeating to ignore it.




No two people are truly equal.

However, everyone has equal and identical rights which don't depend on your gender, where on the globe you were born or where you live, how much melanin is in your skin, or what kind of hair grows out of your head.

It also doesn't depend on which god you worship or believe in.

For this reason feminism bothers me (it is now usually just a way to legitimize misandry). As does misogyny. And racism. And borderism. And religionism.

It doesn't matter who has been oppressed by whom in the past. The past doesn't matter in this regard. Once you start claiming that someone gets (or deserves) more "rights" than someone else, for any reason, I part ways. You are on your own, then.


Monday, December 07, 2015


People are always saying humans are tribal. It's why they claim you can't get rid of "national borders"- they don't notice the absurdity of that claim.

If someone is an aggressor/property violator, they are not of my tribe. I don't care too much what happens to them. Maybe that's not nice, but aggression comes at a price.

If someone lives minding their own business, not initiating force or violating property, I'll bend over backwards to help and support them. I don't care what color they are or what language they speak, or where they were born. They are "my people". My tribe.

This is the only form of tribalism I can relate to. Anything else is contrived and artificial and meaningless.

You can't put borders around this tribe, because it isn't geographic. It is spread out all over the planet. Among those of the enemy tribes. Any attempt to place borders around this tribe would be as ridiculously harmful as "national borders"; clumping people together who have too little in common to be forced together. Forcing people together in spite of opposing principles, goals, values, and drives. Dividing true tribes and mashing the fragments together with enemy tribes. It's precarious and a recipe for disaster.

But, go right ahead- just remember when your chickens come home to roost: you were warned.


Sunday, December 06, 2015

"Safetyness" is no life to live

Let's make a law that requires everyone to wear an anvil on their chest. Because, you know, an anvil would stop a bullet. Maybe later we can address the loophole that doesn't require a second anvil to protect the back.

Then we'll hire anvil enforcement officers empowered to stop people at random to make certain they are wearing their anvil. If they are found in violation, the officers can imprison them, confiscate their property, and shoot them if they resist. For their own good, and the common good, of course. If you oppose this proposal on the grounds that it would harm people or be inconvenient and uncomfortable, then you just don't care about saving people from being shot.

Or, let's make everything illegal that has ever resulted in an injury or death. Just think how much it would help the economy to hire enough people to enforce that one! You can't seriously oppose laws against things that could hurt or kill people, could you? Do you want people to hurt and die? Well, you're no better than a murderer in that case! You probably are one, but haven't been caught yet!

As ridiculous as this sounds (I hope you think it sounds ridiculous), this is how I see drunk driving "laws".

The guy who killed my daughter was living under all sorts of "laws" which are imposed and enforced to (supposedly) protect the innocent. That they failed doesn't mean the "laws" killed her, but they failed to protect her. And they damaged her Rightful Liberty all her 24 years. That's not an acceptable trade-off.

Just an hour or so before I found out she had been killed, I had posted a Facebook status which said in part:

Do I "like" the act of drunk driving? No, not one bit. But I hate the checkpoints, "laws", and enforcement imposed to supposedly fight it even worse.
Rightful Liberty will solve any problems the best possible way without violating anyone.
Statism never can.
It is still as true now as when I wrote it, not knowing how ironic my post was.

So, no. I don't blame the "laws" for her death. I don't even blame them for failing to prevent her death- "laws" are powerless in that regard. What I blame them for is cheapening life by destroying liberty and property, and by making responsibility a quaint notion in this day of "legal, or not?"

I hate the culture of "safetyness" and cowardice that has taken root and bloomed. I want to see people live their lives boldly, living their liberty in spite of "laws". It's your life; make it count. You never know when or how it will end. You can comply and cower and avoid breaking counterfeit rules, and you'll still die. Reject "safetyness". Refuse to wear the anvil. Do dangerous things, with open eyes. Take responsibility, accept the consequences, and make your life mean something.


Saturday, December 05, 2015

Alien in an alien land

Am I living in an alien culture or am I not?

On one hand, I have almost nothing in common with those around me. I can't even relate to the fears that drive so much of their reactionary and statist behavior. And, even when I can relate to those fears, I see their response to be, well, insane- leading to more of the very things they fear.

On the other hand, no one generally initiates force against me nor violates my property- except through "government". People behave libertarian without even knowing what the word means or intending to.

I guess the truly alien part of this culture is that they honestly can't see that how they choose to live their personal lives is contradicted by how they choose to live their "political" lives. It goes beyond blinders. They can't even see what they are doing to themselves.

Yeah, I'm tired of being an alien. But other than being an example that might (might) inspire some change, I don't know how to change it.


Thursday, December 03, 2015

A disturbing lack of patience

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I should probably avoid Facebook. At least on days like today. It can angry up the blood.

That may be true all the time, but I admit to getting lots of inspiration from things I find posted there. Horrible things, beautiful things, and everything in between. Yes, most is mindless, but there are well-thought out jewels if you look.

I would like to believe that I post a few of those jewels.

I do post things on occasion to see where they might lead. To use them as test balloons; to see how they are reacted to; to see if I get any deeper insights.

But, when I am feeling down and stressed, as has been the case recently, and anti-liberty bigots are posting their demands for "common sense gun regulation"... well, I should probably just stay away.

But I'm not that smart.

Here are a few of the things I posted today:

My patience for those who support or advocate "laws" that get innocent people killed is at historic low levels.
Rightful Liberty is the best solution. Your anti-liberty "laws" only cause more grief and death. Much more than would otherwise happen. So, yeah, you are siding with the murderers. Against me. Against people I care about. You are threatening us. Over and over again. And being smug about it.
If you really want to come kill me, which is what advocating "laws" always comes down to, come in person. Stop trying to hide behind lies. Don't be a pathetic coward and send government employees to kill me on your behalf. Come in person. Because as far as your anti-liberty "laws" are concerned, I will not comply. Period.
Your move.

Uncivilized barbarians.
Some use guns.
Some use swords.
Some use clubs, hands, or knives.
But most use governments and "laws".

You can pull out charts and statistics and whatever other pro-rapist propaganda you can find that "prove" how "beneficial" rape is... and it doesn't change the evil of the act.
Same for anti-gun "laws".
If you support them, you are advocating pure evil. Period.

I'm just really tired of mass-murder cheerleaders calling for more of what empowers mass-murderers. And pretending that their position is "reasonable". Enabling mass murder through "gun control" (population disarmament) is NOT reasonable. It is barbaric. The death toll which results makes the death toll from freelance thugs pale in comparison- over 200 million in the 20th Century alone. Real civilized, anti-liberty bigots. Real civilized.
You think this makes me angry? You bet it does. I am opposed to mass murderers and those who coddle them.

It's not easy enough for people who are determined to defend themselves and others to get- and carry- the proper weapons.

"Gun control" is a lie.
Supporting it is empowering murder.

As you might imagine, the anti-liberty bigots pulled out all their guns- pun intended. I answered them for a bit, but then realized I was likely to get angrily personal. So I made the choice to walk away. Others stepped up, although I stopped reading any of the back and forth. Neither side will budge, and I know it. Some people are too brainwashed to accept that more "laws" isn't the answer to any question other than "How can you destroy a society and kill lots of people?" And I'm not going to quietly accept added tyranny. So, there we stand.


Shooting in the news

To save effort each time a "newsworthy" shooting happens in one of those places where these things always happen, I offer this adaptable template. Simply choose the word/phrase inside the brackets that best fits:

Another [multiple/mass] shooting has occurred.

As always, in a place where [politicians/administrators/control freaks/foolish business owners/anti-liberty bigots] have [forbidden/rationed/complicated possession of] guns. People bent on murder don't obey laws forbidding murder, and they will never obey [anti-gun laws/anti-gun policies/"no gun zones"] either.

Once again, it's not a case of [too many/the wrong kind of/easy access to] guns being the problem, but of making it too hard for decent people to be effectively armed so that they'll be sitting ducks for the bad guys. A case of too few guns in the right hands. When seconds count, police are (at least) minutes away- even ignoring the fact that they may shoot the innocent once they do show up.

That people expect police to come to the rescue when this happens just shows that even the nastiest anti-liberty bigot knows that the way to stop events of this sort is to send in people with guns.

These shootings will continue to happen as long as Rightful Liberty is violated and treated as part of the problem instead of as the clear solution.


Wednesday, December 02, 2015

The right stuff

Sure, you might be able to accomplish something using the wrong or inferior tools.

You can change a tire on the side of the road, possibly even with damaged tools and missing parts. But it can be done faster, easier, and better in a garage with better tools, proper equipment, and redundancy.

You can build a society using government and laws, but it can be done better using the proper tools: liberty and respect for individual property rights.

Why handicap yourself right off the bat?


Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Positive action always good idea

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 30, 2015)

There are things you need to avoid doing if you don’t want to be a terrible person. Don’t use violence (including laws) against people who are not harming anyone else, and don’t violate the property rights of others.

It’s simple to not be awful.

If you stop there, no one can have any legitimate problem with you. But, why limit yourself? Beyond this bare minimum, I believe it's a good idea to do things which tip the balance in the other direction, toward actually doing something positive. If it accomplishes nothing else, you will at least be happier. And there is always a chance you could change someone's world for the better.

Where to start? One piece of advice I read recently said a good way to do this is to "be useful".

I try to do this whenever I see the chance. I don't believe writing to convince people to extend their generally civilized behavior to their dealings with people they don't know or don't like, is enough. I also try seeing anyone in need and doing what I can to help them. Or notice something which needs to be done and do it. Sometimes I fail, then I try to determine how to do better next time. There is always room for improvement.

I think most people like to feel useful. Some prefer to work behind the scenes, while some are outgoing and will walk right up to someone to offer a hand. Exactly what you do or how you do it doesn't matter, but some other things do.

Some people might believe advocating government programs and handouts is being useful, but it's the opposite. You can't be generous with money which isn't yours to give, and if you are forcing others to help someone, the resentment which results will cause everyone to lose in the long run. Being useful is a personal act. It is you stepping up, not sending others on your behalf. Sometimes you simply aren't the one who is able to help, and that's OK. It's just the reality.

Sometimes you also have to walk away. Like it or not, you aren't being useful if you don't let someone say "no" to your offer of help.

There is also a big difference between being useful and allowing someone to use you. The difference hinges on consent. Are you doing what you do voluntarily, or do you feel violated?

Choose to be useful when possible. You'll enjoy the feeling.


Childish whining

Today is one of those days where I'm tempted to let feelings control me. I mean, more than they are already.

Emotionally, I am not doing well today. So many things piling up on me that I can't really control. I've been trying to stay busy- and keep my mind occupied- with "normal" stuff, but even the normal things seem oppressive. And I have things coming up that I am dreading. I know "dread" is stupid and I should just get over it.

I feel desperate, cornered, sad, and overwhelmed. If I let feelings control me I would probably run off somewhere and change my identity. But I can't escape myself.

I'm not going to post this one to any (other) social media, because I don't want the people I know "in real life" to know I'm not handling things well today.

Consider this a whine.


The uselessness of pacifism and aggression

I am not a pacifist.

Violence isn't necessarily wrong, and can sometimes even be right. Aggression is the problem, not violence. Not all violence is aggression.

I have no problem with a bully having his head blown off by his victim. This would be an example of good violence. Pacifists who would decry this outcome disgust me. They empower the bad guys.

I am a fan of violence, properly applied.

But I do not initiate force. Period. I have no right to do so, and neither does anyone else.

I don't care if you believe aggression to be necessary or pragmatic. Or foolish to refuse to engage in under "some circumstances".

If you don't do what's right, what's the use of you?